PDA

View Full Version : One Shot Stops Database


Brian Pfleuger
January 13, 2009, 11:23 AM
Someone in another thread posted this link (I couldn't find the thread again or I'd give them kudos). I find the information to be very interesting and thought it would be fun to discuss.

What are your thought on this data?

http://www.handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp?Caliber=0

I'll start with one observation. In most cases, the samples sizes are too small to be truly indicative of actual performance between calibers and, especially, between bullets within a cartridge.

Sam06
January 13, 2009, 11:41 AM
That is a cool Data base.

I was surprised at how many people were shot with a 30-30. It did a good job too.


I would say your statement is correct but there are some good samples sizes for the more popular calibers like 9mm, 45ACP,40 ect.....
I'll start with one observation. In most cases, the samples sizes are too small to be truly indicative of actual performance between calibers and, especially, between bullets within a cartridge.

It also goes to show how much more of a fight stopper a Rifle is than a handgun. Even the most powerful handguns are not match for a Rifle

George PT-111
January 13, 2009, 11:53 AM
what does one shot stop means?

Brian Pfleuger
January 13, 2009, 11:54 AM
It means that the BG was stopped with a single bullet.

George PT-111
January 13, 2009, 11:58 AM
really, ok what about diameter?

David Armstrong
January 13, 2009, 12:00 PM
That is the Marshall and Sanow data. It is interesting, but there are a lot of questions regarding it also. Some put a lot of weight in the numbers, some tend to reject the numbers entirely. A net search should give you plenty of info both pro and con.

Brian Pfleuger
January 13, 2009, 12:01 PM
A net search should give you plenty of info both pro and con.

That would take effort!;):rolleyes: I'm just kidding. I've looked around, there is plenty of controversy in general about their research. I'm not sure what the argument would about this data however, it seems pretty cut and dry.


really, ok what about diameter?


Diameter is indicating the final size of the bullet. For instance, if a 357 magnum says .65 under diameter it means it expanded by roughly .3 inches, which is pretty good.

Al Thompson
January 13, 2009, 12:04 PM
I find it hard to believe those numbers - gross numbers maybe, but that many folks were shot with PMC .30-30 ammo when Remington, Federal and Winchester sell 20 times what PMC does? Makes my "Nope" buzzer go off.

I do not trust the source of that data at all either. For an interesting evenings reading, search Marshall and Sanow here on TFL. :rolleyes:

Sam06
January 13, 2009, 12:11 PM
Al, That was my thought also. I looked at the data and there were more shootings with a 30-30 with Winchester 150gr JHP's but it was not as good a stopper.

I looked at the 45 ACP 230gr FMJ and I was amazed it did as bad as it did a 62% 1SS.

George PT-111
January 13, 2009, 12:46 PM
ok, well doesn't it also matter where you shoot? I mean if you shoot in the head the BG will be stopped w/ a 22 bullet

Brian Pfleuger
January 13, 2009, 12:51 PM
ok, well doesn't it also matter where you shoot? I mean if you shoot in the head the BG will be stopped w/ a 22 bullet

It certainly does matter. That's one of the reasons I mentioned the size of the available samples. Over a large enough sample size the variables like shot placement start to "disappear" and you're left with the true story about general effectiveness. That true story might be that there is no real difference between the major SD calibers/cartridges, I don't know for sure.

Al Thompson
January 13, 2009, 01:20 PM
Sam, I now think less of the "data" base - no way in the world they got decent information on that many shootings with a .30-30 AND load data.

Hate to say it, but "super-secret" information has always been an issue with M&S. :(

Doc TH
January 13, 2009, 01:29 PM
Have to agree with "petezakiller". Even several hundred cases are not statistically compelling, partly because of the heterogeneity between individual instances - e.g., range, size/weight of person, and most important, shot placement, etc. I noticed that all the .308 data were for 168 gr match ammo. This isn't the most common .308 ammo out there. Can we conclude that these were likely police or SWAT sniper shootings? If so, then you should expect a very high proportion of one shot stops for obvious reasons. Also, average penetration was given as about 25 inches; that would be unlikely to be measurable in front to back (or back-front) hits on the torso, or extremities or head and neck; in most humans that would be a through-and-through wound. So, how was average penetration measured?

As noted, there is a great deal of controversy about using these data as reliable probability figures.

csmsss
January 13, 2009, 01:47 PM
If this "data" is from the Marshall/Sanow book, then supposedly it's based only on center mass/torso shots. There have been many objections raised over the years to the Marshall/Sanow methodology and conclusions, and it's far from established that their conclusions are, indeed, valid and predictive.

I'll not comment further, but count me OUT of the Marshall/Sanow camp.

FM12
January 13, 2009, 02:47 PM
Speaking of the 30-30, I saw some pics of a drunk shot and killed by a 30-30 at CLOSE range. He died so fast, that when he collpased, he held on to this beer in one hand and the cigarette in the other. Nevewr did let go of either one!:eek:

curt.45
January 13, 2009, 03:09 PM
He died so fast, that when he collapsed, he held on to this beer in one hand and the cigarette in the other. Never did let go of either one!

so does the shooter get points for style or the dead guy for not wasting beer?


a total comparison of all shootings would be nice but probably impossible to get.


and my other idea would be totally out of the question, getting a bunch of bad guys together and shooting them at different ranges with different calibers and recording the data.

TacticalDefense1911
January 13, 2009, 03:33 PM
One shot stop statistics are not gospel and Marshall will agree with that; he teaches shoot to lock-back. It is just one way of many to compare calibers. All they show is that with torso shots, the primary handgun calibers (9mm, 40 s&w, 45, 357 Sig, 357 mag, 10mm) are effective at stopping a threat 90% of the time. They also show the drastic difference in effectiveness of a jhp vs. fmj.

I did find some of the expansion and penetration information in Marshalls book to be interesting; some bullet that do not perform well in 4 layer denim and jello tests work just fine on people. It just goes to show you that you cant base your choices on just one set of information.

