Handgun Stopping Power - Efficacy?

[Ridgerunner665]

Run them on a 180 grain 30-06 bullet @ 2700 fps (just for comparison)

 

[Gun Slinger]

Run them on a 180 grain 30-06 bullet @ 2700 fps (just for comparison)

Sure...


.30-06

180 gr. @ 2700 fps. TAV = 600.7 lbs.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

I like it...

 

[Gun Slinger]

I like it...

I am glad that you are pleased.

The rifle example that you requested requires the use of a slightly modified version of the primary equation that I developed for use with pistol calibers. So there are actually two different equations in use here, just "mathematical cousins" of each other.

Of course, the numbers mean nothing if you miss your mark...

 

[tipoc]

Gunslinger:

I've come up with a similar equation, which I refer to as "Terminal Application Value" or "TAV"

This is in addition to Boborama's formula. We also have Hatcher's and Pondoro Taylor's as well as Jeff Cooper's simplified version of Taylor's. None of which are scientific Hatcher's and Taylor's have the benefit of everyone knowing they are only rough estimates based on solid bullets and never really pretended to be scientific. There have also been efforts to factor in bullet type by relying on values which are pulled out of the air.

Over the decades many folks (some very experienced and vetted for their knowledge) have tried to come up with formulas or statistics to illustrate "stopping power" or "knock out factors" etc. The problem is that it can't be done.

The formula for mass is scientific but it only tells you exactly what it tells you and has nothing to do with stopping power.

Figures for energy tell you a good deal more but leave out bullet type from the equation. (Reading this thread let's me know that many here do not know how to read energy and velocity tables.) Energy figures don't tell you alot about stopping power though.

Standard service calibers (we ain't talking here about the 50E, the 500 S&W, the 475 Linebaugh, etc.) are standard for a reason. They fit in semis well, they fit in guns which are handy to carry on a hip all day, and they work at the job they are intended to do. From there you select the type bullet that bests meets the needs of the task at hand and you make sure you can hit at what you are wanting to hit. Shot placement trumps caliber.

tipoc

 

[tipoc]

people have posted data based upon police and fbi shootings that show that certain rounds, particularly the .45 and .357, have a marginally higher percentage of one shot stops. i believe some of the .45 and .357 loads were around 96% one shot stops, whereas 9mm was only around 83%. that's a difference, even if not huge.

That would be Marshall and Sanow you can see their results here...http://www.handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp

Problem is that they were wrong. They compiled a lot of information some good some not so good and tried do draw some statistical conclusions from it. I recommend their books though because they have a lot of useful information in them. But alot is wrong with their results. Let's look at just one thing and it's a big thing.

Their definition of a "one shot stop" is off. For them a one shot stop is a hit from a round that causes the assailant to either stop aggressive action immediately or run no more than 10 feet. Why 10 ft.? Why not 11? or 3? It's an arbitrary number. Then the one shot must be to an area from the waist to the collarbone and in this area only. All head shots are tossed out, all shots to the hip, the knee, the shoulder are tossed, etc. A bullet to the spleen is as good as a bullet to the spinal cord in their statistics. This is also arbitrary.

Now alot of what they compiled is useful but it does not show you what they believe it does. Over the last 40 years cops have shot alot of folks with the 357 Magnum, various loads of the 9mm and the .45 acp odd how these turn up as some of the best "stoppers". When cops shoot folks there is a very large percentage of them who just give up and are therefore "stopped".

tipoc

 

[Gun Slinger]

Gunslinger:

I've come up with a similar equation, which I refer to as "Terminal Application Value" or "TAV"

This is in addition to Boborama's formula. We also have Hatcher's and Pondoro Taylor's as well as Jeff Cooper's simplified version of Taylor's. None of which are scientific Hatcher's and Taylor's have the benefit of everyone knowing they are only rough estimates based on solid bullets and never really pretended to be scientific. There have also been efforts to factor in bullet type by relying on values which are pulled out of the air.

Over the decades many folks (some very experienced and vetted for their knowledge) have tried to come up with formulas or statistics to illustrate "stopping power" or "knock out factors" etc. The problem is that it can't be done.

The formula for mass is scientific but it only tells you exactly what it tells you and has nothing to do with stopping power.

Figures for energy tell you a good deal more but leave out bullet type from the equation. (Reading this thread let's me know that many here do not know how to read energy and velocity tables.) Energy figures don't tell you alot about stopping power though.

