What makes the .357 Mag 125gr unquestionably the best manstopper?

Status
Not open for further replies.
^^ so do you think that the 9mm, 40 or 45 is more effective? they all cant be the same. One has to be better than the other if only marginally.
 
Its just my opinion, but id say with modern HP ammunition, all of the "service" calibers are so close in stopping power, that the difference is really negligible.

A center mass hit with 9mm, .40, .45, .357mag, etc are all going to bring someone down 90%+ of the time.

That seems a popular view, though it seems many disagree otherwise there would be no point to these other rounds that cost far more to practice with at the range, offer less ammo capacity, and are really LOUD in the case of .357s.

Don't high quality .45 HPs expand to about .70", making for one hell of a big hole?
 
This argument gets even more difficult when it comes to home defense where handguns aren't the only viable choice. Clearly one pretty much has to stick to handguns in certain situations, seeing how shotguns & ARs make really bad concealed weapons.

I knew an ER doc who after treating a whole lot of gunshot wounds was totally unimpressed by the stopping power of any handgun. It seems that patching up a guy with 7 bullet wounds and then releasing him as his injuries were not serious enough to require admittal to the hospital, really turned him off to handguns for home defense. He keeps a 12 gauge ready for that use, commenting that he never gets to work on folks shot at close range with a shotgun. Seems they get delivered to the morgue instead of his ER.
 
the central people responsible for that bit of irresponsible silliness are M&S.
Is that true, or is that just how their data was interpreted by some others?

Chapter 1 (page 3) of Handgun Stopping Power begins:
Stopping power is an illusion.

It is important to start a book on handgun stopping power with that in mind. There are no magic bullets. There are no manstopping calibers. There is no such thing as one-shot stopping power.

Everyone reading this book will make more survival-oriented decisions if they expect their bullet to have little, if any, effect on the target. Instead they will fire from behind cover or get behind cover as soon as possible. They will fire numerous times. They will be more precise in their fire. They will keep their gun pointed at the target until they are absolutely certain the action is finished.

Perhaps they say somewhere, "Unless you're using .357 125gr HPs; then, you don't have to bother doing any of that"? ;)
 
Last edited:
Quote:

>Everyone reading this book will make more survival-oriented decisions if they expect their bullet to have little, if any, effect on the target.<<M

Ba-Da-Bing! We have a winner.

I saw it written...can't remember who by...that you should expect your adversary to continue to do pretty much the same thing he was doing before he was shot.
 
Is that true, or is that just how their data was interpreted by some others?

The answer is both. The evidence for that is in this thread and in their writings. These express contradictory statements and concepts often in the same paragraph which give rise to and allow ample room for confusion. The useful bit from them which you quoted above...

Stopping power is an illusion.

It is important to start a book on handgun stopping power with that in mind. There are no magic bullets. There are no manstopping calibers. There is no such thing as one-shot stopping power.

appears in their 1992 book titled "Handgun Stopping Power: The Definitive Study". Their next 1992 book was titled "Street Stoppers: The Latest Handgun Stopping Power Street Results" and their 2001 book is named "Stopping Power: A Practical Analysis of the Latest Handgun Ammunition". In all of these the "One Shot Stop" OSS statistics are advanced, explained, defended and utilized.

So either "Stopping power is an illusion" and there is no "one-shot stopping power" or one can write a number of books, articles, lectures etc. and make a career in which the idea of such is a critical componant. I can forgive the mistakes made by newer shooters who don't catch all the disclaimers in the fine print but I am a bit critical of the fellas who write the print large and small and accept and/or disavow the confusion that follows in their wake.

As i have said, there is a good deal of useful information in their books and writings but as the titles of their books imply the central thrust is off base.

tipoc
 
So either "Stopping power is an illusion" and there is no "one-shot stopping power" or one can write a number of books, articles, lectures etc. and make a career in which the idea of such is a critical componant.
If some feel that there is something to learn from the compiling and analysis of actual shooting data--while others are saying in essence, "Oh, that way madness lies"--well, that honest difference of opinion by itself could account for for a lot of books, articles, lectures, etc. Even a career. Do you begrudge Marshall, Sanow, MacPherson, and Fackler their careers? They (and others) have all feasted on this controversy.

And perhaps your "either/or" is a false dichotomy. Perhaps we are, as adults, all familiar with many concepts that are both true to some extent, and yet also false to some extent?
The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.

---F. Scott Fitzgerald, "Handle With Care", Esquire Magazine (March 1936)
 
Last edited:
If some feel that there is something to learn from the compiling and analysis of actual shooting data--while others are saying in essence, "Oh, that way madness lies"--well, that honest difference of opinion by itself could account for for a lot of books, articles, lectures, etc.

But I am not saying that "madness lies"in that direction. Honest figures presented straight forwardly are useful and can help us in the selection of bullet type, caliber, load, etc. for any particular job.

