you beat me to it Frank Ettin. Whats crazy to me is how the 357mag is a better stopper/incapacitater than the bigger 44mag. I have always wondered how the smaller 357mag can be better than the 44mag at incapacitating. Also the so highly touted 45ACP scored lower than the 40S&W and 9mm on that list.
"Stopping Power" article
- Thread starter chopinbloc
- Start date
- Status
I suspect that you're thinking about the Marshall and Sanow studies. Their charts were based on analyses of reports about actual shootings, and their conclusions have been subject to controversy, as have all "stopping power" studies. The Marshall and Sanow studies were the subject of a discussion on this board some years back, and I have no doubt they've come up in other threads.javjacob said:
Well some of us grumpy old men actually do know a few things because we been around long enough and studied long enough to learn a few things.javjacob said:
When looking at statistical analyses of data relatively small numerical differences are often not significant, i. e., they don't mean anything.javjacob said:
OP
OP
chopinbloc
Member
Every time I read an article where someone used a shotgun for defense and didn't end up with a bad guy DRT, I have to wonder if they were using bird shot or .410 ga.
Actually, the Marshall and Sanow studies do breakdown the data based on bullet/cartridge. One thing I recall from their data on the .45 ACP is that different JHPs in general had comparable result, as did different FMJs; and all JHPs performed uniformly significantly better that FMJs.javjacob said:
I know several people who use birdshot in their 12ga for home defense. I tell them they need buckshot but they are too hard headed. makes me wonder how many others use birdshot? I would bet a good 1/4th of people use birdshot. I think 22lr would be better than birdshot.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
This guy just about blew his leg off with birdshot (7.5). At close range, it can be devastating.
NSFWF viewing... http://ryanjarcy.wordpress.com/2013/03/31/how-i-blew-off-a-leg-with-a-12-gauge-shotgun-part-one/
I don't think a .22lr will do this at any distance.
BrokenSailor
member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2011
- Messages
- 34
Stopping Power is when you have three Drug Crazed enemy combatants coming at you with AKs and you have to put them down. It takes three 5.45s per drug crazed physco combatants... It takes one .308 per Jockey.
The Stopping power STOPS them in their tracks. You can see the bullet hit them and they go thump! and it knocks the wind out of their sails and they crumple. While the little 5.45 bullets just go through them. We are talking Standard NATO ball here guys... If you have lived it, you know. If you haven't, you should pay attention.
If a rifle round doesn't go through cars or houses it is too small. That is why the AR-15 is useless by my standard. It doesn't even go through body armor. A 6.8 will... a .308 will. So what do you want in your hands when the up armored drugged up biker gangs come for you?
You have to remember that these people you will be fighting have to snort a bunch of stuff to numb them out just to get the courage up to come out and fight. If the bullet doesn't knock them down, they are still able to shoot you, and an AK bullet is not something you want to get hit with.
The Stopping power STOPS them in their tracks. You can see the bullet hit them and they go thump! and it knocks the wind out of their sails and they crumple. While the little 5.45 bullets just go through them. We are talking Standard NATO ball here guys... If you have lived it, you know. If you haven't, you should pay attention.
If a rifle round doesn't go through cars or houses it is too small. That is why the AR-15 is useless by my standard. It doesn't even go through body armor. A 6.8 will... a .308 will. So what do you want in your hands when the up armored drugged up biker gangs come for you?
You have to remember that these people you will be fighting have to snort a bunch of stuff to numb them out just to get the courage up to come out and fight. If the bullet doesn't knock them down, they are still able to shoot you, and an AK bullet is not something you want to get hit with.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sav .250
Member
Stopping power...................... A tall, good looking blond!
