"Stopping Power" article

[mljdeckard]

Forget 'stopping power'. There is cavity trauma, and you want all you can get. Anything else is luck.

 

[chopinbloc]

What is "cavity trauma?"

 

[Skribs]

It is true that the energy dump of a higher energy pistol round has the potential to increase the TWC (not enough to hit the breaking point). This places a greater strain on the tissue and nerves during this time, causing a more painful hit. However, pain could cause anger and aggression or it can cause fear and submission. These are qualitative traits, not quantitative, which means it's very hard to do a statistical analysis of how a BG would react. Chances are if he's drugged up or high on adrenaline he wouldn't even notice a difference.

I will say that the difference between .40 S&W and 9mm is probably the same as the difference between .357 magnum and 9mm. The higher velocity of the .357 magnum (probably looking at 300 FPS or so difference in 124-125 grain bullet range) means it can expand wider and still punch as deep, if not a deeper wound tract.

However, the above post is me playing devil's advocate. IMO, the only thing making the wound tract wider does is 1) increase the rate of blood loss (which you can't rely on to stop a fight in a timely fashion) and B) increase the chance you nick or hit something vital. I don't think that the hole being 0.1" wider is going to make a whole lot of difference in the grand scheme of things.

So the question becomes, what is most important to you? It looks like we're talking handguns here. More power generally comes with some or all of the following:

• Reduced capacity
• Increased size
• More expensive ammo
• More expensive gun

Is 0.1" greater expansion important, or is 4 rounds and a smaller frame more important? If you can hold a Glock 21 just fine, and 14 rounds (27-40 with reload) is plenty, then .45 is better. If you want cheaper ammo, smaller grip, lighter recoil, and/or 18 rounds (35-52 with reload), then G17 is better. If you have excellent shot placement and a single 9mm round does the job, then...well, both are just as good, but the G17 is cheaper and therefore better

Similarly, look at a revolver. Let's compare G17 to GP100 4". The Ruger is bigger. It is more expensive. It holds 6+0 instead of 17+1. It has a shorter barrel (to put things into perspective). However, the GP100 is less prone to failure than Glock (I know, blasphemy that Glock would fail, but FTE or FTF are still possible due to ammo, magazine, or firearm failures that cannot happen in a revolver), and it is more powerful. Should your Glock jam, or should you need that extra little bit the .357 magnum gives you, the Ruger is better. However, the Glock has many advantages going for it.

This is why caliber wars will never be won. This is why platform wars will never be won. Even though I'm fairly picky about what I own, I can play devil's advocate and give you reasons to go with anything. I like playing devil's advocate and that's why I like caliber wars.

TL;DR: They're all a tradeoff, but I think 9mm is best.

 

[JohnKSa]

there is "knock down power" maybe not enough to actually knock you down but its still there.

To the extent that it is there, it's WAY less than most folks think it is.

Mythbusters did a test in which they shot a crash test dummy in the chest with a .50BMG at point-blank range. The dummy was equipped with an armor plate in its chest to insure that all of the bullet's momentum/energy was expended in the dummy. The dummy was balanced on a steel rod through its chest that rested on the end of some other steel rods so it could be easily dislodged from the supports.

The dummy was dislodged from the steel rods when shot, but it fell mostly straight downwards with only a few inches of backwards motion. That's from 13,000ftlbs of muzzle energy.

They did an earlier test in which they suspended a pig carcass from a balance such that a thrown baseball would easily dislodge the pig and cause it to fall. Then they shot it with various firearms to determine which would knock it off the balance.

None of the firearms they used were able to dislodge the carcass with the exception of a 12ga shotgun (they didn't use the .50 BMG in that test). At one point in the test there were multiple shooters using various calibers (including one armed with a .45ACP Thompson machinegun firing full-auto) shooting the pig at once and it still didn't fall.

If you poke around on the internet, you can find a video showing a man being shot in the chest with a .308 rifle from a few feet away--he is wearing rifle level body armor. At one point in the video, he balances on one foot before he is shot and still doesn't lose his balance from the impact.

Even very powerful long guns (rifles and shotguns) have virtually no ability to knock someone down from the force of a bullet impact.

...pistol round has the potential to increase the TWC (not enough to hit the breaking point).

