"One Shot Stops": testing the effectiveness of handgun rounds

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is there any significant difference between military applications (Using sidearms temporarily as self-defense only) versus law enforcement applications? I wonder.

Law enforcement and civilian is pretty similar, especially if talking about carry.

EDIT: for example, I imagine that military situations on average are longer ranged than civilian/law enforcement, which could factor into things.
 
From ScareyH22A,
I wish someone could conduct a test. You know how when a boxing trainer is holding on to a suspended heavy bag and the fighter punches it, you can see the force being absorbed by the bag and the trainer. I wonder if there's a way for someone to conduct a similar experiment with bullets. And even measure the force with some sort of sensor.
Click to expand...

These have been done a good bit over the years. Maj. Julian Hatcher conducted a number of these tests in the middle of the last century. Quoting from Robert Rinker's book on Ballistics, pg. 342: "He wrote that if a man were holding up a 1/4" thick by 14" square steel plate, he would have no problem if he were shot at close range by a .45 ACP....the plate would only move back about 3/4" at 2 feet per second. This is based on a 230 gr. bullet at 800 fps. and a plate weight of 13.6 pds."

The mathematical formula for this is simple. Many folks have rigged up ballistic pendulums, etc. over the years. There is very little movement even with a 30-06.

We can measure how much the target will move when struck by a bullet and we can measure how much striking momentum the bullet will have when it hits.

tipoc
 
And that's what a study of winners and losers would show -- with multi-variate analysis, you could sort out and measure all factors, training, equipment ammunition, experience, and so on.
Click to expand...

More likely than not, it would demonstrate that, for one to have the best chances of surviving a deadly encounter with a criminal, he should simply become someone highly trained and physically fit, with years of Special Forces training and many real missions under his belt. Weapons would be almost irrelevant.
 
More likely than not, it would demonstrate that, for one to have the best chances of surviving a deadly encounter with a criminal, he should simply become someone highly trained and physically fit, with years of Special Forces training and many real missions under his belt. Weapons would be almost irrelevant.
Click to expand...
In that case, we should start looking for physically fit SF veterans.

When I first broached the stops/encounters (winners and losers) formula to Sanow, he said, "What if it turned out the .25 automatic was the most effective weapon? Would you accept that?"

Well, duh, yeah. If that's what the winners use! In real gunfights.
 
Back to M&S for a minute;

They have published 3 books and many articles purporting to show the best bullets to use in any given caliber and, in some cases which calibers produce more "One Shot Stops" than others. There is a lot of useful information in their books. They have some strong defenders (Massad Ayoob is one). But the work on the OSS concept is wrong and flawed.

Let's just look at a few things, not the only things, but just a few to show the problem they have had. We won't get into how they gathered their information or processed it, that's something else.

1) M&S regard a OSS as any hit to the torso which completely incapacitated the attacker. Incapacitation meant the attacker was physically unable to attack anyone even with a knife. The attacker could run up to 10 feet after being shot.

It is only the above incidents that they included in their figuring. Any others were ignored. Right here are a couple of problems. a)Why 10 feet? Why not 7 feet or 12? If a person is walking 10 feet can't they still be shooting? b)All hits to the torso are weighed evenly. A shot through a love handles is the same as a shot through both lungs. Shot placement is ruled out of the picture along with the type of wound. c) Who decides they are "incapacitated" that is incapable of attacking or harming anyone? If they are dead it's clear but if they are shot by a cop and drop to the ground and play dead or are stunned or in agony, who decides to keep one in as a OSS and toss the other.

These are just a couple of problems but there are more.

tipoc
 
Is there any significant difference between military applications (Using sidearms temporarily as self-defense only) versus law enforcement applications? I wonder.
Click to expand...
I've used a handgun twice in combat -- I would hate to state that means I have the same experience a LEO would have. We might have similar amounts of experience, but I suspect there would be differences. For example, I don't know of any LEO who ducked down behind a log, then popped up and shot the guy who just just popped a claymore on him as the guy moved to the next detonator.
Law enforcement and civilian is pretty similar, especially if talking about carry.
Click to expand...
LEOs mostly carry openly, civilians mostly carry concealed. LEOs often have advanced warning -- they come into the danger zone because dispatch sent them there.

