"Stopping Power" Study

[303tom]

I carry a .22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire, that is all I got to say................

 

[coloradokevin]

I note the high number of shots on target/persons shot for 9mm. This is interpreted by the label "Average number of rounds until incapacitation" but that might not be so. It might be that 9mm shooters were putting follow-up shots on target fast enough that two or more shots would land before it became clear that the attack was over.

In other words, if you can rapidly put many shots on target, and have been trained to do that in an LE or SD scenario, then we should expect very few fights that end with one shot.

I agree, and was thinking the same thing as I read the article. The 9mm is also commonly carried by military/LE officers, and these folks are usually trained/experienced enough to fire follow-up shots.

I regularly participate in force-on-force training scenarios at work (active shooters, hostage, etc) where we use Simunitions against the opposing "bad guys". The bad guys were supposed to react as if shot once they took hits, but you'd often see officers fire to slide lock before the "bad guy" could fall (again, not real bullets here, but a demonstration of the idea I'm speaking of).

Similarly, I've seen the same thing play out in officer-involved shootings on the street. Some officers fire just one round, others dump their magazine. A trained shooter can certainly put more than one bullet into their adversary before the adversary reacts to the first hit. As such, there's really no way to accurately measure how many shots it took to incapacitate the bad guy... he could have been hit 5 times, even if the first shot might have done the trick all by itself.

 

[coalman]

I think most here will find these conclusions heresy, Let the nit picking begin!

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866

I am not really surprised by this data, I've always believed bullet placement trumps all other factors.

More of the same stuff here. It's often the same: 1) Person selects 9mm or is getting tired of hauling around or paying more to shoot .45acp, then 2) Finds through objective detailed exhaustive analysis that the modern 9mm is in fact equal to the .45acp s/he gave up, or wants to. Problem solved, conveniently, and s/he sleeps better at night with 9mm.

 

[mljdeckard]

Of course shot placement trumps everything.

Here's the problem. In real life, the bad guy won't stand still for you to hit him repeatedly center of mass. For most of us, when we are on the two-way range, we are doing well to get hits at all. Even police miss plenty. What this means is, you don't want to leave anything more than is necessary to poor performance. Sure a .22 will kill with the right hit. So will a heavy needle, if you can nail the jugular with it consistently. As much as I try, I don't shoot like Todd Jarrett. I'm getting better, but I doubt I will ever be that good.

Yes, perfect hits with any round will end the fight. But you can't take for granted you will get perfect hits. I will use the rounds that will cause the most tissue damage no matter where I hit.

 

[JRH6856]

Originally Posted by Loosedhorse
I note the high number of shots on target/persons shot for 9mm. This is interpreted by the label "Average number of rounds until incapacitation" but that might not be so. It might be that 9mm shooters were putting follow-up shots on target fast enough that two or more shots would land before it became clear that the attack was over.

In other words, if you can rapidly put many shots on target, and have been trained to do that in an LE or SD scenario, then we should expect very few fights that end with one shot.

I agree, and was thinking the same thing as I read the article. The 9mm is also commonly carried by military/LE officers, and these folks are usually trained/experienced enough to fire follow-up shots.

And I wonder how many of those LE/Military incidents involved automatic weapons. That could get the round count up pretty quickly.

 

[mdauben]

I think this is the most significant data from the study:

<SNIP GRAPH>

The assailants not incapacitated are the ones who can still hurt you.

I'm tempted to like this graph, as it seems to validate my own opinion that once you meet a minimum "threashold" (IMO, around .38spl or 9mm) all SD calibers are pretty equal. The problem is, I find the rest of the "researcher's" statistics so questionable, that I really don't feel I can put much more faith in this result, than in anything else he wrote.

 

[Slamfire]

Very interesting study.

I have heard it said that modern firearms are not as lethal as those bladed weapons up to the Renaissance. Getting an arm or leg cut off is immediately incapacitating and anyone hit on the head with the spike or pole end of a Halberd is going down for the big count.

Maybe our weapons are retrogressive.

 

[Rampant_Colt]

What a load of useless rubbish. From a scientific point of view, this very flawed "alternate study" has more holes in it than the patterning board at the shotgun range.

According to this train wreck of a study, the .380 ACP is the equal of the .40 S&W and surpasses the 9mm, .38 Special, .357 Mag/Sig, and .45 ACP in one-shot stops. The .32 ACP surpasses the .38 Special and 9mm in one-shot stops. Note how the .357 Magnum and .357 Sig are lumped together into one statistic.

I hope this thread gets locked

 

[Skribs]

It's a lot easier to hit with a bullet than with a halberd.

And you apparently missed Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail. It took 4 hits to incapacitate the Black Knight.

 

[C0untZer0]

On average, how many rounds did it take for the person to stop his violent action or be incapacitated? For this number, I included hits anywhere on the body

Why would a glancing shot to the ribs with a .22 or .45 or anything else for that matter tell me anything except that shooting an attacker in a non-vital spot isn't likely to "stop" them? Gathering that kind of data doesn't yield a lot of useful information.