The compiling of actual shooting data can be and has been a useful contribution. Unfortunately neither you nor I know can know, because they refuse to share that with their peers, exactly what information M&S used to compile their figures. We can also see for ourselves gaps in the useful of the information as it is presented to us by them. And that is the rub my friend. The heart of the disagreement between us.

I embrace all of M&S that is useful and accurate and toss out that section that is based on faulty science, poor figuring and posturing. It seems that you on the other hand embrace and defend it all, what is useful and the faulty science. Maybe under the cover that poor science is better than nothing, or that M&S put out a good effort. But that is a false dichotomy. We have plenty of reliable information from other sources. We are not in the dark or back to square one (as some here seem to feel) if we reject some bad assumptions made by M&S or others along the way.

Can I begrudge a fella for using sleight of hand to build a career? I don't begrudge them anything. I'm just pointing out some contridictions.

Perhaps we are, as adults, all familiar with many concepts that are both true to some extent, and yet also false to some extent?

Yes and it is our responsibility to know the difference between which is which and not duck it.

You have faith in M&S. I don't, I cannot buy a pig in a poke. You gotta open the poke and let me see what is squirming inside before I lay down that dollar.

tipoc
 
It seems that you on the other hand embrace and defend it all, what is useful and the faulty science.
Closer, I would say, to considering it all, rather than accepting it or dismissing it. Acceptance and dismissal both imply certainty. If I don't have enough info to say that something is sound science, how can I have enough to say it must be faulty science?

So, I look at it all, in some places with a raised eyebrow. But I haven't seen the evidence of "sleight of hand" or other mischief that you apparently have, so I assume bona fides.

I also come at this data from a hunting perspective. In that realm I am well aware that with some calibers well-hit animals are said to run farther than with others; that some calibers are more trusted to "turn the charge" of dangerous animals; and that solid or expanding bullets (and sometimes very specific solids or expanding bullets) are preferred for certain animal/situation combinations. All this by the way of the "experience" of many hunters, uncollected data, passed-down stories mixed in with occasional necropsy results. And yet that clearly non-scientific "collective wisdom" is dearly held.

So it remains to me puzzling how much of M&S's work I am supposed to dismiss with certainty, and why.
 
Last edited:
357 Terms said:
^^ so do you think that the 9mm, 40 or 45 is more effective? they all cant be the same. One has to be better than the other if only marginally.

I think that the best loads for all of them, and the .357, are going to have a virtually identical effect on an aggressor.
Which is to say you might have to use two or three more of them than Marshall and Sanow say you should have to use.
 
Does focus on which is most effective in stopping with one shot really that vital?

You can get a 9mm Glock. You can get a 10mm Glock. As far I know, a 10mm throws a 180 grain slug at roughly the same velocity as a .357 Mag would toss a 180 grain slug. Now while the guy with his 10mm Glock gets back on target after that substantial recoil, might his buddy with the lowly 9mm be able to fire two shots?

Could a gun with "less stopping power" potentially have equal or greater stopping power in real terms if it can be accurately fired more rapidly due to less recoil due to using less powerful ammo?
 
A 22lr can be fired quickly and accurately. If shot placement and follow-up shots are the most important factors why not carry a 22?
 
Let's not forget that the alleged performance of the 125gr .357 Mag round in past shootings has resulted in ammo companies coming out with higher performance bullets and loadings for the .357 SIG, 9mm in +P and +P+, and better .38 Super and similar rounds (9x23, 9mm Super comp). Now they will be added to any study about actual bullet performance, as they are actively being used by police and armed citizens.
 
I have done some research on Marshall and Sanow's book, and let's just say I wouldn't make ammo choices based on it. I am firmly in the camp that believes hydrostatic shock from a handgun bullet is an illusion in most cases, and a truly determined attacker is more likely to be stopped by (1) proper bullet placement and (2) adequate penetration. These qualities can be obtained from any number of platform/caliber/ammo combinations.

Each and every shooting is a discrete event, with too many variables to be compared statistically.
 
I knew an ER doc who after treating a whole lot of gunshot wounds was totally unimpressed by the stopping power of any handgun. It seems that patching up a guy with 7 bullet wounds and then releasing him as his injuries were not serious enough to require admittal to the hospital, really turned him off to handguns for home defense. He keeps a 12 gauge ready for that use, commenting that he never gets to work on folks shot at close range with a shotgun. Seems they get delivered to the morgue instead of his ER.
Actually, I've seen more folks in the ER from shotgun wounds than handgun wounds by far.
Mostly those hit with birdshot, but sometimes those hit with buckshot.
 
Actually, I've seen more folks in the ER from shotgun wounds than handgun wounds by far.
Mostly those hit with birdshot, but sometimes those hit with buckshot.
But is that a result of effectiveness of the weapon, or of where you are?

For example, if you live in a community with little violent crime and a lot of bird hunters, you would expect to see what you've described.
 