Webleymkv
January 13, 2009, 03:39 PM
Some people (such as more than a few over a firearmstactical) seem to think that Marsahall and Sanow intentionally "cooked the books" but I find that a bit hard to believe. It is true, however, that there are some statistical errors in the data and that certain factors such as the person who was shot and shot placement aren't really taken fully into account. I think we can draw some general conclusions from the study though. By and large, JHP is better than FMJ or LRN, a .357 Magnum is better than a .25ACP, a rifle or shotgun is better than a handgun, etc.

Sam06
January 13, 2009, 03:49 PM
I keep a 30-30 in My truck as my primary SD weapon. My Pistol is just to fight my way to the rifle. I thought the 30-30 with its friendly wood stock and cowboy looks would be less threatening than my M4. Its good to know that if I shot a drunk he will be DRT and not spill any beer:D

I am not so sure their this data is true. Its hard to believe that many folks have been killed with PMC ammo. Look at the 38spl data. If its to be believed the 38spl in a 2" gun is more deadly that in a 4".

M&S have been compiling this data for a long time but I am leery of some of it. I checked out the "Best Self Defense ammo" article and the data is almost wholly based on testing.

There are some good points to these tests though:

1. Have a Gun
2. A man with a rifle will kill a man with a pistol, right Blondie:)
3. Bullet placement is king and Penetration is queen.

Lastly I did not see any shotgun data, maybe I missed it but a shotgun would be my second choice after a rifle for SD(Notice I did not say CCW)

abber
January 13, 2009, 03:58 PM
Just more proof that the .357 is king! At least among the short guns.

TacticalDefense1911
January 13, 2009, 04:03 PM
I am not so sure their this data is true. Its hard to believe that many folks have been killed with PMC ammo.

The data provided is not just from deaths. "Stop" is just referring to stopping the threat from attacking you; you do not have to kill someone to stop their attacks.

FM12
January 13, 2009, 05:26 PM
Curt.45: Another time, two of our guys got into a shootout, shot the badguy 7 or 8 times with 9mm of some type (not sure of bullet) and he lived, although he is now using the colostomy waste removal and collection system. Shortly after we went to the .40S&W. No shootouts since then.

The guy shot with the 30-30 was the dangest thing I've ever seen though.:eek:

curt.45
January 13, 2009, 05:31 PM
ah, the wonderful "colostomy waste removal and collection system", at least he has a remembrance of the incident.

scorpion_tyr
January 13, 2009, 07:09 PM
Nice database, just don't forget to take it for what it's worth, nothing more. A hit with a .22 LR beats a miss with a .50 BMG everytime.

Dr. Strangelove
January 13, 2009, 07:20 PM
I don't come to this side of the playground very often, but this one piqued my curiosity.

For my addition to the discussion, just taking the data at face value without discussion of it's validity, it appears that pretty much any firearm will disable a human being. I was frankly surprised at the 27% one shot stop rate for a .25 auto. Not bad, coming from a cartridge where you can visually track the bullet on the way to the target on a sunny day. (I'm not kidding)

On another note, as many other posters mentioned - I'm shocked at how many people are shot with a .30-30. Seriously??? Who shoots someone with a lever-action rifle? Maybe it's just because so many were made and are left leaning in the corner loaded so that's what folks grab?

Quote:
He died so fast, that when he collapsed, he held on to this beer in one hand and the cigarette in the other. Never did let go of either one!

so does the shooter get points for style or the dead guy for not wasting beer?

I'm no expert, but I'd guess both, maybe splitting points at the minimum, though the dead guy probably loses points for doing whatever got him shot. Maybe it was the last beer? Course, the shooter would loose points if it was found he was using cheap foreign ammunition. Why use an American classic to shoot someone only to spoil it by using PMC ammo?

Lastly, we ought to be careful about how this information gets spread - if the gang-bangers have that table read to them, they'll be out buying up all the lever-actions! I can see it now - gold plated model 94's in all the rap videos, big tassels on the lanyard rings, rifle racks in the back windows of all the hoopties, sampling quotes from "The Rifleman", John Wayne spinning in his grave...

Whirlwind06
January 13, 2009, 07:39 PM
Isn't this where they went out and shot a buch of goats or sheep?

csmsss
January 13, 2009, 07:49 PM
Isn't this where they went out and shot a buch of goats or sheep?No, that's the apocryphal (and possibly entirely fictional) Strasbourg tests. The Strasbourg tests are even more hotly contested and debated than the Marshall/Sanow data.

David Armstrong
January 13, 2009, 08:03 PM
Not bad, coming from a cartridge where you can visually track the bullet on the way to the target on a sunny day. (I'm not kidding)
You can do that with a 45ACP also.

nate45
January 13, 2009, 08:38 PM
Just more proof that the .357 is king! At least among the short guns.

LOL, Its 2009 and people are still making that claim. Will it ever end?

Back in the day the .357 propelled a poorly designed bullet fast enough to get some expansion. Nowadays it is obvious from ballistics testing that there are far better choices.

Here is a some good information for those who doubt evidence based research and prefer 'street' results:

...the CHP, the largest agency to issue .357 Mag 125 gr JHP’s on the West Coast, clearly reports significantly better results in their officer involved shootings since switching to .40 S&W 180 gr JHP loadings, based on officer perception, objective crime scene measurements, as well as the physiological damage described in the relevant autopsy studies. The CHP used a variety of .357 Mag loads, depending upon what was available via the state contract. According to the published CHP test data from 1989-90,the .357 Magnum load used immediately prior to the CHP transition to .40 S&W was the Remington 125 gr JHP with an ave. MV of 1450 f/s from their duty revolvers. I first saw the data when it was presented during a wound ballistic conference I attended at the CHP Academy in the early 1990's; I heard it discussed again at a CHP Officer Involved Shootings Investigation Team meeting in November of 1997 at Vallejo, CA. The information reviewed the differences in ammunition terminal performance such as penetration depth, recovered bullet characteristics, tissue damage and other physiological measurements and physical evidence detailed during forensic analysis.-Dr. Gary Roberts

abber
January 13, 2009, 11:30 PM
LOL, Its 2009 and people are still making that claim. Will it ever end?

