Stopping Power vs. Hitting the M.A.T.T: A Proposal

[Amadeus]

It has become nearly impossible to define stopping power. Perhaps it is time to examine a new equation for examining a projectile's so-called power using its potential based on past shooting encounters.

Let us suppose that we look at a projectile's ability to hit, The M.A.T.T. (Minimum Attack Termination Time). Defined as the time it takes to stop an attacker's aggression from the first bullet that hits to the perceived end of threat.

Using that definition we look at how many hits and divide that number by the MATT. SF(shots fired) / MATT = X. That "X" number because a round's MATT Rating.

For example, we look at a home invasion shooting where the resident fired 3 shots of a "XX" brand .38 HP. The first shot missed so we disregard that one. The second two shots hit their mark and aggression ceased in 4 Seconds.

2 Hits / 4 Seconds = 0.5

Another scenario may show a single shot from with a .40 wadcutter. Aggression ceased in 3.1 Seconds. 1/3.1 = .322

Do enough of these for enough different rounds and we may begin to see a difference in effectiveness from bullet to bullet.

No longer are we looking at size of a round. Only its potential to stop an aggressor. There will be variables. And no round will perform the same way twice, they never do. No scenario will ever be the same, they never are. But if we look at past defensive shootings and apply the M.A.T.T system I think it will actually yield some interesting results.

It is a vastly imperfect system. But at the very least it is no more INSANE than arguing stopping power from caliber to caliber!!

 

[AhmuqGB]

Interesting proposal, wouldn't you also have to define what a "hit" is, CoM or what not,

and before people start flaming the thread, he already stated there are issues with it so don't flame unless you have a better system in which case flame away ;-) (but share the system...)

 

[Amadeus]

Thank you.

Regarding defining a "hit" I am not certain it is necessary because regardless of where a person is hit, be it center of mass or in an extremity if the hit causes them to stop their attack then the round can be considered to have been effective.

 

[Jenrick]

One issue I can see with the system is finding adaquete data. I would imagine finding accurate time lines of most incidents would be extremely difficult.

Also, does firing a round at an attacker that doens't strike them, but scares them in submission qualify?

-Jenrick

 

[Amadeus]

One issue I can see with the system is finding adaquete data. I would imagine finding accurate time lines of most incidents would be extremely difficult.

I agree with you that it could be difficult to find adequate data. But I suspect it always is. So we do the best we can to piece together the available data.

does firing a round at an attacker that doesn't strike them, but scares them into submission qualify?

No. Warning shots and misses cannot count since the MATT system should be a measurement of a bullet's potential to stop with a hit rather than its ability to merely intimidate. Moreover warning shots are legally and tactically unwise, therefore not encouraged.

 

[dxkj21]

The first instant you did seconds / shots

The second instance you did shots / seconds


Im not following why you inverted those?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

We can define what a win is. And we can define what an encounter is (shots fired.)

Now suppose our formula was wins/encounters. This would lead us ot look what the winners use -- gun, cartridge, load. Some highly-respected cartridtges might fall by the wayside in this case -- too many misses, too many losses. Others might pop up as golden -- few "one shot stops" but lots of wins.

 

[Charles S]

I like the idea, but I think it would be impossible to get the data in an accurate objective manner. It would be good information.

Charles

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Objectivity is not our problem so much as getting data period -- the Evans-Marshall books are so controversial that police departments won't cooperate on studies.

But, as I said, we can define both wins and encounters simply enough.

Massad Ayoob has done a bit of this in his interviews with cops who have been in gunfights -- in addressing the issue of the use of sights in gunfights, he points out that winners tend to use sights, losers don't.

 

[Charles S]

But, as I said, we can define both wins and encounters simply enough.

I agree that this data could provide some usefull insight.

winners tend to use sights, losers don't.

There is an important lesson there.

Charles

 

[Vern Humphrey]

There is an important lesson there.

Look at a few accounts of shootings on these forums -- like 77 rounds fired for one hit. What happens if the cop doesn't have 77 rounds? Or the bad guy gets lucky first?

 

[Jenrick]

On addtional thing that may or may not be a factor (statistics wise), is hit location. If for some odd reason everyone stopped by a .22 hand gun (or a .25 for that matter) is stopped with a single round to the eye, that will skew results heavily. However I doubt many SD/HD scenarios involve head shots.

Additional question: What about where some one just shoots to slide lock. For all we know the assilant was rendered ineffective after the first round, do we still count the others(assuming they all hit, or a large extra number at least)? In this case it's not a question of the efficancy of the round, rather the actions of the firer.

-Jenrick

 

[Model520Fan]

What if it's not primarily about cartridge choice?

What if rating cartridges were like rating knives by brand, to see which brand actually worked best in a knife fight? And one person argues length, another sharpness, yet another balance, but in the end, we try to collect data to find out which brand of knife gives the best one-slash stop, or the least time to termination of attack.

Is it possible that there are certain minimal performance criteria that need to be met by handgun cartridges, and after that it has a lot more to do with other factors? Like, possibly, the BG's cojones? Or possibly whether or not the bullet is directed to the CNS?

JMO.

520

 

[Vern Humphrey]

On addtional thing that may or may not be a factor (statistics wise), is hit location. If for some odd reason everyone stopped by a .22 hand gun (or a .25 for that matter) is stopped with a single round to the eye, that will skew results heavily.

Actually, that wouldn't skew anything -- it would demonstrate the validity of the approach. We would look at those results and say, "Hmmmm -- it looks like bullet placement is the key to winning, and a low-recoil, highly-manageable pistol and cartridge seems to contribute to precise bullet placement."

Interestingly, Sanow raised the same question with me, asking "If the results showed most winners used a .25 ACP, would you say the .25 ACP was an effective stopper?"

