One Shot Stops Database

[nate45]

Originally Posted by Sparks2112

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]

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]

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?!


.

[Stevie-Ray]

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]

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.

[Sarge]

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]

Yes, and it's really nice to know that my .357 snubby is the equal of a .308 rifle, with matchgrade bullets...

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

[AZAK]

"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]

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]

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


.

[AZAK]

"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]

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]

Give it up AZAK... It's juvenile looking.

[AZAK]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

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]

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) 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]

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]

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.