At the end of the day, percentage is percentage. I have a .40 but I'll keep the "old" .357 at bedside, thank you. Just what makes me feel the safest.

B.N.Real
January 14, 2009, 06:20 AM
I wish they had a minimum barrel length used for the handgun cartridges.

Normally with the revolver ones,I would guess it was four inches.

BlueTrain
January 14, 2009, 06:42 AM
One thing you might conclude from the chart is that there is no "good" cartridge that is never used to kill people, such as the .30-30 deer rifle, though I must admit there are certainly plenty not listed. Likewise, there is no "good guy" gun, like a Colt Python, or a "bad guy" gun, like a Taurus.

I believe the idea behind testing is to try to learn something about brand new cartridges and also to compare different things in a controlled environment. I think most critics of these statistics and test results read more into them than the authors ever do. Besides, they just might conflict with their own opinions now and then. Regarding the statistics, they are naturally limited in that (presumably) only a limited number of shootings actually make it into the database because there has to be enough information about the actual shooting to make the incident useful and more importantly, the incident has to be one in which a person was only hit once. Obviously, right away the information only has limited value, which is not to say it is worthless.

Now if you could come up with some statistics about the misses.

Brian Pfleuger
January 14, 2009, 11:14 AM
test results


Just as a clarifier, these are not test results. These particular numbers are studies of actual shootings.

nate45
January 14, 2009, 11:23 AM
At the end of the day, percentage is percentage.

Percentage of what is the question?

I understand the desire to have added 'faith' and confidence in ones chosen handguns abilities, but perhaps you are unfamiliar with statistical analysis and probabilities.

Below is an informative article you might like to read on the subject. There are quite a few others available as well.

The Marshall & Sanow "Data" - Statistical Analysis Tells the Ugly Story (http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-statistical-analysis.htm)
By Duncan MacPherson

The conclusion reached by this accurate and mathematically sound analysis was, that the probability that the Marshall & Sanow "data base" is an assembly of valid information from uncorrupted sources is so low that this "data base" cannot reasonably be believed.

The best Marshall & Sanow ever did was 1 in 80 million that their "data" occurred by chance. Sadly their next effort resulted in 1 in 3 trillion probability that their "data" occurred by chance. If thats not too preposterous to be believed, then I don't know what is.

Brian Pfleuger
January 14, 2009, 07:38 PM
If we assume that the numbers in the database are "wrong" then, are they randomly wrong or consistently wrong?

If the data collection techniques were controlled and repeated, the data could still provide an overall feel for caliber effectiveness compared to other calibers, even if the exact figures are not correct.

You have to admit that, in a very general sense, the numbers are consistent with expectations. i.e.- Small caliber weapons are considerably less effective than large caliber or high powered weapons.

csmsss
January 14, 2009, 09:47 PM
You have to admit that, in a very general sense, the numbers are consistent with expectations. i.e.- Small caliber weapons are considerably less effective than large caliber or high powered weapons.It has also been argued that Marshall and Sanow arbitrarily rejected shootings data that fell outside the parameters of those expectations. Since they and they alone chose which shootings to include in their study and which to exclude (and have never provided any sort of documentation of how rigorously and consistently their selection methodology was applied), there really is no way of assessing the reliability and predictive quality of their conclusions.

In short, there's no way of telling whether they threw out data that didn't conform to their preexisting expectations - Garbage In, Garbage Out.

csmsss
January 14, 2009, 09:53 PM
weird...I posted a message to another thread and instead it posted here.

regal
January 20, 2009, 11:56 AM
Isn't it odd that the .223 was only used in 39 some odd shootings? That is a red flag to me that this isn't a very comprehensive database.

Brian Pfleuger
January 20, 2009, 12:01 PM
Isn't it odd that the .223 was only used in 39 some odd shootings?

I don't find that odd at all. For two reasons:

1)These are, largely, if not entirely, civilian shootings. I'd guess that the 223 is used fairly rarely in SD, especially outside the home. Even at home, most SD shooting are either handgun or shotgun.

2) It is by no means and exhaustive list. These are the shooting available to the authors for study.

regal
January 20, 2009, 12:07 PM
don't find that odd at all. For two reasons:

1)These are, largely, if not entirely, civilian shootings


Wouldn't it make since to look at police shootings? Much larger well documented database.

Brian Pfleuger
January 20, 2009, 12:14 PM
Wouldn't it make since to look at police shootings?

I'd like to see that. Do you have access to one? Access is largely the problem. Also, a police database would give us mostly information about a select few cartridges. Mostly, 40acp, 223, and 12ga and, from the olden days, 357. There are certainly more cartridges than that used by police but they are substantially more rare than these. The 40 and 357 would really be the only useful numbers to civilians, IMO. We pretty well know what a 12ga and 223 does to a human target.

nate45
January 20, 2009, 12:55 PM
These are, largely, if not entirely, civilian shootings.

NO, they are not.

For instance the .357 'data' is almost entirely law enforcement shootings.

These are the shooting available to the authors for study.

Marshall and Sanow tout the fact that they had access to police and police department records.

I always wonder if many of the people who discuss this have actually ever killed anything or observed gunshot wounds in person. Those of us who have know for certain that there are no magic .45 or .357 bullets that can drop someone 96 + % of the time with a random torso hit, for other that psychological reasons.

I rarely if ever see any regular posters from the hunting forum on this site wondering if a puny little pistol bullet has the power to 'drop' someone if it doesn't hit their CNS.

Read this 1989 FBI report on Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness (http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm) then you will realize that there is no physiological reason for a bullet that does not strike the CNS to immediately incapacitate someone. Even if the heart or major blood vessels are hit 20% of blood volume must be lost to cause incapacitation.

Each shooting is a unique event, how one person reacted does not determine how another might.

Brian Pfleuger
January 20, 2009, 01:07 PM
Those of us who have know for certain that there are no magic .45 or .357 bullets that can drop someone 96 + % of the time with a random torso hit, for other that psychological reasons.