There are two different running opinions that make the biggest splash on this site. One is that your service round-chambered pistol is inadequate in any and all situations, and that you'd be likely to do more damage with a slingshot and a marble. The other opinion is that good, possibly numerous hits with a pistol will drop an enemy. I'm in the second camp. I have an extremely hard time believing that two rounds from a service-caliber handgun applied to a human's chest is not going to do the job. If you hit the heart or the lungs or even both, the lights are going to fade.

You do not need a rocket launcher to bring down a man.
 
There are two different running opinions that make the biggest splash on this site. One is that your service round-chambered pistol is inadequate in any and all situations, and that you'd be likely to do more damage with a slingshot and a marble. The other opinion is that good, possibly numerous hits with a pistol will drop an enemy. I'm in the second camp. I have an extremely hard time believing that two rounds from a service-caliber handgun applied to a human's chest is not going to do the job. If you hit the heart or the lungs or even both, the lights are going to fade.

You do not need a rocket launcher to bring down a man.
I have seen men take multiple hits and continue to fight.

One of my best friends was hit 8 times with an M1 rifle and survived.

Another friend took multiple hits from AK 47s over a 45 minute fight, and only died as the fight was ending.

I saw an NVA hit with M16s, fall, get up fighting, take more hits and fall again. And when I stepped over his body, he tried to shoot me in the back.
 
Just assume you have multiple attackers shooting at you, you have sooo much stress and precious fractions of a second to react. There is no guarantee that you will hit the men COM, let alone a double tap. When you hit them (wherever it may be) would you rather have a 9mm or a 125grn 357?
 
In my opinion it's where you hit, not what you hit with, most of the time, a well placed 22 rimfire is liable to hit in the shoulder and come out the hip.....doing extensive damage along the way, just sayin......my own preference is as big as I can handle 41 Mag. or 45ACP and be able to regain the target as fast as possible.
 
Could a gun with "less stopping power" potentially have equal or greater stopping power in real terms if it can be accurately fired more rapidly due to less recoil due to using less powerful ammo?

This was touched on earlier, and yes, scoring multiple hits > a single hit from a more potent cartridge in most cases.

However......

# of bullets into the body vs. incapacitation is not a linear equation, and human beings vary greatly in both physical robustness and mindset.

What I'm trying to say is that the second, third, fourth, etc. shot into the body does not increase the odds of stopping the threat by a percentage. If you make multiple bad shots, then you could end up with an entire magazine in your opponent and he's still in the fight.

On the other hand, the second (or 3rd, 4th) shot may make all the difference, if the preceeding resulted in just a fleshwound and a subsequent hit got a vital organ or scored a CNS hit.

As has been said on this thread and many others, anyone worth shooting is worth shooting more than once.

A 22lr can be fired quickly and accurately. If shot placement and follow-up shots are the most important factors why not carry a 22?

Some people do. That said, the biggest reason I and many others advocate NOT carrying a .22 LR has little to do with power; It's about reliability. World-wide, I'd bet .22 LR duds alone are greater in number than all the .357 magnum ammo sold in a given year. Something like 6 BILLION rounds of .22 LR are manufactured globally every year.

The other thing is that most .22 pistols hold 10 or fewer rounds. IMO, with such a disparity in power, you need a much greater capacity to mitigate it. On that note, I can't think of very many situations involving defense against other human beings were I wouldn't rather have my PMR-30 than a 5 or 6 shot revolver. Kind of along the same lines as I'd rather have my wimpy AR-15 in a fight than my M1 Garand. A lot more rounds on tap, and you can get more of them on target, faster. Shots that miss or never get fired have a 0% effectiveness, no matter what cartridge or who rates them.
 
A 22lr can be fired quickly and accurately. If shot placement and follow-up shots are the most important factors why not carry a 22?
Because the .22LR, when shot from a handgun, performs dismally at QUICKLY STOPPING aggressive humans.

Yeah, you might kill your attacker, but you are not likely to quickly stop your attacker.
It does you no good whatsoever if the man who gutted you with a butcher knife dies hours later in the ER from the .22 round you put in his chest.

The whole point of carrying a handgun for self defense is to stop the attack as quick as possible.
The 125g .357 magnum round, when fired from a 4" barrel service revolver, quickly earned a great reputation for doing just that....quickly stopping an attacker.


a well placed 22 rimfire is liable to hit in the shoulder and come out the hip.....doing extensive damage along the way, just sayin.
This is an old shooting myth.
Yes .22 rounds do tend to travel once they hit the body but they do not have enough energy when shot from a handgun to travel through that much tissue.
No way, no how.
 
357 Terms said:
Just assume you have multiple attackers shooting at you, you have sooo much stress and precious fractions of a second to react. There is no guarantee that you will hit the men COM, let alone a double tap. When you hit them (wherever it may be) would you rather have a 9mm or a 125grn 357?

I think with the right 9mm load, it basically doesn't matter. I take it you're a lover of the .357. So am I. But it's not a magic talisman. It's actually quite pathetic compared to almost any rifle cartridge, and rifle rounds fail to stop at times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top