If I delivered a few glancing shots to the ribs, a few through the left bicep, a few in the buttocks with a .45 and the attacker knocked me down and beat me senseless... I wouldn't say the .45 round is ineffective.

On the other hand if that happens with COM shots... I'd say, yes that round is ineffective.

You can present both com and non com shot incapacitation data and just put the info out there - but he doesn't.

 

[Certaindeaf]

I tell people to not use ball ammo. Cops and hunters don't use ball ammo. On the other hand, a (most all) 240 gr .44 mag hp will zip right on through an elk let alone a man. Don't use ball in anything bigger than a .25.. but many do. Anyway.

 

[Cosmoline]

Some interesting results, but I have my doubts that the underlying data is detailed enough to truly support the level of detail in the conclusions. That's not an attack on the study, but the fact is that we are forced to rely on a hodge-podge of hearsay accounts and after-the-fact recollections to try to draw conclusions. Of course the coroner's reports would be more precise, but they obviously select only for the dead ones. Medical records for those who survive are locked down and impossible to obtain through any ordinary means.

It's a noble effort and shows some interesting trends, but to really do this there would need to be a much more detailed study with full access to participant's records. The only place I could see that happening would be inside the military, but there you'd also have national security and other access problems.

Of course these same problems have prevented pretty much *ANY* similar attempts from being much better. None of them are truly scientific, because the data simply isn't reliable enough.

the .380 ACP is the equal of the .40 S&W and surpasses the 9mm, .38 Special, .357 Mag/Sig, and .45 ACP in one-shot stops. The .32 ACP surpasses the .38 Special and 9mm in one-shot stops. Note how the .357 Magnum and .357 Sig are lumped together into one statistic.

Actually it sounds about right. The physical impact of all these rounds is very similar, with rounds hitting from around 200 to 400 ft. lbs. The .32 ACP is an anomaly, probably the result of a too-small sample size. Or there could be some other self-selection factor involved.

To the extent the study undermines the obsessive fixation on one handgun round over another, and emphasizes the importance of placement, I think it's a useful one.

Think of it this way. Though the study's data is unreliable, if something like a .45 ACP were indeed dramatically more effective than a .32 ACP, that would be something that even newspaper accounts and other hearsay reports would tend to show.

 

[X-Rap]

The variables are so great in real life that I don't think there is a scientific way to prove which is the best, IMO it is like trying to figure out how some people are able to walk away from what for others was a fatal car wreck.
The one thing I believe in is being able to bring the maximum amount of rounds to bare with as much controllability as possible. To me at this time that is a double column 9mm.
If there is one assailant and I can keep my cool I'll have ammo for sat. at the range, if there are 2 or more I will probably wish I had two guns.
A person can get shot up pretty bad in the time it takes for a reload so when I carry something with less capacity than 15 or so rds I do so at a what I percieve as a handicap.

 

[MCgunner]

Facklerites and terminal ballistics netspirts, listen up!

http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=...um=Email&utm_campaign=Chronicle+Vol+1+Issue+1

Coments? I think his sample sizes are a might low, makes for a high variance, but I agree with his conclusions.

I’ve stopped worrying about trying to find the ‘ultimate’ bullet. There isn’t one. And I’ve stopped feeling the need to strap on my .45 every time I leave the house out of fear that my 9mm doesn’t have enough ‘stopping power.’ Folks, carry what you want. Caliber really isn’t all that important.”

I'm not real comfortable carrying a .22, but .38 and up, I'm good with it. I also feel that bullet placement is a key. Perhaps those .22s were head shots vs center mass for other calibers? Who knows. Anyway, it's interesting if not all that scientific.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Incapacitated, or gave up?

To be considered an immediate incapacitation, I used criteria similar to Marshall's. If the attacker was striking or shooting the victim, the round needed to immediately stop the attack without another blow being thrown or shot being fired. If the person shot was in the act of running (either towards or away from the shooter), he must have fallen to the ground within five feet.

This definition of incapacitation seems to leave open the possibility that many or most of those listed as "incapacitated" actually had the capacity to continue their fight (or flight), but they gave up.

Attackers using firearms probably should not be considered to be incapacitated unless they are no longer able to pick up the gun and pull the trigger, not if they still could do that but decide not to.

I'd have been very interested to see if the break-out of truly incapacitated attackers vs the ones who just quit. Right now, the only ones we can assume were incapacitated are the fatalities--and even they may have given up at the moment of being hit, and died some time later.

 

[Panzercat]

I was going to write a lengthy and extremely critical post about this article, but I think I can sum it all up as:

'Once you start including critical shot placement as a metric, your ability to determine stopping power through statistics is fundementally flawed.'

There are also too many other failures in the logical continuity of this study to even bother wasting anybodies time with.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Two of the difficulties with these sorts of studies are (1) the generally small sample sizes; and (2) the enormous number of variables that could affect outcome.