I have killed many, many animals with several varieties of firearms and arrows also. I personally don't take this data as "one shot KILL" I take it as one shot STOP. The BG can be hit in the arm. If they stop, it's a one shot stop. There's a big difference between animal targets and people targets. People know what a gun is and know what it does. Animals know "danger". People react psychologically, animals do not, therefore, the psychological aspect is important in stopping human targets.

Does a 380acp lack a psychological impact that a 357mag has? I don't know. The big shiny revolver alone may stop some people that the little 380 auto will not.


For instance the .357 'data' is almost entirely law enforcement shootings.

Most of the rest civilian, like I said, with the exception of the "police calibers". Police use 40, 357, 12ga, 223, occasionally a couple others. The rest is civilian.

I find the hard core vitriol about this data almost as amusing as the Glock haters tirades. Don't like it, don't believe it? Fine. I'm not sure I believe most of it or that it particularly matters either way but I am amused by the people who are hell bent on convincing others that it's crap, like they have some sort of personal stake in the opinions, which I can't imagine that anyone would.

At the very least, this data represents a piece of the puzzle. Keep what works, discard what doesn't. Eventually, with enough data we learn something.

nate45
January 20, 2009, 01:43 PM
At the very least, this data represents a piece of the puzzle. Keep what works, discard what doesn't. Eventually, with enough data we learn something.

If you are interested in shooting data I posted some actual shooting data right on this page. Remember?

...the CHP, the largest agency to issue .357 Mag 125 gr JHP’s on the West Coast, clearly reports significantly better results in their officer involved shootings since switching to .40 S&W 180 gr JHP loadings, based on officer perception, objective crime scene measurements, as well as the physiological damage described in the relevant autopsy studies.

CHP thats the California Highway Patrol.


Does a 380acp lack a psychological impact that a 357mag has? I don't know. The big shiny revolver alone may stop some people that the little 380 auto will not.


I don't know and no one else does either. Psycological reasons can not be counted on to stop someone and vary from person to person. One person might faint at the sight of a .22, another might absorb a whole magazine of .45 ACP and still hit you in the head with a hatchet.

Read the FBI report (http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf) I supplied a link to, if you don't want to here is its conclusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Physiologically, no caliber or bullet is certain to incapacitate any individual unless the brain is hit. Psychologically, some individuals can be incapacitated by minor or small caliber wounds. Those individuals who are stimulated by fear, adrenaline, drugs, alcohol, and/or sheer will and survival determination may not be incapacitated even if mortally wounded.

The will to survive and to fight despite horrific damage to the body is commonplace on the battlefield, and on the street. Barring a hit to the brain, the only way to force incapacitation is to cause sufficient blood loss that the subject can no longer function, and that takes time. Even if the heart is instantly destroyed, there is sufficient oxygen in the brain to support full and complete voluntary action for 10-15 seconds.

Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding. Penetration less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, "too little penetration will get you killed." Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet.

Keep what works, discard what doesn't. Eventually, with enough data we learn something.

We already have enough data, we have had for 20+ years. There are no magic bullets and every shooting is a unique event.

Socrates
January 20, 2009, 02:34 PM
Everybody has an angle. Look at the S&M data as an add for Federal Magic bullets, and you get the general idea.

Look at the data for some of this stuff, like Winchester 30 carbine, and it gets the BS Meter going off the scale.

A .357 is now more effective then a .30 Caliber rifle?
Come on...So, a .357 federal is better then a .30 caliber rifle 115 SP going 2200-2400 fps?:barf::barf:

The FBI was trying to sell the 10MM at the time that was written, and move away from revolvers. They had to justify an incredible increase in
ammo costs, going from lead revolver rounds to jacketed semi-auto rounds, and new guns. Also, I think that was right after the Platt shooting, where 38's didn't penetrate enough...

Sparks2112
January 20, 2009, 02:43 PM
A .357 is now more effective then a .30 Caliber rifle?
Come on...So, a .357 federal is better then a .30 caliber rifle 115 SP going 2200-2400 fps?

Why would it not be? a .30 carbine doesn't fragment, doesn't tumble, doesn't expand much. It pokes roughly a .30-.45 caliber hole through someone. Placement is key, not a big enough sampling source, etc... etc... blah blah blah.

nate45
January 20, 2009, 03:11 PM
Why would it not be?

So are you saying that a .357 125 grain HP bullet at 1450 fps is more effective and does more damage than a .30 caliber 115 grain SP (Soft Point) at 2200-2400 fps?

Placement is key, not a big enough sampling source, etc... etc... blah blah blah.

What exactly does this mean? Are you saying that shot placement is not the key to handgun effectiveness? If you are why don't you enlighten us to what is?

Brian Pfleuger
January 20, 2009, 03:16 PM
If I had to choose to be shot with a .357mag hollow point or a .30 cal rifle solid, I'd pick the 30cal. Now, if it was JHP vs JHP I'd rather take the 357. All things considered, I'd prefer to stay away from either.

Socrates
January 20, 2009, 03:46 PM
http://www.handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp?Caliber=21&Weight=All
JSP IS AN EXPANDING BULLET, AND, AT THAT WEIGHT, IT WILL EITHER EXPAND, OR TUMBLE

OK: so, a 30-30 rifle, with a .308" caliber bullet, moving about 2500 fps, is LESS effective then a .357" with a 125 grain bullet, at about 1450 fps???:barf:

The .357 is more effective, with 12" of penetration, pretty much on average, vs. a .308" bullet that expands, and puts two big holes in it's target, not really slowing down much?

WOW!
I didn't realize I had a magic gun in my .357" that is more powerful, or at least more likely for a one shot stop then a 30-30 rifle? AND, my magic 357 is only 2% less effective then a .308 RIFLE!!!:eek: And, did you know that ALL 308 shootings were done using Match ammo, or military ball, except for Federal's TBBC, which is actually 2% less effective then the Match ammo these guys are all using?
NOW FOR THE MOST AMAZING STAT: If the guy with the .308 uses Federals TBBC ammo, my .357 now is 1% more likely to have a one shot stop then a .308 RIFLE.:eek::rolleyes:
So, where did the stats come from? SWAT snipers?

