One-shot stop data

[Full Metal Jacket]

I read on this forum a little while ago that the U.S. goverment rates one-shot stops on the battlefield for 9mm NATO ball @ 63%, and .45ACP ball at 62%.
Can anyone show me the link that contains this data?

thanks.

[Japle]

A lot depends on your definition of a "one-shot stop".

Marshall & Sanow, using their difinition, report 62-63% for .45 FMJ and about 70% for 9mm. Other "experts" who depend on gello tests and lab formulas have their own definitions.

I'd be interested in seeing the government study.

John
Cape Canaveral

[GunnyBob]

For entertainment purposes only, of course:

http://www.handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp?Caliber=18&Weight=All

Brief Preview:

45 ACP Stopping Power, all bullet weights
Brand Bullet Shootings One Shot Stops Percent Diameter Penetration Notes
Remington 185 gr GS 83 80 96% 0.69" 12.4"
Federal 230 gr HS 173 166 96% 0.76" 13.9"
CCI 230 gr GD 45 42 93% 0.68" 12.2"
Corbon 185 gr JHP 20 18 90% 0.78" 11.1"
Remington 185 gr GS 39 35 90% 0.62" 11.3" 4" barrel or less
Remington 230 gr GS 10 9 90% 0.73" 12.9"

[bclark1]

man i should switch to the 155 grain hydrashoks, they'er killing my 165s... never knew 10 grains was the difference between 7 and 17 crackheads that keep chasing me down the street after i put one in 'em.

[CastleBravo]

This topic has been done to death. Suffice it to say, M&S have been comprehensively discredited.

One small bit of food for thought: M&S studies can't tell the difference between some .40 S&W loads, and a 12ga slug... they get almost the same OSS%.

So how can you expect them to detect small differences within the same caliber? The studies give essentially the same stopping power to a .400" 165gr @ 1,150 ft/sec pistol bullet as they do to a .729" 438gr @ 1,600 ft/sec shotgun slug.

:confused:

[bclark1]

sorry i forgot the :rolleyes: at the end of my post.
it's a good effort that they put forth and there's not much else to go on, but from a technical and mathematical point of view there are greivous errors.
i'd actually think it would be most correct within the same calibers, because it's the only apples-to-apples comparison they were able to do.

[Webleywielder]

I have been following the "Great Stopping Power Debate" for about 40 years. I have copies of the works of almost all the well known "experts". I have shot deer size and smaller animals with various handguns and the lighter, faster, expanding bullets are better. I once put a .22lr through the body of a gopher at a range of 6 inches and the damn thing crawled another 10 inches and disappeared down its hole. When you get a "one shot stop" remember to thank the gods for helping out a little. The "Great Debate" always reminds me of a story I heard about an early IPSC Champion (a senior moment is causing his name to escape my mind) when he shot a small deer type animal in South Africa while he was there for the World Championship. After hitting the animal twice with a .45 ACP with no effect the man said something to the effect "I guess the little deer hasn't read Jeff Cooper's little red book!"

Of all the experts who have put their opinions in writing, Marshall and Sanow is the most credible I have seen based on their methodology. Does it have some flaws? Yes, but they appear to be less flawed than anything else I have seen in the last 4 decades, most of which is based on non-empirical or irrelavant methods. The similar results for shotgun slugs is due to the fact that the slugs are all about the same shape, traveling at about the same speed and made of the same homogenous material. Remember you cannot be stopped more than 100% so yes it is possible for a handgun bullet to be just as effective as a slug under all but the most extraordinary circumstances.

"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun."

[Para Bellum]

M&S studies can't tell the difference between some .40 S&W loads, and a 12ga slug... they get almost the same OSS%.
so what? If some .40 S&W loads drop you instantly, a shotgun couldn't drop you more instantly, could it?

