RELATIVE stopping power, one-shot-stop

[JohnKSa]

the papers merely implied (or suggested) what he wants to believe.

No, again this is not a simple restatement, it is your commentary/rewrite of his actual statement.

1. You have no idea what he "wants to believe". You can guess at what he might "want to believe" but that is only speculation. A true scientist often does experiments which disprove his initial hypothesis, but if he is a good scientist, what he "wants to believe" is the truth. That is the entire point of experimentation and research. To discover the truth, not to simply verify what one "wants to believe."

2. Again, the papers did not "MERELY imply (or suggest)", they "implied or suggested". Mr. Courtney claims to have read the papers, you will either have to read the papers and then challenge his summary, or YOU MUST ACCEPT HIS SUMMARY. You can't simply rewrite his to make it say what you want it to say.

"to potentially contain" is NOT the same thing as "to merely potentially contain".
"to mention or imply as a possibility" is NOT the same thing as "to merely mention or imply as a possibility."

Perhaps a definition of "merely" is in order. It means "and nothing else or more; only".

Clearly Mr. Courtney did NOT say the articles "imply or suggest X and nothing else or more" or that the articles "only imply or only suggest X". That means that YOU can't say those things either unless you are challenging Mr. Courtney's assessment of the articles.

That is perfectly ok, but you will need to support your own assessment if you intend to challenge his, AND, if that is what you intend, you can NOT try to pretend that your own assessment is the same as what Mr. Courtney said.

You know, I'm beginning to think you're trying to get this thread locked by turning it from an interesting and on topic thread about a gun-related subject into an interminable off-topic argument about semantics.

 

[jc2]

It looks to me like you're the one interested in arguing (and you are the one arguing about semantics). I would suggest that if you do not wish the into a thread to turn into an argument about semantics, you stop your argumentative posts about semantics.

Mike clearly stated the papers he cited merely "suggest" and "imply" which, as I observed, is a long ways from being a provable, reproducible fact. Maybe, he should have been more careful in selecting the papers. Maybe, he was gambling no one would them, and he would not get called on them. On the other hand, they may be the best he can do.

As to what Mike "wants to believe," having read numerous posts by Mike over the past year or so, I have a very clear idea of what he wants to believe and the sophistry he uses in his evangelism and his defense of that belief.

 

[P95Carry]

Strikes me there will have to be some ''agree to disagree'' here or yes, things may go south and the thread will be closed.

 

[JohnKSa]

It looks to me like you're the one interested in arguing

Right... You've done your absolute level best to create contradictions where none existed, but that is not argumentative. Perhaps a definition of "interested in arguing" is in order?

Mike clearly stated the papers he cited merely "suggest" and "imply"

Even after being shown and told repeatedly you either can't see or refuse to admit that this is not what he said, it is what jc2 said.

Either you simply can't admit when you're wrong, you're trolling, or your reading comprehension is hopelessly inadequate. Regardless it seems abundantly clear that a logical discussion with you on this topic is not productive.

I have a very clear idea of what he wants to believe.

Given that you:

1. Can't or won't understand the definition of "merely" after it's been spelled out for you.
2. Can't or won't create a proper summary from a 3 line paragraph.
3. Can't or won't understand the difference between a person contradicting himself and your contradicting that person.

...you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone you have a very clear idea about anything.

You'll probably be able to get this thread locked, but there will be other threads posted on this topic. And if you persist in this style of obstructionism, you will soon discredit yourself on this topic as you have on others.

 

[Elmer]

Not again.....

The late Gene Wolberg. criminalist for the San Diego Police Department, and one the Father's of modern wound ballistics, blew the doors off this piece of fiction when he challenged the authors to produce actual documentation for the shooting data attributed to him in the book. Gene never gave it to them, and only had a casual conversation with one of them about the shootings.

 

[Rafterman191]

Force= mass x acceleration

That is what I base my stopping power on. I doubt anyone can debunk that law of physics.

 

[jc2]

That is what I base my stopping power on. I doubt anyone can debunk that law of physics.