There is another sort of common sense approach to this.

A one shot stop is most likely to occur when the target is head shot. Head shots are difficult, and, that would explain the high percentage of one shot stops with .357.

Another explanation is MANY of those 357 one shot stops are police officers, off duty, using 357 snubs, at night. The flash bang, at close range, might seriously add to the one shot stop effectiveness.

The bottom line is this: rifles are rifles, MOST pistols are pistols.

.308" caliber rifles have a long history of being VERY effective in a couple World Wars, and, on just about everything else. The .357 magnum does NOT have that history, experience, and reputation, except in the imaginations of a few folks.

So, given a choice, take the RIFLE.

Sparks2112
January 20, 2009, 04:20 PM
Since I know where this is headed, I will just say that I was trying to illustrate all of this had been discussed, and that shot placement is the ONLY consideration once you reach a certain caliber (I.E. one's that penetrate 12 inches or more).

I've shot a .30 carbine a lot, and have talked to people who've actually USED THEM IN COMBAT. They were not impressed, and though I've never shot at someone with one it wouldn't be my first choice either. I will take a rifle platform for it's accuracy any day, BUT, if I had the choice of the same platform chambered in either .357 or 30 carbine I'd take the .357. That's just me.

nate45
January 20, 2009, 04:48 PM
I will just say that I was trying to illustrate all of this had been discussed, and that shot placement is the ONLY consideration once you reach a certain caliber (I.E. one's that penetrate 12 inches or more).

I've shot a .30 carbine a lot, and have talked to people who've actually USED THEM IN COMBAT.

OK, sorry I misunderstood you and I agree the FMJ 110 grain .30 Carbine is not very good.

Socrates
January 20, 2009, 05:36 PM
Wasn't a discussion of ball ammo. Point is made that 357 in a RIFLE, will push a 110 grain bullet 2400 fps, and the .30 carbine only 2100 fps.

I stand corrected on the .357 loads these guys are using. If the ammo is loaded to max specs, with a 125 grain bullet, Hodgon says with 296, and a few others, you can move an XTP 1966 fps. Now, in that case, I agree, I'll go with the .357, if you can find a handgun that shoots 2000 fps, with a 125 grain bullet, in 357.

The current Federal 357 magnum doesn't even come in a 110 grain bullet. They use a 125 or 130 grain bullet, rated at 1440 fps.

I suppose one could argue that in the old days, when .357 was .357, it WAS that good a stopper, since it was pretty much a rifle round in a handgun, flat shooting, hits hard...

Federal offers Rifle ammo in 357 that moves a 180 grain bullet at 1550 fps, which is just starting to show the actual potential of fully loaded ammunition in this cartridge.

Here's Double Taps loads:
This loading makes the .357 Magnum perform like it should!
Velocity is from a 4" bbl and there is virtually no muzzle flash.
For those of you who prefer a wheelgun, this might be the most
effective loading available for defense.

Velocity: 1600fps / 4" Ruger GP-100
1425fps / 1 7/8" S&W
1750fps / 6"bbl S&W 686

Bullet: Speer Gold Dot

Muzzle Energy: 710 ft. lbs.

http://www.buffalobore.com/ammunition/default.htm#357



1. 3 inch S&W J frame

a. Item 19A/20-180gr. Hard cast LFN = 1302 fps
b. Item 19B/20-170gr. JHC (jacketed hollow cavity) = 1299 fps
c. Item 19C/20-158gr. Speer Uni Core = 1398 fps
d. Item 19D/20-125gr. Speer Uni Core = 1476 fps

2. 4 inch S&W L frame Mt. Gun

a. Item 19A/20-180gr. Hard cast LFN = 1375 fps
b. Item 19B/20-170gr JHC = 1411 fps
c. Item 19C/20-158gr. Speer Uni Core = 1485 fps
d. Item 19D/20-125gr. Speer Uni Core = 1603 fps

3. 5 inch S&W model 27

a. Item 19A/20-180gr. Hard Cast =1398 fps
b. Item 19B/20-170gr. JHC = 1380 fps
c. Item 19C/20-158gr. Speer Uni Core = 1457 fps
d. Item 19D/20-125gr. Speer Uni Core = 1543 fps

4. 6 inch Ruger GP 100

a. Item 19D/20-125gr. Speer Uni Core = 1707 fps

5. 18.5 inch Marlin 1894

a. Item 19A/20-180gr. Hard Cast = 1851 fps
b. Item 19B/20-170gr. JHC = 1860 fps
c. Item 19C/20-158gr. Speer Uni Core = 2153 fps---- Can you believe this?!!!
d. Item 19D/20-125gr. Speer Uni Core = 2298 fps---- Or this?!!!

Larry Spencer
January 20, 2009, 06:51 PM
Hey Peetzakilla,

I was the guy that posted the link that is the subject of this thread, a few days ago. Although I think arguing over what round is better, is a waste of time, I thought it was a good illustration that deserved a post in a thread that was first comparing the .22LR with the .25auto, and then the .38/9mm size rounds.

Boy.. was I was wasting my time!

The .25auto guy came back with something like this:

"Since the .25auto had more total stops than the .38spl, that proves it is a better self-defense round than the .38spl."

Can't argue with that kind of logic, can you?! :eek:


.

Stevie-Ray
January 20, 2009, 07:22 PM
Well, I like how my preferred carry load ranks. Tied for the #1 spot in handgun loads. (.45ACP 230gr HS) Nice expansion also.

Brian Pfleuger
January 20, 2009, 07:28 PM
Hey Peetzakilla,

I was the guy that posted the link that is the subject of this thread, a few days ago. Although I think arguing over what round is better, is a waste of time, I thought it was a good illustration that deserved a post in a thread that was first comparing the .22LR with the .25auto, and then the .38/9mm size rounds.

Boy.. was I was wasting my time!

Hey, if you start a thread with any thought besides "Well, I've got some time to waste..." then you're, hm,... wasting time I guess.... I don't even know what I just said.;):D

Sarge
January 20, 2009, 07:58 PM
If you look at the results of these and other studies, and compare that data to what you actually see in the field, on the streets and in the morgue; eventually you come around to the notion that a few standard rounds have been doing an awful lot of very efficient killing for an awful long time.