Standard service calibers (we ain't talking here about the 50E, the 500 S&W, the 475 Linebaugh, etc.) are standard for a reason. They fit in semis well, they fit in guns which are handy to carry on a hip all day, and they work at the job they are intended to do. From there you select the type bullet that bests meets the needs of the task at hand and you make sure you can shoot at what you are wanting to.

tipoc

tipoc-

Not quite sure what you are going for, Chief. Exactly "what" is it that is "in addition to Boborama's formula"?

The equation that I am using does nothing to predict "stopping power" or "knockout factors" of any sort and I never represented to anyone that it did.

Quite the contrary, my equation is an estimate of an "optimum" applied target weight specific to the parameters of the load being considered, it is neither a "minimum" nor a "maximum" but rather a general value and never attempts to assign any shape or form "factor" to the bullet. The mathematical construct that I am applying requires the assumptive use of any well designed SD ammunition design as well as COM hits, something that I specified quite clearly above in my first post.

I am unaware of any "formula for mass" since no such animal exists in the realm of physics save for the property of mass which requires no formula to express since it is defined simply as: the quantity of matter in a body as measured by its inertia. Perhaps you are referring to the formula which expresses momentum? (ρ=mv)

Without knowing the construct of the equation that I am applying (and still do not wish to post here for public consumption), I am uncertain that you can offer anything other than blind speculation as to its strengths and its deficits since you have never seen the equation to begin with.

Perhaps you can provide some clarification as to what you were attempting to communicate?

 

[tipoc]

I am unaware of any "formula for mass"

Sorry, I meant momentum.

You said it was similar to Bobos.

Because you have not explained exactly what your formula attempts to show it was up to me to guess, based on it's name "Terminal Application Value", that it had something to do with "stopping power" or "knockout value" or in some way to rate the usefulness of one self defense round versus another. You also stated, unless I misread, that you had to assign one or another value to your formulas. I just pointed out that there have been numerous such efforts in the past some of which are of some value but fall short of being scientific. No personal offense meant to you or Bobo. If you want to say it ain't science but can be useful in bullet selection and is based on some research I'll take a read. I watch Dr. Courtney's work with interest.

Not quite sure what you are going for, Chief.

Sure you did, that's why you added the "Chief".



tipoc

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Please compare apples to apples... defense calibers... not extreme ends of the spectrum like a bb and a bowling ball geez.

9mm vs. .45.

Boberama, handgun "stopping power" is far too complex to distill down to a simple formula that will work every time. It has been tried before, e.g., the IPSC "power factor" (originally a recoil/momentum calculation for a game) and the Marshall/Sanow "one shot stop" ratings of the mid-1990s. People have been known to take numerous hits with the large calibers and still fight but go "lights out" with a .22.

 

[Zerodefect]

Formulas just don't work. The proof is in the pudding. Problem is the pudding is different each time. No real such thing as "stopping power". Just a catch phrase. Some rounds work, some not so much.

I have been hearing alot of coroners speaking up for the larger rounds. .357sig, .45acp, .45gap, .40sw. Ranger T, Speer Gold dot, Rem Goldensabre.

Seems the smaller stuff like 9mm, while still effective, have an increased chance of deflecting off of bone into a less lethal area of the body. If going 9mm, go +P+ to get its performance close to the .357sig. Slightly increased chance though.

Just some hearsay thats been poping up lately. Personally I go as big as I can. If 9mm is what I'm stuck with on a lighter carry day, so be it.

 

[Gun Slinger]

Sorry, I meant momentum.

.....

 

[Isher]

I dunno -

Growing up, I was warned about a thing

That would blind and deafen me,

And do some other things besides.

But it wasn't range shooting.

That being said, if you have to

Put on your Personal Protective Gear before

Engaging with a B/G or an Intruder

Your ass is probably in a sling.

So - on the range - yeah.

Headmuffs etc.

When it goes down,

Anything goes.

Which does not probably include

headmuffs, goggles,

"Or testicles, specticals, watch and wallet"

To use the old phrase.

isher

 

[Isher]

I dunno -

Growing up, I was warned about a thing

That would blind and deafen me,

And do some other things besides.

But it wasn't range shooting.

That being said, if you have to

Put on your Personal Protective Gear before

Engaging with a B/G or an Intruder

Your ass is probably in a sling.

So - on the range - yeah.

Headmuffs etc.

When it goes down,

Anything goes.

Which does not probably include

headmuffs, goggles,

"Or testicles, spectactacles, wallet and watch"

To use the old phrase.

isher

 

[Oyeboten]

Lots of good thinking and effort...to be sure..!


.44 Colt Dragoon -


Calibre - 0.44
Firearm - 1848 Dragoon
Bullet - 141gr RB
FFFg - 50gr
Velocity - 1181 fps
Energy - 437 ft lb


A Bullet in it's exterior Ballistic's adventures, dramas, parabola or interuptions from parabola, if enountering an other object, of course negotiates the conditions that object offers.