Frank Ettin said:
How right you are. There is clearly something going on with this study when it finds that a 9mm will stop someone better than a .44 magnum. I've known for a long time that the .357 is the king of the one shot stop theory in most cases. But a 9 vs. a .44?? Come on. That study must have some flaws to come up with a result like that. With multiple shots I can very much see a 9 being better but just one shot??? I don't know what they were putting in their .44's but the term "jello pops" keeps popping into my head. Anyone who has fired both rounds has to know that a .44 magnum bullet that opens up as it should is going to put a major hole in whatever it hits. I don't think they are particularly practical to carry as a SD gun because second shots and subsequent shots are generally slower than with a 9mm. There's a lot more recoil involved and that means acquiring your target will take more time than with a 9mm, which essentially doesn't come off the target at all.
I looked at the study and sure enough his sample sizes were very small. In some cases he was talking about shootings in the 20's. He is counting actual shootings instead of the potential for a cartridge or caliber. That's a big stretch IMO. Many people just can't handle a .44 mag like they can a 9mm so you could be looking at a lot of shots (relatively - he only listed 24 shootings with a .44 mag) that just plain missed anything vital. Plus I do know about the propensity of a .44 mag to pass through a human without imparting it's energy. So many factors and so few doing the actual tests.
I'd love to see real data on various calibers as per how they work in similar situations. I realize you can't just go out and shoot some people for test purposes in this country (thank God) and I don't even like to see animals shot because I don't think that directly translates either.
So we are left with some data but we are forced to use some common sense type speculation here. A .44 magnum is a big round compared to a 9mm. Very big. The idea that it wouldn't stop someone as well given equal shot placement is just absurd. Yes the bullets need to be equivalent and perform as designed but still. Do we really believe that .44 mag bullets don't open up on impact? I know that they do. I've done that testing myself. I carry a .44 mag when I go into bear country "just in case" (I use hard cast bullets for that purpose though) but for SD I carry a .40 these days. I would likely carry a .45 if I could get one that holds as many rounds as my .40. I know some of them are getting better about capacity but there are things about a .40 and a 9mm that are better than a .45. Higher speed bullets penetrate certain things better according to the conventional wisdom (which I realize is often wrong.
Mainly I just find that study as faulty as the other studies that count the number of actual shootings on record. Too many other factors enter into that equation. For example the study did cover multiple shots too but single shots were compared in the chart here. What I'd like to see is a test medium that more closely resembles a human and a test done with enough samples to rule out anomalies. That test would mean something. Still some things do stand out from this test and others like it. The .357 does a great job of stopping someone with a single shot. But is it better than a .40 with 3 times as many holes in the target? That's a tough question to answer.
Deaf Smith
Member
Yes but Massad Ayoob and David Spauling have done similar research with similar results.
And thus I still say to use the most powerful gun you can control and conceal for everyday use.
Deaf
OP
OP
chopinbloc
Member
Broken Sailor, there are a lot of misconceptions and just plain wrong statements in your post. First off, I don't think that 5.45x39mm is a NATO cartridge. I thought it might have been a mistake but you typed it twice.
Second, .223 Rem or 5.56x45mm, the cartridge that an AR is most commonly chambered in will zip through the highest rating of soft armor. Armor that is rated to stop 5.56x45mm will also stop 7.62x51mm but some Level III steel plates can be defeated by M193 ball (5.56x45mm) if struck at about 50 feet or less, while the same plates easily defeat M80 ball (7.62x51mm)
Thirdly, M193 tends to cause MORE tissue disruption and faster stops on human targets at less that 200m (depending on barrel length) than M80 ball at similar distances. If there is any lethality problem with the 5.56x45mm cartridge it is at distances greater than 200m or when poorly designed ammunition is used.
Lastly, this forum is called "The High Road" for a reason. I suspect that many people would not consider ethnic slurs to be a "high road" manner of referring to people so you might want to edit that post.
Second, .223 Rem or 5.56x45mm, the cartridge that an AR is most commonly chambered in will zip through the highest rating of soft armor. Armor that is rated to stop 5.56x45mm will also stop 7.62x51mm but some Level III steel plates can be defeated by M193 ball (5.56x45mm) if struck at about 50 feet or less, while the same plates easily defeat M80 ball (7.62x51mm)
Thirdly, M193 tends to cause MORE tissue disruption and faster stops on human targets at less that 200m (depending on barrel length) than M80 ball at similar distances. If there is any lethality problem with the 5.56x45mm cartridge it is at distances greater than 200m or when poorly designed ammunition is used.