Even a relatively low energy pistol round can cause enough TWC to cause INelastic tissue to tear--it just can't make a big enough cavity to cause elastic tissues to tear. There is definitely inelastic tissue in the human body. The liver, brain, spleen and kidneys are some examples of inelastic tissue which could therefore be damaged by even the temporary stretch cavity from a pistol round.

So temporary cavity is an unreliable wounding mechanism in handguns because whether or not it actually causes permanent damage depends on where it hits.

Where the pistol rounds differ significantly from rifle rounds is that most rifle rounds are energetic enough to cause temporary cavities large enough to tear even elastic tissue. In rifles, therefore, temporary cavity is generally considered to be a reliable wounding mechanism because it will cause permanent damage regardless of where the impact occurs.

 

[mljdeckard]

Is the term 'cavity trauma' not self-explanatory? You are using the bullet to make a hole. The more holes you make, and they bigger the holes are, the higher the likelihood that something the bad guy needs to keep moving will be damaged or destroyed. More holes is good. More bigger holes is better. You are trying to make as much cavity trauma as possible, whether you use a fat .45 hollow-point to make a bigger hole, or an extra hole or two with a 9mm because you can shoot it faster, same objective. Knockdown power, stopping power, hydrostatic shock, etc are all theoretical at best with little track record of stopping people in the real world. Make holes. Make as many holes as you can, as fast as you can, in places where they are likely to inflict critical damage. If the holes are bigger, that is good too.

Does this sufficiently explain 'cavity trauma'?

 

[chopinbloc]

As mentioned in the article, there are two kinds of cavity produced when a projectile passes through tissue. The temporary stretch cavity produced by service pistol calibers causes virtually no damage or trauma. Let's try to stick to defined, quantifiable terms.

 

[mljdeckard]

Then why did you ask?

 

[CWL]

Another Stopping Power post? Again?

"Stopping power" has been argued since the late 1880's with the introduction of magazine-fed pistols. "fast vs slow", "big vs small" - Same old arguments being rehashed for well over 100 years.

"Temporary cavity"? You know what that is? That's the same as if you get punched or kicked. It may hurt a lot, cause deep bruising, but it rarely incapacitates. ...How many times do world-class boxers hit each other? How many punches actually result in a knock-out? Same for kick-boxing, MMA, etc.

Forget these articles, stick with practicing your preferred gun-ammo combination and reliably shooting your bullets into the CNS target areas.

 

[chopinbloc]

Then why did you ask?

To determine whether you had simply misspoken or were trying to invent new terminology.

Forget these articles, stick with practicing your preferred gun-ammo combination and reliably shooting your bullets into the CNS target areas.

If you had read my article, you would know that, while I don't explicitly make any particular recommendation that shot placement, and therefore training, is what really matters.


I like guns. I like shooting. I like talking about guns and shooting. I like reading about guns and shooting. I like writing about guns and shooting. I wrote that article and posted the link here because I had the crazy notion that members of a gun forum would also enjoy reading and discussing guns and shooting. I believe my take on the topic was slightly different and hopefully phrased in a way that makes it easy for novices (or those with misconceptions) to understand. You may already know everything there is to know about terminal ballistics but I certainly don't and I know that there are A LOT of folks out there who still have some really inaccurate ideas of what happens when a projectile passes through tissue.

 

[CWL]

If you had read my article, you would know that, while I don't explicitly make any particular recommendation that shot placement, and therefore training, is what really matters.

So YOU wrote the article that you linked here without bothering to disclose it to everyone? That's enough reason to not read anything you post, especially when your article starts with: "There has been some discussion on “stopping power” of late so..."

As I mentioned, this so-called controversy has been around for over 120 years already. Nothing new about this at all. Handgun bullets of any caliber are not very good at stopping people, so the best thing one can do is to aim well and keep shooting.

Also, if you post anything, be prepared for comments not to your liking. You're just showing a very thin skin to anyone and anything others post... which I now understand since that is your own article.

 

[chopinbloc]

Your post reads as though you disagree with something yet you are stating points that I've made previously in this thread and in the article. I'm just pointing out the fact that if you had read the article, you might not find anything with which to disagree. The central point of the article is, once again, that the term "stopping power" is somewhat of a misnomer.