I always considered the one shot stop discussion for .40s and 9x19mm being ridiculous. Who bought a pistol in these calibers with 12 to 18 rounds to hit only once? That might be an issue in a 7-shot .45 1911 or a 6-shot .357 Mag revolver. Certrainly not in a modern pistol. Multiple hits - fast, that's what 9x19mm and .40s are made for. And that's what counts imo.

Stay safe.

[mete]

All attempts to put numbers on bullet performance have some serious flawes.My own research ,on live animals , shows a distinct difference between 9mm and 45. Caliber counts .This has been shown again and again in the real world .Why do you think there are laws requiring at least .375 caliber to hunt dangerous african game ?? But don't get hung up with numbers , remember to shoot and continue to shoot until the BG is no longer a threat. Only GOOD hits count.

[Wildcard]

1. One round fired, COM hit, target dies.
2. One round fired, COM hit, target incapacitated.
3. One round fired, COM hit, target doesn't stop and in fact kills his shooter, but then 2 seconds later hears his ex-wife yelling at him and so surrenders just to get away from her.
4. One round fired, head hit, target stops.
5. Two rounds fired in quick succession, target stops.
6. One round fired, left pinky shot off, target starts crying and surrenders.
7. One round fired, COM hit, target doesn't stop, two more rounds fired, COM hits, target stops.
8. Subject takes 14 rounds in the COM, head, and pelvis, doesn't stop, kills everyone within four square miles.
9. Six rounds fired, 3 COM hits, target doesn't stop.
10. Four rounds fired, 2 COM hits, 1 head hit, 1 pelvis hit, target doesn't stop.

[Mannlicher]

You can just throw out all the data on one shot stops. You have a darn good chance of finding you are on the short end of the percentage where the famous one shot stop did NOT happen.
Use enough gun, develop the mind set necessary to defend yourself, and practice, practice, practice.

[esldude]

Would be interested in how exactly one shot anything is studied in combat situations with the armed forces. I can't imagine how it could be very thoroughly done.

[Harlie]

Placement, placement, fast misses with any caliber, poor hits with any caliber, it's bullet placement, that determines the outcome and speed with which it happens. Every situation is, as people, different. Therefore the outcome isn't fully predictable or assured. Just think for a moment the horrific wounds/injuries that people have survived and now talk about "One shot stops", there are few, if any, guarantees of the outcome of any comfortation. So how can we assume that any one caliber is,was,can be better or the best for any given situation, IMHO, it can't. Studies only show what was researched at that time using a controled enviorment, and we don't live in such a world on a daily basis. Chose what works for you, have confidence in it, and practice to insure the best outcome, that you can deliver.

[yekimak]

I find it almost comical that we rely on such small cartridges for personal defense, I mean, would one use a 9mm or .45 acp on a deer hunt? Sometimes these cartridges are not even useful for the put down shot at close range (friend had 2 shots of .45 hardball glance off a caribou, though I am uncertain as to how well he placed these shots).

My point is that the basic cartridges available for self defense are puny, weak, and at best, barely adequate. Our intrigue with one shot stops and hyper performance ammo can be a dangerous infatuation. My personal example was with Aguila IQ ammo. It fit in with M&S's theories to a t, but even simple tests show that it is ineffective with the 9mm version penetrating a whole 3-4" in jello.

Light and fast don't always work, there seems to be some exceptions, most notably the .357 125 gr loading, but it is running at close to 1400 FPS. Unfortunately, I have yet to hit upon the magic formula that will determine for each caliber the proper bullet weight and speed to get the optimal performace for each cartridge, so we are here, stuck reading data, and guessing from 3rd hand reports of what works and what don't, and hoping what we have chosen will work well enough when the time arises.

I have never shot anyone. I hope to never have to, but if it happens, I know that it ain't gonna be like t.v., bad guys flying around and dropping dead, and it will probably be the worst day in both our lives.

[Eghad]

I am curios of how one develops a methodolgy for studing one shot stops even for war :confused:

I expect that under a stress situation you are likley to keep pulling the trigger till he drops or the magazzine runs dry... just my opinion not scientific fact.