Lastly, this forum is called "The High Road" for a reason. I suspect that many people would not consider ethnic slurs to be a "high road" manner of referring to people so you might want to edit that post.
The basic fallacy seems to be that a lot of folks think there's a single, actual for real answer; and it's only a matter of finding the magic test that will tell us all what it is. But there really is no single answer. There are simply too many variables. Things like the psychology and physical conditioning of the person shot, for example, will make a difference (Stacy Lim referred to in post 49 was an athlete in excellent shape and with a determined mindset), as well other idiosyncratic and unmeasurable factors.Cee Zee said:
All of the studies, however, tell roughly consistent stories in broad terms.
Panzerschwein
member
Well you see I think energy IS a factor in creating the largest wound that a handgun can make.
With the right hollowpoint, a 125 grain bullet moving with say 1600 fps. for 700 ft lbs muzzle energy can use that energy to expand the .357 caliber bullet to the widest it can while still overcoming drag and penetrating over 12" in flesh.
A .380 ACP is a 9mm projectile thereabout just like a .357 magnum, but the .380 isn't considered NEARLY as effective as the .357 because it doesn't have enough energy that can translate into a large expanded hollowpoint AND a deep wound channel. The .357 magnum can do both.
That's why the 9mm is a good compromise, it produces enough energy that can translate into a nice wide hollowpoint that still goes deep enough into flesh to reach vital organs, but it doesn't create as much recoil and muzzle blast as say .357 magnum.
So basically what I'm getting at is that yes, energy CAN be an important factor in handgun cartridge effectivenesss but only IF the bullet design can PROPERLY utilize that energy to expand the hollowpoint cavity to it's widest and still put that bullet deep into the target. This will of course create a larger permanent wound channel that will create more blood loss and tissue damage/pain that can effectively stop an attacker.
But of course energy ISN'T EVERYTHING, a round with less muzzle energy can still be very effective if the bullet performs at it's best with what energy it does have.
For example, I carry a .38 special snub nose loaded with 125 grain +P rounds that average about 850-900ish fps from my gun's short 1 7/8" barrel to produce about 225 ft lbs. of energy. On paper this doesn't seem like much, but due to excellent bullet design this load can still expand it's hollowpoint to over .60 caliber and drive it almost 14" into ballistics gelatin flesh simulant.
Sure it doesn't have a lot of energy compared to a 9mm Parabellum or .357 magnum, but it can utilize it very efficiently and still make a nice amount of wound damage. It's excellent modern hollowpoint design makes this possible, and today's hollowpoint technology really does shrink the gap in the performance of the major service handgun cartridges.
YMMV.
With the right hollowpoint, a 125 grain bullet moving with say 1600 fps. for 700 ft lbs muzzle energy can use that energy to expand the .357 caliber bullet to the widest it can while still overcoming drag and penetrating over 12" in flesh.
A .380 ACP is a 9mm projectile thereabout just like a .357 magnum, but the .380 isn't considered NEARLY as effective as the .357 because it doesn't have enough energy that can translate into a large expanded hollowpoint AND a deep wound channel. The .357 magnum can do both.
That's why the 9mm is a good compromise, it produces enough energy that can translate into a nice wide hollowpoint that still goes deep enough into flesh to reach vital organs, but it doesn't create as much recoil and muzzle blast as say .357 magnum.
So basically what I'm getting at is that yes, energy CAN be an important factor in handgun cartridge effectivenesss but only IF the bullet design can PROPERLY utilize that energy to expand the hollowpoint cavity to it's widest and still put that bullet deep into the target. This will of course create a larger permanent wound channel that will create more blood loss and tissue damage/pain that can effectively stop an attacker.
But of course energy ISN'T EVERYTHING, a round with less muzzle energy can still be very effective if the bullet performs at it's best with what energy it does have.