But I think one of the strengths of Greg's study, which a lot of folks seem to be missing, is that it begins to highlight the difference between a psychological stop and a physiological stop.

It's often suggested that many attacks are stopped by the psychological effects of getting shot. People generally don't enjoy being shot and will take steps to avoid getting shot more. That seems to explain the data that say that there's not that much difference in the number of stops effected comparing minor calibers with major calibers.

However, not every assailant is readily susceptible to the psychological effects of being shot. Stress related conditions, adrenalin, drugs, alcohol, etc. could all attenuate the psychological effect of being shot. And if the particular assailant is therefore not deterred by the mere fact of being shot, he will need to be physiologically compelled to stop -- by damage to the central nervous system, destruction of major skeletal support structures, or significant blood loss.

The data on the numbers of subjects not incapacitated by various calibers is therefore significant. It shows that many more subjects fail to be incapacitated by minor calibers than by major calibers. And that suggests if the psychological effects of being shot aren't enough to stop the fight, and one must physiologically compel the aggressor to desist, the defender would be better off with a more powerful caliber.

Of course, we don't get to pick ahead of time the bad guy we might be forces to shoot. So since the particular bad guy we have to deal with is one who, under the particular circumstances, is not very susceptible to the psychological effects of being shot, it's still a good idea to be armed with a major caliber it we can conveniently manage to do so.

 

[CoRoMo]

+1

Interesting that there is no round that averages 'less than one round = incapacitation'. They didn't include 'the sound of a pump shotgun cycling'. That's supposed to incapacitate in the higher percentages, I've read.

 

[Odd Job]

Under discussion here already:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=660014

 

[MCgunner]

Jeez, I hadn't thought of that or the "looking down the twin barrels of the SxS 12 scares 'em dead." The only time I had to pull a handgun, it was a .25ACP and the guy ran, I didn't have to shoot. Technically a stop, don't ya think?

 

[EvilGenius]

I havent read all the responses so maybe it's been covered, but we talked about this study on another forum and more or less came to the following conclusions:

1) He probably doesnt have enough of a sampling size of .25, .32 and .44 to really make a conclusion to their effectiveness. (He admits it.)

2) He confuses "incapacitation" with stopping the threat. The threat might be incapacitated or might've just given up.

3) He also touches on what I feel is the real key here. Psychology. If someone doesnt have much or any experience in a firefight or getting shot, their instinctive reaction upon being hit is to give up and "die" because most of us, at least in the us, grew up playing cowboys/indians/cops/robbers and watching hollywood where as soon as someone is hit anywhere regardless of caliber or pain. They "die" because thats whats suppose to happen when you get shot. Rory Miller touches on this a lot and even brings up recorded stories of people proceding their attack even when being shot point blank in the head.

If they BG is not mentally prepared to get shot, then usually any caliber will work.

I theyre on drugs, mentally disturbed, or really pissed off then anything .38spl/9mm and up will get the job done just about equally if you do your part.

 

[Skribs]

It's often suggested that many attacks are stopped by the psychological effects of getting shot. People generally don't enjoy being shot and will take steps to avoid getting shot more.

Except for the guy in NY last week who shot his friend in the leg, because his friend asked him to. The friend wanted to know what it was like to get shot.

 

[Jeff White]

No round stops everyone every time. Not even with a perfect hit. Stopping power is a myth. If you want to be sure of stopping your opponent with one hit every time you need to carry something like a 90 mm recoilless rifle loaded with flechette rounds.

There are no magic bullets. Any modern handgun bullet in caliber .38 special or larger is sufficient to incapacitate a man in a reasonable amount of time, but that incapacitation is not guaranteed to happen with one hit. Not even the mythical perfect hit. There are no magic bullets.

 

[jrdolall]

One thing that a lot of people seem to be missing, though others have mentioned it, is the high pecentage of attacks that stopped after one shot no matter what the caliber. MOST attackers simply do not want to get shot again. For that extremely high number of attackers it is unimportant what caliber is used. If I was an attacker I would probably fall into that category and so would most others. I understand that drugged attackers or truly deranged attackers are probably more likely to continue an attack unless they are completely down but, for the majority of attackers, the fact that his victim has fired a gun is enough.

I think that most will agree that a heavier bullet fired into the arm is more destructive than a light bullet even though there are so many variables in that scenario. A .25 that penetrates the heart is probably as deadly as a 45 that penetrates the heart. IMO the definition of Self Defense is to make the attacker stop. If I can accomplish that then I have been successful. This study is like just about any other study. I take them all with a grain of salt and keep on shooting the guns that I feel comfortable with.

Is there a study that examines soiled underclothes as a result of a gun being fired at you?

 

[mdauben]

Except for the guy in NY last week who shot his friend in the leg, because his friend asked him to. The friend wanted to know what it was like to get shot.

How much you want to bet he stopped asking after the first round? One round stopping power!