EDIT: for example, I imagine that military situations on average are longer ranged than civilian/law enforcement, which could factor into things.
Click to expand...
I couldn't say -- I have a friend who won the DSC crawling through a VC base camp, reaching into spider holes, hauling the occupants out and shooting them at contact range with a .45. (This is a very LARGE friend.)
 
I was thinking of that the environment where handguns were used in the military operations would typically be a bit different from most times LE discharge their weapons. For example, LE might shoot people not armed with firearms more often, from a shorter distance, be more likely to use their weapon indoors (though perhaps the military is catching up with that - combat is more centered around urban environments now than in the past), be more hesitant to fire than a soldier, be less fatigued than a soldier, have a cleaner firearm in a cleaner working environment. EDIT: There's a difference in military vs military combat, and military vs partisan (Iraq etc) conflicts.

Regarding the training, experience and fitness (mentally and physically) and speaking about law enforcement again: There are limits to the quality of the manpower available and the means to train them. I do not doubt that they could be trained much more than they currently are. But never the less, what kind of weapon they have does influence their chances, especially so if they have lower skills. Gangbangers are better off using high capacity 9mm or .38 ACP for sure, as their accuracy is so low that having more bullets is the one way to have a chance at actually hitting people. Cops who only shoot once a year are also probably better off with easier to shoot, higher capacity firearms. SWAT teams on the other hand, might benefit more from trickier, but more powerful firearms with less capacity (.45 for instance). They are more prepared and trained than the rest, with I'm sure much better accuracy on average.

One shot stop ideas should be completely discarded and instead focus on how to drop someone with what tools you have at your disposal, no matter what it takes.
 
There is no good way to test the relative effectiveness of different handgun rounds. Too many variables when it comes to shooting creatures in the 200 pound class. Unfortunately, the great majority of we unwashed, I'm including myself, have a TV show idea that being shot means dropping to the floor, ground, whatever. It isn't so. The idea of a "one shot stop" is just a fairy tale. Ditto for two shot, three shot, and four shot stops. The only exception is a disruption of the lower brain stem or the nerves inside the spinal column.

Shoot an attacker five times in the heart with the best 45 load and if he's holding a baseball bat and determined to kill you he'll turn your skull into mush in 4 seconds before he expires in 15 seconds.
 
the stastics are after the fact and really inconsiquential. use a round that goes bang when you squeeze the trigger. the threat does not care that you are useing the stastically best round for one shot stops.
 
And as we discussed above, the idea that it's the cartridge (and a particular load in that cartridge) that is the deciding factor is unproven. I suspect that if we did a real study, we'd find out that training was the crucial factor. The ergonomics of the pistol might well be a factor -- one pistol might be more difficult to shoot well than another model, even if they fired the same cartridge. Tactics may come into play as well -- who shoots first likely wins.
 
"And as we discussed above, the idea that it's the cartridge (and a particular load in that cartridge) that is the deciding factor is unproven. I suspect that if we did a real study, we'd find out that training was the crucial factor. The ergonomics of the pistol might well be a factor -- one pistol might be more difficult to shoot well than another model, even if they fired the same cartridge. Tactics may come into play as well -- who shoots first likely wins."

Bingo...and you didn't have to consult some worthless chart on "one shot stops" to figure that one out.
 
Since there is no separation between psychological stops and stops due to good hits, it could theoretically be that the .357 125gr round did so well because the noise deafened, the flash blinded, and the concussion stunned the person who was shot? :evil:
 
You know, this "one shot kill" stuff is just kind of...I don't know...extraneous...when the subject is a round of ammunition.

I mean without a doubt there is documented proof of someone being killed with probably every single round ever made. Conversely, there is going to be documented proof of someone surviving being shot with every single round ever made.

.50 BMG...now way...right? Of course somebody has survived a .50 BMG. .25 ACP, yep plenty of people pushing up daisies there. I am not talking about the odds here of course.

I would think the best thing you can do is split the difference between a round that you fire well and one that packs a wallop. Which of course is why the vast majority of SD rounds are .380, 9mm, .38, .357, .40, and .45.
 