BUT, it very little to do with the effectiveness of various handgun loads. Since you claim to like physics, you might be interested in the following posted by Ammo Lab over on WT (emphasis added):

ME is an interesting descriptor to many as they wrongly believe that ME correlates to real force in tissues. Three years previous with Ayoob's permission we went back to the physical impact measurement tests he did in the late 80s and tested many of today's current products and strictly FWIW sake a 90gr .380 Ranger T provided physical impact pressure reading of 6lbs, a 155gr Federal HydraShok loading provided a physical impact pressure reading of 9lbs, a 230gr Remington Golden Saber provided a physical impact pressure reading of 10lbs, and a Remington 240gr .44 Magnum jhp provided a physical impact pressure reading of 13lbs, and a standard base ball thrown at 90mph provided a physical impact pressure reading of 14lbs. For comparison a 150gr PMC .30x.30 Starfire bullet provided a physical impact pressure reading of 26lbs.

 

[45crittergitter]

Pressure ain't measured in pounds!

 

[Elmer]

Energy and shock are meaningless at handgun velocities.

All a handgun is, is a long range, pointed stick. You want to stick someone in the right place, and you want to stick it in deep enough to hit something important. If the hole is substantially bigger, that's a plus, as long as it still goes deep.

Some of the newer technology bullets, that will expand, while still penetrating deeply, are a good thing. But +P+P+ lightweight bullets, that expand to an inch, but only penetrate 6 or 8 inches, are not.

 

[RyanM]

ME is an interesting descriptor to many as they wrongly believe that ME correlates to real force in tissues. Three years previous with Ayoob's permission we went back to the physical impact measurement tests he did in the late 80s and tested many of today's current products and strictly FWIW sake a 90gr .380 Ranger T provided physical impact pressure reading of 6lbs, a 155gr Federal HydraShok loading provided a physical impact pressure reading of 9lbs, a 230gr Remington Golden Saber provided a physical impact pressure reading of 10lbs, and a Remington 240gr .44 Magnum jhp provided a physical impact pressure reading of 13lbs, and a standard base ball thrown at 90mph provided a physical impact pressure reading of 14lbs. For comparison a 150gr PMC .30x.30 Starfire bullet provided a physical impact pressure reading of 26lbs.

That's impact force. That's basically just a measurement of acceleration of the entire target due to momentum transfer. Pressure on a much smaller scale is what crushes tissue. A baseball at 90 mph produces too few PSI to penetrate skin, while a bullet crushes everything in its path for a fair depth.

All a handgun is, is a long range, pointed stick. You want to stick someone in the right place, and you want to stick it in deep enough to hit something important. If the hole is substantially bigger, that's a plus, as long as it still goes deep.

Exactly And considering that a premium 9mm hollowpoint gives you about a .52" wide stick, while a .45 gives you a .65" stick (that's about the diameter hole that actually gets crushed, since the hole won't be 100% of the diameter of the expanded bullet), caliber debates are kinda pointless, as long as you're using something with enough momentum to both expand and penetrate well.

 

[MCgunner]

Then why does my .25 caliber stick slap a deer down post haste with a lung shot? If all that is destroyed is the tissue the bullet touches, why is it I've never had to blood trail a deer when I hit it with my .25 caliber pointed stick, but if I were to shoot it with a .25ACP, what to you think would happen. Oh, yeah, penetration is SOOOOOOO important. I reckon if you didn't hit ribs, the hard ball .25ACP would penetrate a deer's chest completely at point blank. Do you think it'd fall dead at the shot like it does out to 300+ yards away with my .25 caliber pointed stick?

Stop reading and go shoot something that's alive. If you think there's some magic in my .25 caliber stick, explain it to me. How does it differ from that .25ACP other than energy? Yeah, it's faster and it's slightly heavier. It's still a .25 caliber stick and only damages tissue it directly touches, right?

Do I hunt deer with my .45 ACP? Nope. Got me a .357 that does a lot better job at longer range. It has more ENERGY.

 

[psychophipps]

/sarcasm on
You mean to tell me that the main factors in wounding are a combination of where you hit the target and how deep the wound to target goes? /sarcasm off

Every time a person/deer/duck/etc gets shot, the dice start tumbling as to what the end result of the bullet striking the target will be. By attempting to set a benchmark result, you are commiting two crimes against the defensive handgunner: 1) you are trying to tell them what will or should happen to the target when there are numerous recorded results that don't match your paradigm and 2) you are creating a subconscious scenario within the shooters mind as to how the events will unfold when they shoot the target. This really isn't good for you, because you will be disproved by #1, and isn't good for our fellow posters because one of them will eventually get a bowling ball sized chunk bit out of their ass by #2.

Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )

 

[MCgunner]

I'm not telling anyone anything. The big bullet know it alls seem to be, but I just want to compare calibers for effectiveness. That's the point of the M/S work. They're not telling anyone to use this or that, they're saying "this is what we've found in the REAL world of gun fighting." It disproves a lot of the big bullet agenda, though, so they get all riled up and invent their own physics to prove themselves.

I use a bowling ball on bowling pins. Momentum works for that. In the real world, I pick a .357 over a .45ACP for killing deer cleanly. Actually, a .41 or a .44 is better, because they offer more energy. If all it took was a big bullet, I'd shoot a .455 Webley.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

There are a number of comprehensive analyses of the M&S study -- most of them done by professionals, and most of them very critical of the data, how it was collected, how it was analyzed (statistical methods), and what can be deduced or inferred from the findings.

Is there anything of value in the M&S study? I don't know. Here are a few of the more articulate critical analyses. There are still more on the web, done by folks who are statisticians -- they speak a language that I only vaguely understand.

The biggest criticism of M&S is that the data can't be confirmed, reviewed, nor the studies replicated. From a scientific perspective, the study isn't scientific -- although scientific methods were used. You have to accept M&S data as presented. Confidentiality agreements with some of the data sources keeps the data "proprietary" and not available for review.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-statistical-analysis.htm

http://www.stoppingpower.net/commentary/

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/terminal.html

 

[JohnKSa]

The biggest criticism of M&S is that the data can't be confirmed, reviewed, nor the studies replicated.

I believe that Mr. Courtney and his group are trying to address some of these problems with their experimental work.

 

[Michael Courtney]

ME is an interesting descriptor to many as they wrongly believe that ME correlates to real force in tissues. Three years previous with Ayoob's permission we went back to the physical impact measurement tests he did in the late 80s and tested many of today's current products and strictly FWIW sake a 90gr .380 Ranger T provided physical impact pressure reading of 6lbs, a 155gr Federal HydraShok loading provided a physical impact pressure reading of 9lbs, a 230gr Remington Golden Saber provided a physical impact pressure reading of 10lbs, and a Remington 240gr .44 Magnum jhp provided a physical impact pressure reading of 13lbs, and a standard base ball thrown at 90mph provided a physical impact pressure reading of 14lbs. For comparison a 150gr PMC .30x.30 Starfire bullet provided a physical impact pressure reading of 26lbs.

The trouble with these measurements are that they used force sensors that were too slow to capture the rapid dynamic forces involved with a bullet hitting a target. To capture the forces present when a bullet hits a target, one needs a force sensor and data acquisition system capable of responding and sampling at roughly 100,000 samples per second. When one uses the proper force measurement system, one will find that a bullet with 500 ft-lbs of kinetic energy stopping in a penetration distance of 12" will create an average impact force of 500 lbs, and a peak impact force of 1500-2500 lbs.



Michael Courtney

 

[Michael Courtney]

The biggest criticism of M&S is that the data can't be confirmed, reviewed, nor the studies replicated. From a scientific perspective, the study isn't scientific -- although scientific methods were used. You have to accept M&S data as presented. Confidentiality agreements with some of the data sources keeps the data "proprietary" and not available for review.

The same problem exists with Fackler's human studies also, so it is hypocritical to use this reasoning as a basis for rejecting M&S but accepting Fackler.

However, the M&S studies are indeed scientific because they give sufficient detail of their method to allow for replication. Scientists are not generally oligated to share their source data, only to describe their method in sufficient detail to be replicated by other researchers who are willing to gather their own data.

Consequently, the M&S data set is very much scientific because the possibility exists for someone to replicate the study and determine if the new study shows the same relative load effectiveness as the original (within statistical margins of error).

Michael Courtney

 

[jc2]

The trouble with these measurements are that they used force sensors that were too slow to capture the rapid dynamic forces involved with a bullet hitting a target.

And we're supposed to believe you?

Michael, if a student did a "research report" like SM, it might come to close to garnering a passing grade--at a junior college with a second-rate faculty.

 

[Jim PHL]

One 1-shot stop plus 1 complete failure = 50% OSS

 

[cz75bdneos22]

i don't know about one-shot stopping power, but i'm more concerned about stopping the assailant's attack...it don't matter whether they were stopped by 5 .45 acp or 2 .22lr..did that stop the threat...or not. i've seen/heard of kills with .22lr, .32 .25 etc, etc..people been shot with all types of pistol calibers, even rifles and they still keep a coming...just ask those in the know...use what you got and use it well..hope that does the trick..2 .22lr to the eye socket are better than a .44spl on the forearm, no? YMMV...