So I would assume that on the first shot if the brain says you bought the farm there would be a good chance to get a second shot in :confused:

plus factoring in the Murphy factor.......

I see a study might be a good indicator of the event happening...but reality always manages to throw curve balls sometimes.

[jonathon]

All I know is.. I'm not goin to stop shooting till I see the intended target drop, or when I run out of ammo.

[Webleywielder]

Most of the restrictions were created when bullet technology was far more primative than it is today. By the way, I think some of those restrictions actually require .40 caliber or larger, not .375.

Technology changes. Nobody in 1880 was to keen on using a .375 caliber bullet launched by black powder against dangerous game.

High energy bullets with sufficient penetrating power to hit the vital organs and bone structures and not over penetrate are far more likely to deliver a devestating blow than high momentum bullets are on thin-skinned light-boned animals. Humans are thin-skinned light-boned animals.

Ultimately it is the placement of a bullet that has enough penetration and energy in a vital area to disrupt the ability to the living target to sustain action that counts. Please remember the greatest elephant hunter of all time (Bell) killed most of them with a little 7x57 Mauser firing solids into the brain.
Unfortunately brain shots are low percentage shots for 99.9% of self-defense and hunting scenarios. If they were not, we would all be hunting deer with FMJs.

"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun."

[CastleBravo]

If some .40 S&W loads drop you instantly, a shotgun couldn't drop you more instantly, could it?

The error here is actually believing that .40 S&W can consistently drop anything bigger than a gopher instantly. No study based on reality would produce identical "stopping power" results for a .40 S&W handgun cartridge and a 12ga shotgun slug... it just ain't physically possible. Yet the M&S OSS numbers do just that.

Ooh, convincing. :rolleyes:

Remember you cannot be stopped more than 100% so yes it is possible for a handgun bullet to be just as effective as a slug under all but the most extraordinary circumstances.

Pure comedy. Have you even looked at the projectiles side-by-side? :D

[Webleywielder]

If you are judging anything that has to do with firearms using a side by side criteria you are headed for Jutland. Battlecruisers look just like Battleships, in other words size does not determine effectiveness.

Oh wouldn't it be wonderful if life was so simple that side by side comparisons were sufficient! Things would be so much simpler and we would all be shooting the very impressive looking .50 Remington/M71 Army in our handguns.


"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun."

[Para Bellum]

I mean, would one use a 9mm or .45 acp on a deer hunt?
yes. A roe deer (capreolus capreolus, 60#):
http://www.fotonatur.de/HD10/HDREHBOOCKthumb.jpg
dropped one second after being hit with a .22lr (to the heart). Placement. You can shoot one leg off with a 12ga and the BG can still return fire. Put a .22 into his brain stem and - relax.

Stay safe and sound.

[Double Naught Spy]

Right. OSS data are ONLY important when on paper. Actually, they provide a really interesting and frightening set of considerations for real life. The OSS is based on percentages. There is the assumption that the percentages are predictive in some manner. But as statisticians note, you can have a bad run where you get several instances where the expected result is not attained and such a problem can actually happen randomly (as far as the numbers and order of occurence are concerned). A lightbulb maker may have a 99.9% successful working bulb rate, but that won't mean that the maker will have 1 bulb in 1000 that doesn't work. He could have a run of 50000 that work fine and then have a complete bad batch of 50 in a row that fail.

If we are talking OSS percentages, you have no way of knowing if you will be in the 50,000 that work fine, or in the batch of 50.

Of course, the other problem of OSS data is that there are no real controls over other parameters other than the bullet make and model and whether or not the person was "stopped" with just one shot. Without other controls, you have no real way of predicting bullet performance for your particular situation since you don't know if the parameters of your situation correspond to those where OSS were successful or not. A couple of the repeated parameters for which there is no control in the statistics are shot placement and condition of the shootee.