I enjoy reading comments that articulate a different point of view or criticize my own position or my rationale. It helps exercise the brain. I'm having trouble identifying exactly what you are upset about, though. Are you upset because someone posted something with which you think you disagree but you're not sure because you didn't bother reading it? Are you upset because somebody is discussing a topic with which you are bored? If that's the case, why did you bother to comment? I'm honestly trying to figure out what has gotten you so upset.

 

[CWL]

Nah,

I'm not upset, but I think you are.

Read my first sentence in the post above yours, I explain myself clearly.

I think you are a shill and you are trying to pump up exposure of your own blog to readers here by purposely not disclosing that this is your own article. You are also getting upset because you probably aren't getting the level of praise that you hoped for.

To you, you may think you have written a well-articulated article, but you are writing about something that is older than old, and yet your opening sentence makes it like this is something new and current. My observation is that it isn't, in fact it is a discussion as old as the existence of self-loading pistols.

Based on these observations, I don't care to read your article in the link.

 

[chopinbloc]

It is not my blog and I don't get paid anything. If you disagree with any of my points or dislike the way I've phrased anything, why not go ahead and share that? Otherwise it seems like you're just being rude for the sake of being rude.

 

[JohnKSa]

"Temporary cavity"? You know what that is? That's the same as if you get punched or kicked. It may hurt a lot, cause deep bruising, but it rarely incapacitates.

That is a fairly apt description, however there is one important difference. Because the bullet can penetrate past the skin and surface musculature/fat/connective tissue, it has the opportunity to access organs which would normally be too protected to be significantly affected by a punch.

For example, a punch is unlikely to rupture the liver, but a bullet passing very near the liver could cause a temporary cavity that has the potential to do some serious damage given the fact that the liver is very vascular and is not elastic.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Massad Ayoob, David Spauling, Marshall & Sanow, and others used to haunt the morgues and police stations. They compiled quite a list of what worked and what didn't.

No theory, just dead bodies and police reports.

What they found was larger more powerful rounds tended to produce more one shot stops.

Good shot placement tended to produce more one shot stops.

Excellent bullet design tended to produce more one shot stops.

So you just do the math and see that if you use one of the more powerful rounds with excellent bullet design AND good shot placement you will have the odds in your favor as for as 'one shot stops'.

Does that mean doing so will guarantee you a one shot stop? NO.

But as they say.. “The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet”.

Deaf

 

[RPRNY]

There can be no such thing as "knock down power" from small arms. Physics dictate that if a bullet fired from a small arm could knock down a target of similar size to the shooter, it would have knocked the shooter down on firing.

 

[barnbwt]

"Nothing short of a central nervous hit..."

Recently there was a fatal shooting in town. The summary I was given was the victim (a very well built older man) was approached by a skinny young kid, who demanded a wallet. The big man refused, the kid produced a gun and threatened to shoot if he was not satisfied. The man proceeded to strike the kid in the head vigorously, until the kid was able to fire a single shot into the victim's forehead (above the eyes). The man continued to pummel the young man's head against the ground severely until his homies retrieved him and made their getaway in a car, at which time the victim lost consciousness and died soon thereafter. I believe the kid was located a day or two later with severe untreated injuries. Exceptions to every rule, though it is likely the shooter was using cheap FMJ ammo of low power (evidenced by the need to rob people for money)

“The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet”.

I like that. Not sure how it applies to my example (he was big and strong, but the punk did have a gun...infinite force + immovable object, I guess)

TCB

 

[gym]

Stopping power is usually referd to as the ability to stop someone from going any further with one shot. " a 45 was considered to have good stopping power", simply translated would mean if you hit the guy in the chest, he would stop". Not necessarily kill him, but stop him in his tracks. You still had to hit him square in the upper torso.
The FBI does have a chart on stopping power, if I remember it said 9mm- 3-4 rounds, 40 2-3, and 45 1-2, now this was with standard ball ammo, "if I remember correctly", no fancy loads. If you do a search for it, you will probably find it. But the 45 was always in "folk lore" to be legendary in it's ability to stop an attacker with one shot. Of course any gun will do that if you hit the guy in the brain, but they mean Stop him from advancing any further.
This can be argued all day, but the fact remains it does have a larger circumference, and with factory 230 grain ammo, it is going to penetrate more than enough and hit a bunch of innards. If I had to take a bullet, I would choose the smallest hole, "all things being equal" from a pistol, in a non vital area.
Let me say I saw a guy in the Columbian army, take 5- 45's and you never would have known he was ever shot unless you saw the scars when he lifted his shirt. They all were through and through, none hit anything ,vital, and he was built like a bull.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

How about instead of redefining or muddling the issue of stopping power with things like shot placement to the chest (which is not part of the definition of stopping power), we stick with the more proper explanation as touched on in the article.