Yes, I know we're talking about 'stops' here but if you 'stop' some thing or some body with a cartridge that accomplishes it with vigor, then that stop is likely to be of a permanent nature.

When shot moderately well, the 30-30, .45 Auto and .357 have proven efffective for literally decades and long before high-tech bullets were available for any of them. They knock a good sized hole, all the way through 200+ pound live targets. The .40 has been a success for the same reason.

In fact, about the only way to screw up any of them is to use too light a bullet in them, or water them down in an effort to make them easy in the shooter.

Socrates
January 20, 2009, 09:50 PM
Yes, and it's really nice to know that my .357 snubby is the equal of a .308 rifle, with matchgrade bullets...:rolleyes:

I agree with you Sarge, but, none of the basis for my agreement has anything to do with that garbage posted as 'data'....

AZAK
January 22, 2009, 05:58 AM
"Since the .25auto had more total stops than the .38spl, that proves it is a better self-defense round than the .38spl."
emphasis by AZAK
Actual quote was:
Using the numbers from this reference, more "one shot stops" were made using .25acp then .38 special. While the percentage was higher for the .38 special, the actual number of stops was higher for the .25acp.
Which was the entire quote/posting in that reply. #162 Would you feel safe carrying a .25 ACP pistol in your pocket?

No mention of proving anything.

JohnKSa
January 22, 2009, 06:08 AM
I suppose one could argue that in the old days, when .357 was .357, it WAS that good a stopper, since it was pretty much a rifle round in a handgun, flat shooting, hits hard...In the old days manufacturers tested for velocity in a 15+ inch non-vented barrel and published those results without caveat. In addition, the fact that there were virtually NO chronographs in private hands no doubt made them feel free to "round" the velocity figures up a bit as well.

Today revolver rounds are typically tested for velocity in 4" vented test barrels and anyone can own a chronograph to double-check the published numbers if they're willing to shell out $70.

The last test I saw comparing several types of vintage ammo to modern stuff indicated that the velocities were essentially identical. That test didn't include products from any of the "boutique" manufacturers who are putting out pistol ammunition in selected calibers that outperforms (in terms of velocity) anything that was available back in the "good old days".

Larry Spencer
January 22, 2009, 08:59 AM
Guess ole Massad Ayoob is right:
"A .25 is a nice thing to have when you don't have a gun."


.

AZAK
January 22, 2009, 01:56 PM
"A .25 is a nice thing to have when you don't have a gun."
post 60 above


If you check page 36 you will see that Mr. Ayoob is actually quoting someone else, and the wording is a little different. (As is the context. Read it for yourself; the story about the small boy killing his mother's attacker with a .25 ...)

As the streetwise martial artist Bill Aguiar put it, "A .25 auto is something you carry when you're not carrying a gun."
- this is the actual quote from the section titled "Micro Handguns" on page 36

Socrates
January 22, 2009, 02:23 PM
JohnSKA:

In looking at Hogdon's reloading stuff on .357, in particular with the 115-125 grain bullets, I was impressed with velocity that the average SD load from the big three comes no where close to.

I know Lee Jurras did some stuff with light fast, tarring to hold the bullet in place, extreme crimping, to allow himself to get 185 JHP's moving at 1900 fps, out of a 4-6" barrel.

Despite your comments, I don't see ANY ammo from the big 3 that approaches Jurras, Buffalobore, or Double Taps. Since the data is fairly old in S&M's stuff,
I was suggesting a possible explanation was the big 3 loaded stock ammo faster in those days. I was looking for SOME rational way to explain the effectiveness attributed to some of these rounds...

Larry Spencer
January 22, 2009, 02:28 PM
Give it up AZAK... It's juvenile looking.

AZAK
January 22, 2009, 02:39 PM
I was the guy that posted the link that is the subject of this thread, a few days ago.

If you are going to mention that you provided the information for this thread, and then use other people's quotes in this thread and other threads to make points of your own, I would think that the least you could do is to quote someone correctly, it would tend to strengthen the credibility of your argument.

Larry Spencer
January 22, 2009, 02:59 PM
AZAK,

I did not quote you. Besides the quote above is from Mr. Ayoob's book In The Gravest Extreme" Chapter 14.

Please quit stalking me around the forums trying to pick a fight. It is juvenile.

AZAK
January 22, 2009, 03:29 PM
Let us take this one step at a time.
AZAK,

I did not quote you.

I was the guy that posted the link that is the subject of this thread, a few days ago. Although I think arguing over what round is better, is a waste of time, I thought it was a good illustration that deserved a post in a thread that was first comparing the .22LR with the .25auto, and then the .38/9mm size rounds.

Boy.. was I was wasting my time!

The .25auto guy came back with something like this:

"Since the .25auto had more total stops than the .38spl, that proves it is a better self-defense round than the .38spl."
#53 of this thread Emphasis by AZAK

These were actually two different threads that you are referencing. One a poll concerning the .25 acp round and if one would feel safe carrying it. The other was asking for preference between two caliber hand guns, the .25 ACP or .22 Mag.

Some of the material/evidence that you provided as "quoted" in these threads, including your Ayoob reference are identical to one found on someone's personal blog from 2007. (Which included the anecdotal stories of Cooper and Ayoob in the same order and wording.)

My quote from Ayoob comes directly from the source, the author's book.

As to In The Gravest Extremes I personally do not have this Ayoob book, I will be checking into it.

When providing evidence to support any argument, whether in the form of statistics or quotes, I am going to go to the source. I am also going to be questioning of "evidence" that comes second, third hand or appears to be having an agenda of its own.

Larry Spencer
January 22, 2009, 05:30 PM
Hey AZAK,

Guess ole Massad Ayoob is right:
"A .25 is a nice thing to have when you don't have a gun." :)

Huey Long
January 22, 2009, 06:05 PM
Isn't it odd that the .223 was only used in 39 some odd shootings? That is a red flag to me that this isn't a very comprehensive database.