No doubt a huge bias in the supposed statistics is that better shooting will produce better results more often. When the shooter is a poor shot, then several shots may be required to effect the stop and so those stats are not considered. In other words, OSS is most likely to happen when you manage to perform well as the shooter. From this, what is important to not that shooter performance is going to be just as relevant or more relevant than bullet performance.

At the other end of the scale, OSS have been reported in many cases where the shooter doesn't even manage to hit the opposition. In one case, an old lady heard a man breaking in at her front door and so she got her .25 auto and when the guy came in to her home, she shot at him and got the desired stop with one shot. The only problem is, she didn't hit him. She hit the door frame. She intended to hit him, but missed. And along those lines, OSSs have been attained with warning shots. In both these examples, it isn't the bullet or shooter performance that produced the stop. It was the report that generated fear of potentially being shot that produced the stop.

[Webleywielder]

You know your stuff! Thanks!


"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun."

[CastleBravo]

Battlecruisers look just like Battleships, in other words size does not determine effectiveness.

Your statement makes no sense and is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The correct analogy would be to compare a 5" destroyer gun to a 16" battleship gun. M&S claim that the 5" gun (.40 S&W) is essentially equivalent to a 16" battleship gun (12ga slug). This is extremely silly on the face of it.

We are taking a projectile almost triple the mass, almost double the diameter, and over twice the velocity of the .40 S&W projectile, and claiming it no better than the .40 S&W in actual use. Then we are claiming that even though the study can't detect the COLOSSAL difference between the effects that these two projecitles cause, it can detect the small difference in performance between different .40 S&W JHP loads.

:rolleyes:

[David Armstrong]

M&S claim that the 5" gun (.40 S&W) is essentially equivalent to a 16" battleship gun (12ga slug).
I don't support M&S much, but that is not what they say. There is not a consideration of equivalence in performance between the calibers, the issue is equivalence in outcome. If you get (hypothetical numbers used here!) a 99% stopping rate for the shotgun, and a 100% stopping rate with a 5" gun, the stopping rate is nearly identical. That does not in any way address the idea of equivalence between the shotgun and the 5" gun, only equivalence in outcome.

[OBIWAN]

One Shot Stops should be considered nothing more than happy chance

Plan on shooting several times...even with good placement and sufficent caliber.

[buzz_knox]

The correct analogy would be to compare a 5" destroyer gun to a 16" battleship gun. M&S claim that the 5" gun (.40 S&W) is essentially equivalent to a 16" battleship gun (12ga slug). This is extremely silly on the face of it.

As stated above, that's not the argument they make. The proper comparison would be if the target reacted equally to rounds from both, then the effects were equivalent. And yes, there are cases where battleship rounds had comparable effects as destroyer rounds, because the target was insufficiently dense to set off the battleship round.

[xnavy]

If a 5 inch round did as much damage as a 16 inch round, the navy sure could have saved themselves a whole lot of money.

[Webleywielder]

No target capable of being destroyed by a 5" shell was ever more destroyed by a 16" shell. Destroyed means injured beyond repair or renewal. It does not matter how little is left of the target, we are not discussing obliteration (to remove all traces). Likewise, a human being is either incapacitated or not. You cannot be half incapacitated and you cannot be more incapacitated. We are not talking about disablement when we use the phrase "stopping power" we are talking about incapacitation. Since the power curve of what is necessary to incapacitate human beings is a bell curve, it is understandable that two projectiles of dissimilar size, weight and energy would be at the same location on the incapacitation (stopping power) bell curve.

By the way 5" naval guns can be more powerful than 16" naval guns. Anyone out there know what makes this a true statement?

Side by side battlecruisers look just like battleships to the untrained eye and would appear to be just as powerful because they have the same weapons. Unfortuanately the size of your guns does not determine you power. Power is the ability to do or act. All other factors being even other than design means Battlecruisers don't have the power of Battleships because the are destroyed sooner due to their lack of armor. I was attempting to metaphorically explain the inherent flaws of a side by side comparison using size only.