For example, I carry a .38 special snub nose loaded with 125 grain +P rounds that average about 850-900ish fps from my gun's short 1 7/8" barrel to produce about 225 ft lbs. of energy. On paper this doesn't seem like much, but due to excellent bullet design this load can still expand it's hollowpoint to over .60 caliber and drive it almost 14" into ballistics gelatin flesh simulant.
Sure it doesn't have a lot of energy compared to a 9mm Parabellum or .357 magnum, but it can utilize it very efficiently and still make a nice amount of wound damage. It's excellent modern hollowpoint design makes this possible, and today's hollowpoint technology really does shrink the gap in the performance of the major service handgun cartridges.
YMMV.
Last edited:
Frank Ettin said:
I don't think there is "one" answer. I just think there are better answers than we have seen. Sure you can't take into account the person you might be shooting and their health / condition but you can have a general idea how much better a .44 mag is than a .22. The tests I've seen rely on a data sample that is just too small and they don't account for the things you describe concerning your target. The goat test is probably the best test I've seen but that was done with goats. They aren't humans.
The thing is even if there was a really good test done the data would change every year as new cartridges are developed. I think in the end we just need to rely on some common sense. For example I don't think a 9mm will kill as well as a .44 mag with a single shot given equal targets and equal shot placement. I just don't see that happening. And the human body isn't a consistent target anyway. You might shoot the same person in essentially the same spot and get different results even when using the same gun and the same ammo. Chaos theory comes into play at some point. Just the slightest turn of the body and we could be talking a dead president Reagen instead of one that had a bullet right next to his heart. There are way too many variables to ever get a perfect test. But I can imagine a better one than we have seen and it doesn't involve gathering data from shootings. It involves the kind of thing we are more familiar with and more able to do ourselves. If a bullet hits harder and transfers it's energy to the target it has a better chance of doing more damage. That's just going to be true no matter what. That makes all this a lot simpler IMO. I don't see a lot of difference between a 9mm and a .40 or a .45 but by the time you get to .44 mag there is a significant difference in my guesstimation. The same goes for the difference between a 9mm and a .25. A .25 can certainly kill but it's more likely that a 9mm will kill. That's just too obvious IMO. But arguing over a 9mm vs. a .45 is a never ending battle. They are just too close and one does some things better while the other does different things better.
Really? What would measuring how much better a .44 Magnum is than a .22 really mean?Cee Zee said:
All the studies and wound physiology suggest that the 9mm Luger, .40 S&W, .357 Magnum and .45 ACP, with good, well designed JHP bullets, are capable of good and fairly comparable performance, as handgun ammunition goes and as long as the shooter can do his part (i. e., get good hits). The 9mm and the .45 probably have a slight edge as far as controllability goes, and the .357 Magnum, .40 and perhaps the .45 have a slight edge as far as terminal performance goes. And the 9mm allows a smaller, more concealable pistol.
On the other hand, this has been a topic of considerable interest to law enforcement -- especially since 1986. Considerable, professional resources have been brought to bear to shed more light on the topic. I touch on a few of them in my post 49 (Dr. DiMaio, who I quote in post 49, was an expert witness in the Zimmerman trial). It's not as if smart people haven't been looking at the subject. Yet we have no better or more definitive tests.Cee Zee said:
We can design all kinds of tests, and, as is often the case, those tests will tell us exactly what performs best on those tests. But those sorts of tests don't necessarily correlate perfectly with real world results.
Outside of covert operations in AFG or Columbia where is this even a remote possibility? The average American is more likely to die of heart disease than in a shoot out with the Zetas. But then again not all of us are operators...
Um, what? The first part of this is absolutely silly and the second part is just plain wrong.
For the sake of argument, silly as that may be, I would pick my AR as it is a proven weapon and caliber. What world do you live in where you face up armored, drugged up bikers? <Rhetorical Question>
I work with murders (real ones) gang bangers, drug dealers, child molesters, bikers, and just about every other kind of criminal you can think of a daily basis. This is what I have learned from being the only non criminal in a room with them; for the most part they are all talk. There are a few, a very few, that are truly hard core enough to not care. But for the most part if you call their bluff they back down. So again, what?