Good, generalized observations are made, and compared...and, exceptions to expectation(s), are noted.


Probably...this is about as good, as it will ever get.


I remember a Story told to me by a retired cow-county DA, of a Bar Fight, in which a guy walked up to another guy, and shot him, contact-wound, in the abdomen/stomach, with a .38 Special Revolver, a Snubby of some sort.

Shooting Victim was in his fifties, maybe early sixties, and a heavy drinker.


Shooting Victim shook off the insult, grabbed the Revolver out of the assailant's Hand, and beat him to deat with fist-punches.


The guy who was shot, was an ex-marine, WWII, who had coninued daily with his two-hundred odd Sit-Ups, Push-Ups, Deep Knee Bends, and so on, and, his abdominal musculature was so well developed, that the .38 Special Bullet, never got through his abdominal wall.


So, he had a superficial, nasty-enough injury, and localized burn, and erosion of superficial tissue, which he in-effect shrugged-off...and, none-the-less, was charged with Manslaughter, anyway, for his beating the assailant to death.


So...anyway...golly...


Endless curious Stories...bearing out the importance of particular or unusual qualifiers or conditions...

 

[JohnKSa]

All I'm saying is that this formula seems to beat the Hatcher, TKO, Energy and Momentum formulas and produce realistic values.

Realistic values based on what you believe to be true?

Or realistic values based on correlating their results with real world data?

If it's the former, then you can save a lot of time by just posting your opinion of what's better and leaving out the mathematical gobbledy-gook, pseudo-science. Making up a formula to bolster/reinforce a personal opinion is of absolutely zero value.

If it's the latter then you can save a lot of time by just posting the real world data and leaving out the mathematical gobbledy-gook, pseudo-science. That would be extremely interesting and informative.

 

[CDW4ME]

Summary: carry a 45 or 40.

 

[tipoc]

You are right Gunslinger I did you a grave injustice, you did not compare your formula to Bobo's. In post #48 you compared it to Ed Matuna's work, which can be seen here...http://www.biggameinfo.com/OptGameWgt.aspx

Matuna's formula is an effort to come up with a rough reference to caliber selection based on the weight of the game being hunted and has suggestions for variables.

It appears, you have taken yours another step and applied it to self defense calibers and self defense shootings. Rather than discuss "stopping Power" or "knockout value" you have a formula that shows us that certain bullet weights and velocities can be effective on attackers up to a certain weight with com hits.

I mean no insult to all the work you've done but most reasonable folk might see it as being in the same pot as Hatcher's and Taylor's work or the many other efforts to come up with similar formulas.

Since I can't read and I can't write anything decipherable you can always ignore my opinion.

tipoc

 

[Dumptruck]

I checked out handloads.com. If I am having to choose to be in front of something it definitely won't be .45 or .357 (mag or sig; both were in the low to upper 90s in percentage of one shot stops).

9mm looks pretty disappointing at 83% tops.

 

[Gun Slinger]

You are right Gunslinger I did you a grave injustice, you did not compare your formula to Bobo's. In post #48 you compared it to Ed Matuna's work, which can be seen here...http://www.biggameinfo.com/OptGameWgt.aspx

Matuna's formula is an effort to come up with a rough reference to caliber selection based on the weight of the game being hunted and has suggestions for variables.

It appears, you have taken yours another step and applied it to self defense calibers and self defense shootings. Rather than discuss "stopping Power" or "knockout value" you have a formula that shows us that certain bullet weights and velocities can be effective on attackers up to a certain weight with com hits.

I mean no insult to all the work you've done but most reasonable folk might see it as being in the same pot as Hatcher's and Taylor's work or the many other efforts to come up with similar formulas.

Since I can't read and I can't write anything decipherable you can always ignore my opinion.

tipoc

tipoc-

A "grave injustice"? Hardly, but that's a good one!

Quite frankly, I appreciate the "tenor" of your most recent post, I understand that you were not engaging in any sort of invective towards me. Just kinda rubbed me the wrong way with the misattribution, that's all. Inaccuracy and misattribution has always been a "pet peeve" of mine.

Instead you make it apparent that you grasped and expressed quite articulately, the nature of what I've been working on. (highlighted in red) That, in and of itself, is a rare quality these days, one that I appreciate more than ever before.

To the reason for this post-

I apologize for my insulting commentary towards you. It seems these days when there is so much vitriol and venom on open forums like this, I allowed myself to slip to that depth despite the fact that I detest such behavior and inexcusable as it was, I ask you to accept my apology.