Here is a side by side comparison of two types of shot gun loads.
Slug = one hole in BG, one .72 caliber hole and wound channel, one ounce of lead striking the target.
Buckshot = multiple holes in the BG, more surface area penetrated and wound volume, more than one ounce striking the target.
Obviously based on a side by side comparison of the two loads the buckshot should be the most effective loading and yet slugs are actually more effective.

Anyone who thinks 12ga shotguns are vastly more effective incapacitating human beings than pistols and that one-shot stops are common should read Jim Cirillo's "Guns, Bullets, and Gunfights" For those of you unfamiliar with Jim, he has been involved in more urban gun fights than just about any living human.


"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun."

[LAK]

Para BellumMultiple hits - fast, that's what 9x19mm and .40s are made for. And that's what counts imo
Yes; I think this is particularly true of the 9x19 which in regular service pistols excels in this regard.

A roe deer (capreolus capreolus, 60#):dropped one second after being hit with a .22lr (to the heart). Placement. You can shoot one leg off with a 12ga and the BG can still return fire. Put a .22 into his brain stem and - relax.
Very true.

[CastleBravo]

Anyone who thinks 12ga shotguns are vastly more effective incapacitating human beings than pistols and that one-shot stops are common should read Jim Cirillo's "Guns, Bullets, and Gunfights" For those of you unfamiliar with Jim, he has been involved in more urban gun fights than just about any living human.

Don't need to read anything to know that 12ga shotguns are much more effective than handgun bullets. I'm just in touch with objective reality.

Funny thing is, though, that you've contradicted yourself. If one shot stops are not common (and I don't think they are for handguns), then M&S are wrong, since they claim 90%+ one-shot stops with many loads.

Oopsie! :p

And yes, there are cases where battleship rounds had comparable effects as destroyer rounds, because the target was insufficiently dense to set off the battleship round.

Sure, but human beings don't differ in weight from each other by 20,000 tons like warships can.

I was attempting to metaphorically explain the inherent flaws of a side by side comparison using size only.

Of course, I wasn't comparing size only, was I? I was comparing size, weight, muzzle velocity... but why read, when you can use bad naval analogies instead? :p

[Ben Swenson]

My problems with M&S are manifold and varied.


One of my biggest complaints is that Marshall and Sanow throw out most failures.

Let's take a sample set of shootings for a given catridge:

1. Perp is shot once in the chest, gets drilled through the spine and falls immediately. - One Shot Success!
2. Perp is shot once in the chest, keeps coming and is shot four times more in the chest with the same cartridge and runs away. - One Shot Failure!
3. Perp is shot once in the chest, ignores it and keeps coming and is shot in the head by a SWAT sniper and dies. - One Shot Failure!
4. Perp is shot once in the chest, beats the everliving hell out of the shooter and is then shot three more times by his partner and killed. - One Shot Failure!
5. Perp is shot once in the chest and doesn't even notice he's hit but is then approached by a police officer carrying a shotgun and surrenders. - One Shot Failure!

Okay, if M&S were analyzing these events, they'd chalk #1 and #5 up as successes and throw out the failures in #2, #3 and #4 leading to a 100% stopping power rating. Even considering the two situations they wouldn't throw out, the cartridge really was only 50% effective. In reality, the cartridge would have only succeeded in One Shot Stopping 20% of the time, but their figures ignore all that. I'd say that shows pretty clearly that their methodology could use work.

They won't show anyone their actual data (indeed, considering the depth and breadth of the data M&S claim to have collected, many doubt that they could even have collected it in the given time period).

The data they've published doesn't add up over given time periods. If you trust the folks over at FirearmsTactical they've got a chart showing the problems ('http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume3/number1/TABLE2-1.PDF').

Also ... "I shot a deer with [x] and it [died immediately/ran three hundred yards before ambushing me], so I know it's a [good/bad] cartridge for self defense!" - Consider the physiological and psychological differences between a deer and a human before using "it [worked/didn't work] on a [deer/gopher/rhino/womprat]!" as an argument.