Well this is just the tip of the silly spear. I don't want to get hit with a dirt clod either, should I shoot everyone that picks up a few loose rocks and puts them in their pocket?
Nom de Forum
Member
Bravo! Good post.
Nom de Forum
Member
So reading all the above posts would seem to indicate that if someone were to use the equation:
Bullet Weight x Bullet Velocity x Bore Sectional Area = Relative Stopping Power
and get results that indicate a 9mmPara bullet is only 45% as effective as a 45ACP bullet in "Relative Stopping Power", perhaps they should be just a little sceptical?
Bullet Weight x Bullet Velocity x Bore Sectional Area = Relative Stopping Power
and get results that indicate a 9mmPara bullet is only 45% as effective as a 45ACP bullet in "Relative Stopping Power", perhaps they should be just a little sceptical?
OP
OP
chopinbloc
Member
I would say so. I don't believe there is anything that we could remotely call "stopping power." Rather, a collection of factors that contribute to whether a threat stops being a threat. Some of those factors are fully under your control (i.e. cartridge selection, barrel length, bullet design, etc.). Some are only partially under your control (i.e. shot placement). Most are entirely out of your control (i.e. your attacker's use of drugs, mental state, clothing, movement, etc.). As mentioned several times in this thread, Cooper's advice to carry the most powerful gun you can shoot well might be the best advice.
"Shooting well" is a subjective assessment, though. We can place objective metrics on the skill for qualification purposes but the design of the metrics is still subjective. There is no solid answer as to how fast and how accurately we need to shoot. More power means more recoil and more recoil means slower shooting. When that fact is discussed, there are inevitably tough guys who proclaim how quickly they can shoot their Super Deathblastomatic in .492 Vaporizer. Even if their internet claims were true, physics dictates that the same person could shoot a "lesser" caliber from a similar gun more quickly. We have to decide for ourselves where we are comfortable in the spectrum of speed versus power. It's important to remember, though, that handguns are not powerful; they are portable. What differences there are in power are generally minor and still on the low end of things. In other words, small gains in power can result in large gains in recoil. I personally believe that .38 Spl, 9mm Luger, .357 Sig, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP are the "best" choices for handguns for personal defense.
"Shooting well" is a subjective assessment, though. We can place objective metrics on the skill for qualification purposes but the design of the metrics is still subjective. There is no solid answer as to how fast and how accurately we need to shoot. More power means more recoil and more recoil means slower shooting. When that fact is discussed, there are inevitably tough guys who proclaim how quickly they can shoot their Super Deathblastomatic in .492 Vaporizer. Even if their internet claims were true, physics dictates that the same person could shoot a "lesser" caliber from a similar gun more quickly. We have to decide for ourselves where we are comfortable in the spectrum of speed versus power. It's important to remember, though, that handguns are not powerful; they are portable. What differences there are in power are generally minor and still on the low end of things. In other words, small gains in power can result in large gains in recoil. I personally believe that .38 Spl, 9mm Luger, .357 Sig, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP are the "best" choices for handguns for personal defense.
I love this (LOLOLO), I guess a rock has more stopping power than a dirt clod, and a boulder has more stopping power than a rock (LOL) I just haven't figured out how to get a boulder into my pocket yet (LOL)
We need bigger pockets.
Jim
This whole thread is silly. In Chicago, the MOB stops informants with a 22 LR from a pistol to the back of the head. That is what they call STOPPING power.
OP
OP
chopinbloc
Member
Yeah, everyone has heard those stories. Don't know how true they really are but it doesn't matter. A .22lr to the back of the head will certainly put someone down. I submit that the thread is only as silly as you make it.
Are those informants actively attacking lone mob members or are they tied up, kneeling, and helpless? In such circumstances a screwdriver would work just as well.
Are those informants actively attacking lone mob members or are they tied up, kneeling, and helpless? In such circumstances a screwdriver would work just as well.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