The term “stopping power” is, at best, an awkward attempt to quantify the ability of a given cartridge or load to incapacitate an attacker.

The concept already has enough weaknesses without introducing unnecessary qualifiers.

 

[gym]

You say tomato, and I'll say tomato. Incapacitate and , stop aren't necessarily the same thing. I can incapacitate someone without stopping them. Unless it's immediate. So immediate incapacitation and stop, are really more by definition similar, if you really want to get into semantics.

 

[rs7]

gym, Shoot them in the head.

 

[Deaf Smith]

"Nothing short of a central nervous hit..."

Recently there was a fatal shooting in town. The summary I was given was the victim (a very well built older man) was approached by a skinny young kid, who demanded a wallet. The big man refused, the kid produced a gun and threatened to shoot if he was not satisfied. The man proceeded to strike the kid in the head vigorously, until the kid was able to fire a single shot into the victim's forehead (above the eyes). The man continued to pummel the young man's head against the ground severely until his homies retrieved him and made their getaway in a car, at which time the victim lost consciousness and died soon thereafter. I believe the kid was located a day or two later with severe untreated injuries. Exceptions to every rule, though it is likely the shooter was using cheap FMJ ammo of low power (evidenced by the need to rob people for money)

“The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet”.

I like that. Not sure how it applies to my example (he was big and strong, but the punk did have a gun...infinite force + immovable object, I guess)

TCB

It means if you use a round that is one of the more powerful rounds with excellent bullet design AND good shot placement you will have the odds in your favor as for as 'one shot stops'.

Does that mean doing so will guarantee you a one shot stop? NO.

But that is the way to go if you want to maximize the chance of a one shot stop.

Sometimes you are lucky and the pipsqueek gun drops 'em, but many times that small round just kills them... later, after they have paid you back.

So I go by Jeff Coopers advice, Use the most powerful gun you can control and conceal for everyday use.

Deaf

 

[Cee Zee]

I don't know why it bothers some so much that others say things that aren't exactly correct. But the idea that there is no difference between calibers is absurd. Let's compare a 12 ga. 3.5" magnum shell with a hollow point design against a .25 caliber shooting low power ammo. Does anyone here not understand that there is a much greater chance of stopping an attacker with the 12 ga. on the first shot? That is the essence of the term "stopping power". There may not be a lot of difference between various pistol calibers but there certainly is some difference. It's just a matter of degree.

BTW I've shot feral dogs in the head and watched them flop around for 30 seconds when I know the .22 bullet I shot them with is rattling around inside their brain. There was no exit wound on that one dog I saw do that. Most dogs drop right on the spot if you put a .22 in their brain. So even with a CNS hit there is no guarantee that you'll see instant death. That doesn't mean there isn't a difference between shots that hit the CNS and shots that don't. And if you're aiming for the spine you're taking a big risk of missing your target IMO. The heart or the head is much easier to hit.

FWIW there have been some tests done which are well known like the the Strasbourg Tests. That test was about wound channels and the difference between various calibers in achieving quick incapacitation. IMO the tests showed that there wasn't a whole lot of difference between various calibers or bullet designs. But there was some difference. The thing that stood out to me was the ability of cartridges like Magsafe and Glaser make to get quicker stops. But it was obvious that some bullets were better than others at incapacitating goats anyway. Most of the bullets are now considered older designs but there appears to be definite progress being made in this area IMO. With a lung shot a bullet that spreads faster and more will cause faster stopping. But the total amount of difference between the best and worst bullets wasn't all that great IMO.

So while there is something to be said for faster expanding bullets it's still quicker to hit your target in the CNS. For a while I practiced double taps to the center mass followed by a shot to the head (or the equivalent of that - I haven't actually killed anyone and don't plan on ever doing so). That's my answer to the question of stopping power. To me this is a good advertisement for large capacity magazines. Why rely on one bullet when you can use 10? You'll still have plenty of ammo left in the mag if you're using the right handgun.