 

[jc2]

"One Shot Stop"--a fairy tale whose primary purpose is sell magazines and books and augment retirement income (and about as "scientific" as anything published in the National Enquirer).

 

[MCgunner]

i don't know about one-shot stopping power, but i'm more concerned about stopping the assailant's attack...it don't matter whether they were stopped by 5 .45 acp or 2 .22lr..did that stop the threat...or not. i've seen/heard of kills with .22lr, .32 .25 etc, etc..people been shot with all types of pistol calibers, even rifles and they still keep a coming...just ask those in the know...use what you got and use it well..hope that does the trick..2 .22lr to the eye socket are better than a .44spl on the forearm, no? YMMV...

That's pretty much the practical way of looking at it and the way I go, too. The arguments are purely academic and rhetorical.

I have certain standards in my hunting regards to "stopping power" and being a hunter, I tend to think in those terms. In rifles, the old axiom is 1000 ft lbs minimum on target for deer, 1500 for elk. I've made kills with as little as 500 ft lbs on deer (357 magnum) on target and stopped 'em cold. So, I know it's all about shot placement. They wouldn't have stopped if I'd hit 'em in the butt. However, the old axiom hunter's energy minimums make sense. Much less and you could lose game. Just because I didn't lose mine don't mean you ain't getting down to near minimum at 1000 ft lbs. One deer don't make a data set. Zero degrees of freedom (if you know statistics, you know this) makes for an irrational number for standard deviation. IOW, you can't draw statistical conclusions from a data set of one.

So, yeah, my energy numbers, M/S's data sets, Michael's pressure waves, Fackler's dissections, Taylor's momentum based "Taylor Knock Out Index" (or what ever the heck he calls his rubbish), none of it has practical application. It's all about understanding of what happens in wounding, an academic pursuit. For some, it's about proving their favorite big bore cartridge is the best that ever was, but for me it's all academic. I carry the biggest, most effective caliber (as I see it) that I can get away with in the given social situation for the day and shoot to make 'em count and don't stop shooting til the threat is neutralized. I won't eliminate the .380 from my carry since there are times I need a pocket gun (often) and I've yet to find the .45 that fits where my .380 will. I prefer the 9 to the .45 for the round count in the compact, light, easy to carry little autos it's available in. Since there's supposidly no such thing as a one shot stop, seems prudent to carry a 11 shot 9 rather than a 6 shot .45. You run out of them .45s and the BG's still comin', you're toast. Yeah, hope you can reload fast! If you wanna tote around a friggin' Desert Eagle, that's up to you. I know what works for me and I ain't gonna change over some argument on terminal ballistics.

 

[MCgunner]

BTW, anyone see that video on the news where that guy with a snubbie revolver is shooting at his lawyer (great target, btw ) outside a courthouse? Lawyer runs behind a tree and is jumping around so the guy can't get a clear shot at him. He's hit with all five, arm here, leg there, walks a way from it real nonchalant like when the shooter runs out of ammo. ROFL! Shot placement, once again.

 

[Elmer]

Then why does my .25 caliber stick slap a deer down post haste with a lung shot? If all that is destroyed is the tissue the bullet touches, why is it I've never had to blood trail a deer when I hit it with my .25 caliber pointed stick, but if I were to shoot it with a .25ACP, what to you think would happen. Oh, yeah, penetration is SOOOOOOO important. I reckon if you didn't hit ribs, the hard ball .25ACP would penetrate a deer's chest completely at point blank. Do you think it'd fall dead at the shot like it does out to 300+ yards away with my .25 caliber pointed stick?

That was my point. I said handgun velocities.

.25 caliber sticks at 2000-3000 fps are a completely different thing. Any of us who've shot living things with rifle rounds, know the difference......

 

[Elmer]

BTW, anyone see that video on the news where that guy with a snubbie revolver is shooting at his lawyer (great target, btw ) outside a courthouse? Lawyer runs behind a tree and is jumping around so the guy can't get a clear shot at him. He's hit with all five, arm here, leg there, walks a way from it real nonchalant like when the shooter runs out of ammo. ROFL! Shot placement, once again.

Yup.

But substitute rifle rounds, and I don't think the lawyer would have been as chipper, even with poor shot placement.......