I count over a thousand shootings with .223/5.56 NATO. Perhaps you were only looking at a certain bullet weight.

JohnKSa
January 23, 2009, 01:05 AM
Despite your comments, I don't see ANY ammo from the big 3 that approaches Jurras, Buffalobore, or Double Taps.I agree with that, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. What I was arguing against was the idea that ammo was loaded a lot hotter in the "old days". For the most part the older velocity numbers from the major ammunition companies were inflated by the testing method--something that became impossible with the advent of cheap chronographs.Since the data is fairly old in S&M's stuff, I was suggesting a possible explanation was the big 3 loaded stock ammo faster in those days. I was looking for SOME rational way to explain the effectiveness attributed to some of these rounds...There are several possible explanations. Here are some, I'm sure there are others.

The rounds in question were effective then and are effective now. In other words, there's no need to look for a reason why the numbers say they're effective, the numbers say they're effective because they were and are effective.

OR

Blast & flash are pretty impressive in the .357. It seems to be fairly well accepted that rapid "incapacitation" is often a voluntary phenomenon. In other words people fall down when they get shot because that's what they think happens to people who get shot. More blast & flash may very well contribute to this phenomenon.

OR

The numbers are just plain wrong. One shouldn't try to explain why they're correct because they're not correct.

OR

Some handgun rounds have historically been primarily used by "gunny" folks. Folks who are likely to practice enough to gain proficiency with their firearm. If a particular round in question fits that description then it may seem to be very effective because the people who chose to use that caliber were typically more proficient than average.

Socrates
January 23, 2009, 04:08 PM
You've made some excellent points. My first shooting experience, around 30 years ago my friend took me out with M1A's, AR-15's, Macs, A Colt Python, 44 mag colt, 45 ACP Gold Cup, and a 22 or so. He loaded his Python with 125's, as fast as he could, and, he liked that load since it had little recoil, a ton of bang and flash, and was very flat shooting.

The combination of his shooting skill, the Python 4", and, that round made for a deadly combination. He was likewise as effective with the other rounds as well.

Put in a bad spot, the likelyhood of any of the major caliber weapons, even the 22's really, being near a 95% or better, one shot stop was very good, in his hands, be it .357 or .308".

That's one of the reasons I REALLY don't trust the 'statistics'. Calibers that are generally shooters calibers, 44 special and Mag, and 45 Colt, in particular, are on a par with .380", according to this database.

The 44 magnum is a huge step up in a deer round, and, likewise a shooters cartridge. The highest stopping number is 92%, and the lowest is 76%. I just don't buy that, and, the 'data' indicates consistent penetration of 15-19"??? With bullets being recovered from .44 to .81"
If you look at ballistic gelatin testing of the 44 magnum in 240 grain and uploads, it is completely contrary to the 'data' presented from M&S.
I just don't buy you would ever find a LFN 240 grain 44 magnum bullet, much less have it stop in 21" of human, ON AN AVERAGE...:rolleyes:

The 45 Colt and 44 Special are equally contrary to 100 years of experience, and usage.

While I do understand the major ammomakers ability to download such calibers so that they are equal to .380 in effectiveness and ballistics, I just can't believe that people that actually depend on those calibers for their lives would use such anemic ammunition, or shoot that poorly with 44 SP, or 45 Colt both pretty much have no recoil, considering the anemic ammo they listed in the 'database'.

Same goes for 10MM, 41 magnum, and, the penetration results are particularly weird...

NAKing
January 23, 2009, 04:54 PM
I find all of these "stopping statistics databases" to be misleading at best.

Thankfully, (but too bad for us) there really haven't been a statistically significant amount of documented cases involving a particular ammunition.

I still say if you pick a good quality expanding bullet for any major caliber and put enough powder below it to allow optimum performance, then you're doing fine (provided you can place the shot).

nate45
January 23, 2009, 05:15 PM
In other words people fall down when they get shot because that's what they think happens to people who get shot.

Given the relatively puny nature of handguns thats always seemed like a logical explanation to me. Also it could simply be that they don't want to get shot again.

Stevie-Ray
January 23, 2009, 11:35 PM
Tied for the #1 spot in handgun loads. (.45ACP 230gr HS)Actually I take that back, it's in the #1 position by 1/100 of 1%. (Using nothing but THEIR figures):D Still ranked behind the .357 as M&S probably don't want their pet load overtaken on paper by anything. I also could never understand the 10mm figures as opposed to the .40 figures; that just doesn't cut it.

razorburn
January 24, 2009, 07:28 AM
100%, completely and utterly useless and meaningless without them supplying us with p-values to determine if the differences are statistically significant, or a natural result of variation.

A classic example of bad statistics!
Would not be accepted by any journal, heck, even a high school statistics teacher would give it an F and make you redo it!

Deet
January 24, 2009, 08:08 AM
You young guys crack me up. You look at stats, data, bullet weights and powder charges and try to convince everyone that you can determine a guns effectiveness from data. For the last 30 years you have proven that the 9mm is so great that you come up with 2 com and 1 head to help justify its stopping power. IMO a round that needs three shots to stop someone is under-powered. Also a round that needs the "right" bullet weight and design to work is also under-powered. This "data" has been gathered over my lifetime.
If you want to know everything, look at the old guys at the range, I bet most of them have a .357 or .44 that they shoot everytime at the range. We learned in the 70's that a magnum kicks harder, makes more smoke, and makes alot of noise, and therefore it simply must be more powerful. (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.)
Now before all you young hot shots tear me apart, I ask you to try an experiment first. Get your Glocks, Smiths, Rugers etc and go fire your .38spl, 9mm and .380's at the range. Then go borrow a magnum revolver from an older gentleman and fire it- I then believe you will understand what firepower is all about. If you must you can now cut and paste this post and make me look like a fool, but I honestly just posted to remind everyone that 30 years of real life experiences trumps all this "made up" data.