I actually find the whole topic pretty sickening but a necessary evil unfortunately.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...if you use a round that is one of the more powerful rounds with excellent bullet design AND good shot placement you will have the odds in your favor as for as 'one shot stops'....

Exactly.

Let's consider how shooting someone will actually cause him to stop what he's doing.

• The goal is to stop the assailant.
  
  
• There are four ways in which shooting someone stops him:
  
  
  • psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."
    
    
  • massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function
    
    
  • breaking major skeletal support structures
    
    
  • damaging the central nervous system.
  
  Depending on someone just giving up because he's been shot is iffy. Probably most fights are stopped that way, but some aren't; and there are no guarantees.
  
  Breaking major skeletal structures can quickly impair mobility. But if the assailant has a gun, he can still shoot. And it will take a reasonably powerful round to reliably penetrate and break a large bone, like the pelvis.
  
  Hits to the central nervous system are sure and quick, but the CNS presents a small and uncertain target. And sometimes significant penetration will be needed to reach it.
  
  The most common and sure physiological way in which shooting someone stops him is blood loss -- depriving the brain and muscles of oxygen and nutrients, thus impairing the ability of the brain and muscles to function. Blood loss is facilitated by (1) large holes causing tissue damage; (2) getting the holes in the right places to damage major blood vessels or blood bearing organs; and (3) adequate penetration to get those holes into the blood vessels and organs which are fairly deep in the body. The problem is that blood loss takes time. People have continued to fight effectively when gravely, even mortally, wounded. So things that can speed up blood loss, more holes, bigger holes, better placed holes, etc., help.
  
  So as a rule of thumb --
  
  
  • More holes are better than fewer holes.
    
    
  • Larger holes are better than smaller holes.
    
    
  • Holes in the right places are better than holes in the wrong places.
    
    
  • Holes that are deep enough are better than holes that aren't.
    
    
  • There are no magic bullets.
    
    
  • There are no guarantees.
  
  
• With regard to the issue of psychological stops see
  
  
  • this study by Greg Ellifritz. And take special notice of his data on failure to incapacitate rates:
    
    
    
    ​
    
    
    As Ellifritz notes in his discussion of his "failure to incapacitate" data (emphasis added):

    ...Take a look at two numbers: the percentage of people who did not stop (no matter how many rounds were fired into them) and the one-shot-stop percentage. The lower caliber rounds (.22, .25, .32) had a failure rate that was roughly double that of the higher caliber rounds. The one-shot-stop percentage (where I considered all hits, anywhere on the body) trended generally higher as the round gets more powerful. This tells us a couple of things...
    
    In a certain (fairly high) percentage of shootings, people stop their aggressive actions after being hit with one round regardless of caliber or shot placement. These people are likely NOT physically incapacitated by the bullet. They just don't want to be shot anymore and give up! Call it a psychological stop if you will. Any bullet or caliber combination will likely yield similar results in those cases. And fortunately for us, there are a lot of these "psychological stops" occurring. The problem we have is when we don't get a psychological stop. If our attacker fights through the pain and continues to victimize us, we might want a round that causes the most damage possible. In essence, we are relying on a "physical stop" rather than a "psychological" one. In order to physically force someone to stop their violent actions we need to either hit him in the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine) or cause enough bleeding that he becomes unconscious. The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this....

    
    
    1. There are two sets of data in the Ellifritz study: incapacitation and failure to incapacitate. They present some contradictions.
       
       
       • Considering the physiology of wounding, the data showing high incapacitation rates for light cartridges seems anomalous.
         
         
       • Furthermore, those same light cartridges which show high rates of incapacitation also show high rates of failures to incapacitate. In addition, heavier cartridges which show incapacitation rates comparable to the lighter cartridges nonetheless show lower failure to incapacitate rates.
         
         
       • And note that the failure to incapacitate rates of the 9mm Luger, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and .44 Magnum were comparable to each other.
         
         
       • If the point of the exercise is to help choose cartridges best suited to self defense application, it would be helpful to resolve those contradictions.
         
         
       • A way to try to resolve those contradictions is to better understand the mechanism(s) by which someone who has been shot is caused to stop what he is doing.
       