Towards that end, I will also remove the questionable reproach from above.

We OK?



ETA: I agree with your observation above where you indicate that you believe that most readers here might be inclined to "lump it in" with Hatcher's and Taylor's equations. That concern was one of many that made me initially apprehensive (and I still remain so) to post the equation for public consumption.

 

[CDW4ME]

I have the Street Stoppers and Stopping Power books, they have useful data but...
- Actual results for Hornady ammo is in book 2 Street Stoppers, but no results for Hornady in book 3 Stopping Power. Hhhhmmmm

- Some data is from interviews, police officers might be reluctant to criticize department ammo.

- Some ammo is typically police only like the plus P plus 9mm. I wonder if the police only ammo benefits from it being used by "Trained shooters" versus the general public. Very debateable considering the number of rounds fired by police versus hits in some instances, but it's food for thought.

 

[JohnKSa]

...you have a formula that shows us that certain bullet weights and velocities can be effective on attackers up to a certain weight with com hits.

Except it doesn't show anything at all...

Given that the formula has no scientific nor mathematical basis, the only value it could have would be if it correlated well with real-world data. Once that has been shown then the formula would, indeed, show us something within the range that it correlates to real-world data.

The first step in demonstrating that the formula has any value, therefore, is providing the real-world data and demonstrating the correlation of the formula to that data.

In the absence of such a demonstration, the formula amounts to nothing more than someone saying "I think caliber X is better." but saying it using numbers to try to make the opinion seem more credible.

 

[Gun Slinger]

Except it doesn't show anything at all...

In your opinion.

Given that the formula has no scientific nor mathematical basis, the only value it could have would be if it correlated well with real-world data. Once that has been shown then the formula would, indeed, show us something within the range that it correlates to real-world data.

Without seeing it, you make a blind speculation.

The first step in demonstrating that the formula has any value, therefore, is providing the real-world data and demonstrating the correlation of the formula to that data.

How do you know what I've done in the way of research and correlation? I've shared nothing of the sort with you. I have a strong scientific background (Bachelor's in Clinical Psych, a Masters in mathematics) and have access to a large "data set" via my Department's records and reports.

In the absence of such a demonstration, the formula amounts to nothing more than someone saying "I think caliber X is better." but saying it using numbers to try to make the opinion seem more credible.

Which is why I have not posted the equation here for public consumption.

Lots of closed minded folks present here (for the record, I am not referring to anyone in particular so please take no offense to what I am saying), and the seeming potential for misunderstanding that appears to exist here confirms my belief that my initial decision was for the best.

 

[JohnKSa]

In your opinion.

I know that this is not particularly tactful, but that is completely wrong-headed. It is YOUR responsibility to demonstrate that the formula is anything other than an reinforcement of your opinion.

Until then, the formula is ONLY your opinion of handgun efficacy. YOU are the one who needs to take this out of the realm of opinion by demonstrating a correlation to real-world results.

How do you know what I've done in the way of research and correlation? I've shared nothing of the sort with you.

Exactly correct. Until you do this is just an exercise in "creative mathematics".

The point is that until you DO share what you've done in the way of research and correlation, no amount of handwaving or bandying about of numbers will raise the results of your formula past the level of personal opinion. It's nothing personal, anyone who understands math or science would have to tell you the same thing if they wanted to be intellectually honest.

Without seeing it, you make a blind speculation.
...
Which is why I have not posted the equation here for public consumption.

It's hardly blind speculation--while you're not posting the formula you've made it plain that it incorporates some form of the "derivative of momentum" and a value in square inches (cross sectional area) but provides a result in pounds. With just that information it's plain to see that the units can not work out properly.

In other words, the formula is not based in hard science--it's heuristic, at best. As such, without a strong correlation to real-world data it carries no more weight than opinion.

 

[bluetopper]

I've been seriously considering purchasing and using a 3" 44 Mag revolver as a carry firearm. I wonder how common it is as a carry caliber and what numbers would it provide from your calculations?

Actual diameter of a 44 is .429"

 

[JohnKSa]

...what numbers it would provide from your calculations?

This is a perfect illustration of the point I'm trying to get across.

By couching your opinion in the form of a "hidden formula" you've (whether purposely or inadvertantly) given it more weight than it really has. What parisite is REALLY asking is: "What's your opinion of the stopping power of the .44 Mag?", but his question makes it clear that he doesn't understand that.

That is misleading--whether by accident or intent.

Lots of closed minded folks present here

I would CERTAINLY hope so! The practice of attempting to raise personal opinion to the level of science via clever numerical manipulation should be met with extreme skepticism.