Whatever you do, don't choose X load because M&S say it has one or two percentage points more "one-shot stops" more than Y load. The number of shootings is so small and the criteria for what constitutes an "OSS" so limited that such variations are meaningless. And don't assume that because, for example, "XXX load has 97% OSS" that the BG will go down 97 out of 100 times when you shoot him with it! Are you really going to shoot an attacker just once and wait for him to fall?
 
But obviously this opinion is not universal, and I think most people would agree that Marshall and Sanow's work is imperfect. So I'm asking: what do you think is the best way to test handgun "stopping power" and why?
Click to expand...
Well, I think it should at least involve ballistics gelatin. This will let you know if a caliber will meet some minimum standard, while humans are not the same. What might stop one person 100% of the time might not stop someone who's on drugs. With ballistics gelatin you can at least know which one will probably be more effective.
 
You can't. That doesn't bother me, because I am convinced (given the zillions of variables involved in each shooting, and how different they are from shooting to shooting) that you never can decompose a shooting into a normalized data set against which you can perform such a correlation.

My approach is to find a bullet design and chambering that works reasonably well in simulated tests such as the FBI test protocol, and move along to focus on the stuff that really matters (like learning how to shoot accurately under various circumstances).
 
You can't. That doesn't bother me, because I am convinced (given the zillions of variables involved in each shooting, and how different they are from shooting to shooting) that you never can decompose a shooting into a normalized data set against which you can perform such a correlation.
Click to expand...
Well, using enough computer power and multi-variate statistics you can isolate the important factors.

But my approach to selecting a defense weapon is:

1. Reliability. It's got to go bang every time you pull the trigger. If it doesn't, all you have is a funny-shaped club.

2. Shootability. That's accuracy in my hands (not off the bench, or from someone else's hands.) Or to put it another way, given that it went bang, did it hit the person attacking me?

3. Power. Given that it went bang and hit my attacker, did it have the effect I need to stop him?

4. Concealability. With the laws as they are, I have to carry concealed.
 
Well put Vern.

As such I cast my lot with a .357 full size in my medical bag and a snub on my strong side front pocket(the snub gets 38's because I cant hit worth poo with the scandium/.357 combo) Used to carry a .45 until I had to sell it for text books way back when....then got so much into revolvers that I haven't reacquired a 1911....yet.
 
So yet another thread got sidetracked into a "Jello Junkies vs. Morgue Monsters" argument, with the usual slanders, personal attacks, and general eye-poking, and it got me to wondering: what is the best way to measure handgun "stopping power"?


(Please, please, please, let's not turn this into another game of junkies vs. monsters. It's old, no one cares, and it's not going to be settled on yet another internet poop-flinging contest.)
Click to expand...

Then for God's Sake......Why start ANOTHER thread about it? God Almightly....How many times can this be discussed??

Do a darn search if you want to read 5000 threads about this. :cuss:
 
I assume you are being forced to read the thread, possibly at gunpoint. Do you need us to call 911?

Everyone else: thanks for contributing.
 
How can anyone be annoyed at these topics re-appearing? There are thousands of members at the very least. There's new members every single day. How many of them got a chance to discuss about these things? Would you prefer that all the old threads are randomly revived to the left and right, and the topic is split into 100 different topics floating about? It's one of the most controversial subjects. It's also very fun to talk about. The last word has not been said in it by far. There's much more to be found in it.

I have no clue why this forum has not done what is completely logical and natural in most other forums - get ONE definite caliber thread going, and sticky it. That way it's all in one place, people who want to read and discuss (there's tons) can do that and everyone is happy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
RELATIVE stopping power, one-shot-stop
2 3 4 5
Replies
106
Views
6K
P95Carry
P
T
  • Locked
A Great Quote From a Darned Good Writer
Replies
5
Views
1K
FXR
F
G
  • Locked
Will Somebody Just Show Me The Stopping Power!
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
4K
Brian Williams
Brian Williams
W
  • Locked
One Shot Stopping Stats on Goats.
2
Replies
43
Views
3K
lacy
L
H
  • Locked
Federal 357B
Replies
19
Views
2K
golden
G
Back
Top