       
    2. The two data sets and the apparent contradiction between them (and as Ellifritz wrote) thus strongly suggest that there are two mechanisms by which someone who has been shot will be caused to stop what he is doing.
       
       
       • One mechanism is psychological. This was alluded to by both Ellifritz and FBI agent and firearms instructor Urey Patrick. Sometimes the mere fact of being shot will cause someone to stop. When this is the stopping mechanism, the cartridge used really doesn't matter. One stops because his mind tells him to because he's been shot, not because of the amount of damage the wound has done to his body.
         
         
       • The other mechanism is physiological. If the body suffers sufficient damage, the person will be forced to stop what he is doing because he will be physiologically incapable of continuing. Heavier cartridges with large bullets making bigger holes are more likely to cause more damage to the body than lighter cartridges. Therefore, if the stopping mechanism is physiological, lighter cartridges are more likely to fail to incapacitate.
       
       
    3. And in looking at any population of persons who were shot and therefore stopped what they were doing, we could expect that some stopped for psychological reasons. We could also expect others would not be stopped psychologically and would not stop until they were forced to because their bodies became physiologically incapable of continuing.
       
       
    4. From that perspective, the failure to incapacitate data is probably more important. That essentially tells us that when Plan A (a psychological stop) fails, we must rely on Plan B (a physiological stop) to save our bacon; and a heavier cartridge would have a lower [Plan B] failure rate.
  
  
• Also see the FBI paper entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness", by Urey W. Patrick. Agent Patrick, for example, notes on page 8:

  ...Psychological factors are probably the most important relative to achieving rapid incapacitation from a gunshot wound to the torso. Awareness of the injury..., fear of injury, fear of death, blood or pain; intimidation by the weapon or the act of being shot; or the simple desire to quit can all lead to rapid incapacitation even from minor wounds. However, psychological factors are also the primary cause of incapacitation failures.
  
  The individual may be unaware of the wound and thus have no stimuli to force a reaction. Strong will, survival instinct, or sheer emotion such as rage or hate can keep a grievously wounded individual fighting....

• And for some more insight into wound physiology and "stopping power":
  
  
  • Dr. V. J. M. DiMaio (DiMaio, V. J. M., M. D., Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier Science Publishing Company, 1987, pg. 42, as quoted in In Defense of Self and Others..., Patrick, Urey W. and Hall, John C., Carolina Academic Press, 2010, pg. 83):

    In the case of low velocity missles, e. g., pistol bullets, the bullet produces a direct path of destruction with very little lateral extension within the surrounding tissue. Only a small temporary cavity is produced. To cause significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet must strike that structure directly. The amount of kinetic energy lost in the tissue by a pistol bullet is insufficient to cause the remote injuries produced by a high-velocity rifle bullet.

    
    
  • And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 83-84, emphasis in original):

    The tissue disruption caused by a handgun bullet is limited to two mechanisms. The first or crush mechanism is the hole that the bullet makes passing through the tissue. The second or stretch mechanism is the temporary wound cavity formed by the tissue being driven outward in a radial direction away from the path of the bullet. Of the two, the crush mechanism is the only handgun wounding mechanism that damages tissue. To cause significant injuries to a structure within the body using a handgun, the bullet must penetrate the structure.

    
    
  • And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 95-96, emphasis in original):

    Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much-discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable....The critical element in wounding effectiveness is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large blood-bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding....Given durable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of the hole made by the bullet....

  
  
• And sometimes a .357 Magnum doesn't work all that well. LAPD Officer Stacy Lim who was shot in the chest with a .357 Magnum and still ran down her attacker, returned fire, killed him, survived, and ultimately was able to return to duty. She was off duty and heading home after a softball game and a brief stop at the station to check her work assignment. According to the article I linked to:

  ... The bullet ravaged her upper body when it nicked the lower portion of her heart, damaged her liver, destroyed her spleen, and exited through the center of her back, still with enough energy to penetrate her vehicle door, where it was later found....

 

[javjacob]

The chart on stopping power or whatever is the correct term to call it... for hand guns...
#1 on the list is the 357mag at 97%
the big bad 45 is at 94% and the 9mm is at 92%

Im not even going to go into it more and I know everyone has surely seen this list before but it was done by the FBI and with torso shots only I believe.

< Deleted by ugaarguy >