My answer was, "If the sample size was large enough, yes."

 

[Amadeus]

What about where some one just shoots to slide lock. For all we know the assilant was rendered ineffective after the first round, do we still count the others

Yes. We are absolutely counting them. Statistical errors aside remember that the MATT system counts number of hits (regardless of where they strike on the attacker) before the aggression is perceived to be nuetralized.

 

[otomik]

i don't think you can glean that much info from a anecdotal encounter. there's not enough information and performance of the gun can't be seperated from performance of the shooter. low performing shooters may tend to using guns of certain calibers and low performing guns may tend to be certain calibers. certain guns also lend themselves to certain scenarios and sometimes people use more ammo than necessary, sometimes much more.

To me this sounds like an ugly hybrid of lab/statistics and encounter narratives. I see what you're trying to do, quantify the managability of a pistol, it's a worthy goal.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

i don't think you can glean that much info from a anecdotal encounter. there's not enough information and performance of the gun can't be seperated from performance of the shooter. low performing shooters may tend to using guns of certain calibers and low performing guns may tend to be certain calibers. certain guns also lend themselves to certain scenarios and sometimes people use more ammo than necessary, sometimes much more.

The purpose of a study like this is to tell us where to look for more intensive study.

That's the major shortcoming of the Marshall-Sanow study -- it doesn't answer the "so what" criteria. It doesn't infer what the next step should be.

 

[Amadeus]

Is it possible that there are certain minimal performance criteria that need to be met by handgun cartridges, and after that it has a lot more to do with other factors? Like, possibly, the BG's cojones? Or possibly whether or not the bullet is directed to the CNS?

Excellent point. I like the idea that a bullet be expected to meet minimal performance standards. There are standards out there currently such as the recommendation that a round penetrate at least 12 inches in soft gelatin.

However, I think looking at formal set of performance minimums rather than caliber may switch the focus just enough for us to begin looking at what truly makes a bullet "powerful enough".

 

[Dave T]

Question: Who's running the clock?

I investigated enough shootings in my LEO days to know witnesses get the time of an event all screwed up. I don't think you will ever have a reliable source of data, so the whole idea is kind of pontless. Sorry!

Dave

 

[3rdpig]

I'm all for finding new ways at looking at things, but this seems to offer too many variables. The most important one being the skill of the shooter. But also, day vs. night, distance between shooter and shootee, movement of both, terrain, cover, etc, etc. If all shootouts took place like old time duels, or like Hollywood western shootouts it would be more usable. How do you plan on including all the variables and still come up with a number that's meaningful?

 

[rockstar.esq]

Just another guy's .02 but I recently read one of Massad Ayoob's files in American Handgunner and he mentions that participants in gunfights lose all sense of time and in some cases have temporary audiory muting. I for one couldn't tell you how long I walked on a broken ankle just to get out of danger! (it actually happend to me and I covered some 2.5 miles). I like the idea that there would be some kind of data on what's getting used and to what effect. The thing that seems out of place here is that we have police making reports all over the nation and yet I haven't seen any sort of compendium on what is the most frequently used caliber in a homicide etc. Comparitively, the department of transportation categorizes each years highway fatalities by vehicle type, conditions, speed, direction, time of day, etc. I once used this data to verify a claim that the Chevy Blazer was one of the most dangerous vehicles on the road for nearly its entire production life! (This comparison included motorcycles!)

 

[Majic]

Accept the fact that all calibers have worked and all calibers have failed. Then you can group them on a chart any way your heart desire.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I investigated enough shootings in my LEO days to know witnesses get the time of an event all screwed up. I don't think you will ever have a reliable source of data

I recently read one of Massad Ayoob's files in American Handgunner and he mentions that participants in gunfights lose all sense of time and in some cases have temporary audiory muting.

The apparent speeding up or slowing down of time (tachy- and tardikenesia) is well documented, as is changed perception of sound and space. To give a classic example, I used to work for a company (Link) that made flight simulators -- flight simulator images for carrier pilots are deliberately distorted to show the flight deck as it appears to the approaching pilot (who is under considerable stress at the time.)

You cannot expect to get accurate estimate of time, distance or other sensory matters from a person who was under great stress.

 

[James T Thomas]

standard deviations

Dear Friends:

The more statistical indices, data, and analyses I come across in my life, the higher probability that I will take it all with a grain of salt.

A good example is an argument you could find here in this forum I believe it was on how many rounds of spare ammo is advisable to carry with your weapon.
Now some of the respondents felt that if the "average" gunfight was "over" after firing three rounds, then obviously why carry more than the magazine or a cylinder full? After all!
Take a look at more statistics: Handg.Gen.. #1 Realworld handg. over -penetration thread.
Handgun wounds are fatal `5% of the time, etc. On and on. Heart wounds from handguns have a 50% survival rate. On and on.
Statistics, if you do not have all the reams of tech data, and the full and true information, and the compilers are stringently objective, ...can lead you into drawing false conclusions. It is inductive logic. The validity of the conclusion is never absolute.

Don't let your reliance on statistical information make you one of the statistics.

 

[MachIVshooter]

The more statistical indices, data, and analyses I come across in my life, the higher probability that I will take it all with a grain of salt.

Isn't that the truth?

To restate what has been said a thousand times, there is no magic caliber, and all have succeeded and failed. The BG might drop with one shot from a .380, he might club you after 4 rounds of .357 magnum.

However, a good "rule of thumb" for "stopping power" where handguns are concerned is generally that the larger the bullet and higher the energy, the more effective the round, given proper bullet design and good shot placement. I certainly trust my hot 10mm loads to stop a threat more than I would a .38 wadcutter, but I could still be surprised.