And you folks that think that a single round of good 9mm or .40S&W is going to perform as well as a single 12 gauge slug, .223 or .308 rifle like M&S do, you're just not making sense.

[Webleywielder]

I can see we are getting no where here. You misquote me, unjustifiably accuse me of hypocracy, and for whatever reason cannot acknowledge the logic of what I have written. How about we just drop it since we will never see eye to eye on the subject?


"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun".

[CastleBravo]

I can see we are getting no where here. You misquote me, unjustifiably accuse me of hypocracy, and for whatever reason cannot acknowledge the logic of what I have written.

Saying I misquoted you is an outright lie. And not a very smart one, incidentally.

mis·quote (ms-kwt)
tr.v. mis·quot·ed, mis·quot·ing, mis·quotes
To quote incorrectly.

Cut and paste from your post:

Anyone who thinks 12ga shotguns are vastly more effective incapacitating human beings than pistols and that one-shot stops are common should read Jim Cirillo's "Guns, Bullets, and Gunfights" For those of you unfamiliar with Jim, he has been involved in more urban gun fights than just about any living human.

What I posted in my reply, quoting you:

Anyone who thinks 12ga shotguns are vastly more effective incapacitating human beings than pistols and that one-shot stops are common should read Jim Cirillo's "Guns, Bullets, and Gunfights" For those of you unfamiliar with Jim, he has been involved in more urban gun fights than just about any living human.

Astute readers will note that they are IDENTICAL. So how did I misquote you again? :rolleyes:

[buzz_knox]

Sure, but human beings don't differ in weight from each other by 20,000 tons like warships can.

Irrelevant, but I think you already know that. ;)

[shield20]

From what I understand, M&S are NOT concerned (specifically) with incapacitation as Webley writes - they are keeping score of 1-shot STOPS. If I shoot you with 1 round of .40 and you stop what ever evil you were doing, or I shoot you with 1 shot gun slug and you stop whatever evil you are doing - it is the same - does not matter why you stopped, or where you got hit (other then COM).

[OF]

And how does that data help us select defensive ammunition, exactly?

- Gabe

[CastleBravo]

Irrelevant, but I think you already know that.

Just like your analogy was! :D

[shield20]

Gabe,

Don't know - but it seems to sell a lot of books and magazines! ;)

[Webleywielder]

How fortunate for you I am such an easy going guy when accused of telling a lie. Some people would cut your liver out and eat it.

Ever think maybe something you wrote may have been misunderstood in the context it was written? Please tell me you know it is not a good idea to shoot first and ask questions latter?

In your posting previous to the one accusing me of being a liar you had a quote box that contained the following:

"And yes there are cases where battleship rounds had comparable effects as destroyer rounds, because the target was insufficiently dense to set off the battleship round"

It appeared to me you were attributing that quote to me. After reading your post accusing me of being a liar I reviewed your previous postings and discovered the quote was actually yours. I made a mistake, but I think you are partly to blame for how you presented the quote. I retract my statement regarding your accusing me of hypocracy.

In regard to the above confusingly contexted quote - really? You can provide evidence of "cases" due to "the target was insufficiently dense" I have doubts you can. Would your failure to provide data of such cases make you a liar? I don't think so, but possibly your are someone who impulsively postulated the existance of such an occurance. I think we have all been guilty of this at sometime in our lives. It is human to do this.

Since no one provided the answer to my question, here it is.

How is it possible that a 5" naval shell be more effective than a 16" naval shell? Because technology changes. An 16" black powder filled shell or solid ball fired form a low velocity black power naval gun is not as effective as a modern 5" High Velocity Rifled Naval Gun using high explosive armor piercing ammunition. The reason for this is due to penetrating power and explosive effect upon penetration. Think about this: if at Hampton Roads the Monitor had not been armed with 11" smooth bores firing solid shot and instead been armed with one Modern 5" rifle that fired far fewer times, the Virginia would have been destroyed. I hope we can now stop further discussion of my analogy to explain the concept of why modern pistol bullets are effective.