Webleymkv
January 24, 2009, 09:19 AM
Deet, while I agree that all else held equal a magnum revolver is probably better than the majority of popular semi-auto cartridges and non-magnum revolvers, you must remember that all typically is not equal. Many people simply cannot shoot a .357 or .44 Magnum quickly and accurately and are thusly better served with a less powerful cartridge since no amount of power will compensate for poor shot placement. Likewise, it must be remembered that no handgun cartridge is guaranteed to stop someone with a single shot (most rifle cartridges short of a .50 BMG aren't either). Finally, all handguns benifet from good bullets. I'd much rather have a 9mm or .38 Special with good quality JHP than a .357 or .44 Magnum with non-expanding bullets. If you do a search, you'll probably find an old thread comparing 9mm JHP to .45ACP FMJ, the vast majority of those posting said they would choose the 9mm JHP.

orionengnr
January 24, 2009, 09:37 AM
^^^^Deet:
Just to clarify:
"Firepower" is generally defined as round count. A Glock G-17 has "firepower"; a .357 Mag is a powerful round.

That said, I agree with the rest of your post. :)

Brian Pfleuger
January 24, 2009, 10:15 AM
"Firepower" is generally defined as round count. A Glock G-17 has "firepower"; a .357 Mag is a powerful round.

So an M1 Abrams with one round has less firepower than a Glock 36?


Just kidding, trying to pick a fight. ;)
No, just kidding again...:D

Larry Spencer
January 24, 2009, 10:57 AM
..

Socrates
January 25, 2009, 01:11 AM
My idea of stopping power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZCCbG8GIhg&feature=related

That said, are the failures to one shot stop from lack of caliber, or placement?
:rolleyes:

Socrates
January 25, 2009, 01:18 AM
On a more serious note:

At distances that actual SD shootings might take place, I'll take the .510 or .475 over 9mm. I'm not likely to get off a lot of shots on target anyway, and, the ones I have to get off better hit their target.

Huey Long
January 25, 2009, 01:37 AM
My idea of stopping power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZCCb...eature=related



<<<Deleted Link>>>

JohnKSa
January 25, 2009, 01:41 AM
Huey Long,

I deleted the link from your post because it was not gun related. If you did not mean to post a link to Tony Smith preaching then you're welcome to edit your post and put in the link you meant to post.

MarineCorpsAT
January 28, 2009, 07:27 PM
I think that things like this need to be taken with a grain of salt.

It seems that the talk about caliber is a never ending one. Kinda reminds me of the Ford v chevy debate that never seems to end.

The reality is that there are so many variables that go into how well a bullet will stop the target that it hits that no study will be able to provide accurate all inclusive data. A BB can stop an attack if the attacker is not too determined so what does it prove? That anything is better than nothing.

With the differences in firearms the variables of size, shape, determination, and presence of other "substances" IE alcohol and drugs in the body of the attacker and the skill of the shooter all coming into play there will never be an all incompasing answer to the question of which caliber is better.

Really it all comes down to what you prefer and shoot best. but in saying that remember that ones personal preference does not mean that it is the best.

nate45
January 28, 2009, 10:19 PM
This following is interesting, sort of, or maybe not, depending on the individual.:)

Back in the 80s I used the Speer 200 grain HP, over 11 grains of Unique in my .45 Colt and the 125 grain Sierra JHP over 18 grains of 2400 with a magnum primer, in my .357. At the time I felt like these were good defense loads, that would perform well given the then current state of bullet technology.

I currently use the Speer 250 grain Gold Dot over 17.5 grains of 2400 in .45 Colt and the 180 grain Nosler Partition HG over 14 grains of H110. While there are other acceptable choices that are currently available, I personally feel that those are two of the best preforming projectiles currently available.

http://www.TheFiringLine.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=41612&d=1233193865

L to R, Speer 200 grain JHP, Speer 250 grain GD, 125 grain Sierra, 180 grain Nosler HG.

Now the point of my post is, that although I believe that I'm using the best projectiles currently available in those calibers; would I feel at a great disadvantage, or under gunned if I were still using the loads I did in the 80s. The answer is no I would not. They are still fully capable of doing what they were intended to do, which is severely wound, kill and/or incapacitate someone.

Also at that time I used the 200 grain SWC, 230 grain FMJ or the Remington 230 grain HP for SD loads in my .45 ACPs, although I now use the 230 grain XTP in my .45 ACPs, I feel the same way about all of those, I would still use them and feel confident.

Round nose lead, full metal jacket and lead semi wadcutter bullets from the past are just as deadly as they ever where, which is very. Like Mike Irwin once opined when someone asked if a .38 Special was still effective, 'No, nowadays the RNL .38 actually heals people who are shot with it', or something to that effect. You get the idea of what he was trying to convey, of course it is still deadly and effective.

We all want validation and to have our confidence in our chosen defense rounds capabilities bolstered. I wish there were some certain way, to garantee a certain outcome, but there isn't. The simple truth is that despite all the past shootings and all the ballistic testing, there is no precise indicator of exactly how the shooting incident you might be involved in will transpire, or conclude.




tl;dr There are no magic bullets. Bullets of old, or modern, design can work if properly placed.


41612

Socrates
February 2, 2009, 07:39 PM
Nate45:
I agree with your progress. I used to have my seville loaded with 260 grain Sierra HPS at 1450 fps. Didn't recoil THAT bad, and, I had confidence that if it would do in a black bear, it would likewise take care of the bad guys that have come after me. For what it's worth, everyone that's ever tried to fight, or attack me has been over 6'2" tall, and, at least 230.
Haven't been many, but, that seems to be the bottomline.

That said, I found the roar of the 45 better then the bark of the 357, and, up until my snubbie, have never needed a 357 for defense.

Right now it's loaded with Fioochi 148's at 1131 fps. That's all I can shoot combat accurate out of it. I've tried heavier bullets, and, they recoil too much for me.

I'd rather have heavier bullets, but, the 148's are all I can handle.

Given my backstop situation, I'd use the best penetrating bullet I can get for caliber, read heaviest.

I do NOT like 200-230 grain bullet in 45 much. Unless they are going, really fast. I used to shoot a lot of ball ammo, and out of my Seville, it should have been going around 1700 fps, or faster.