I believe that some modern high velocity pistol bullets of proper design are comparable in effectiveness to a soft-lead homogeneous 12ga. slug when striking humans within the distance most self-defense shootings occur. Effectiveness is not the same as amount of damage inflicted. CastleBravo you are not going to change my opinion and I am not going to change yours. How about we end this now? I am beginning to think you don't like me. Can't we play without name calling?

I sure do find TFL entertaining!!

"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun".

[OF]

CastleBravo you are not going to change my opinion and I am not going to change yours.Nothing says 'friendly debate' like an open mind.

What's the point of even posting if you're not flexible enough to change your opinion in the face of a convincing argument? You may say you haven't heard it here, and that's certainly your perrogative, but to flat out reject the possibility seems a little...stubborn.

I've a suggestion for you, if I may - I know you have 40 years of terminal ballistics research under your belt, but here goes anyway: before you say 'never' go spend some time reading the 'terminal performance' section at tacticalforums.com. Especially seek out the thread(s?) where Evan Marshall stopped in to try and defend this nonsense.

It's quite the read.

If you've studied everyone you say you have, I'm sure a couple people there will be familiar to you. After a few days perusing the threads I think it will beome clear who's doing the real science and who is playing in a field they have no business in.

At least it was obvious to me.

- Gabe

[Webleywielder]

What is obvious to me Gabe, is that you assume a lot. You know what that means don’t you? Why are you trying turn you and me into a small quadraped? :eek:

Gabe you mistake recognizing the futility of continuing an argument with someone you have decided no longer has anything pertinent to say for failing to keep an open mind. :(

Throughout history a great many people in all fields of interest have spent years privately studying a subject and also reading the work of others studying the same subject, and yet never once spoken to or met them. This does not invalidate the validity of their opinions. If and when one of these individuals eventually does come out of the shadows to discuss his opinions, the well known stuffed shirts almost always attempt to discredit them with the fact that nobody ever heard of them before. Are you one of those stuffed shirts? Pardon me if I am not in your social and professional circle, it is a big subject of study after all. I never claimed to be a leading, active, and published authority on terminal ballistics or to socialize with those that are. I only stated my opinion and reasons for it based on my experience and study of the subject. Something by the way you have not. :confused:

Your comments about M&S are nothing new to me. For almost forty years, I have observed everybody being discredited by everybody. So what is your point? You telling me you are a member of the true church and I am not? Do you think similar dogmatic opinions and “scientific research” wasn’t expressed and claimed forty years ago? :barf:

That is an impressive list of competitive and political/social organization initials you have after your name. Some of which I could also list and some I could not. I am also sure I could list some initials of organizations where we did more that play with and debate firearms that you would not be able to list. From the tone of your post you must have almost forty years of experience too. However, until you dive head first into the debate as I did, prepared to face ridicule, for all I know you have one year of experience repeated forty times. You know I once met an expert Astrologer with decades of experience and not once did I think that made his opinions on human motivations valid. I wonder, are you one of the most recognizable authorities in the world on some aspect of firearms? Are you a peripheral hanger-on to someone who is? Show me your stuff Gabe; impress me that you are worthy of friendly debate. So far all you have shown me is you can be condescending and insultingly imply with no substantiation I have an invalid opinion. I am eager to learn from a master terminal ballistician, but not a master BSer. Have a nice day :)!

"I sure do find TFL entertaining!"

"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun."

[Sarge]

These threads kill me. Talk to your local ME. Autopsies will make it real clear, real fast, that it is often difficult to tell the difference between a bullet wound and a puncture wound- because the mechanism of injury is the same. Absent a recovered bullet, the vast majority of these folks will refuse to speculate whether a handgun GSW was a .32 or .45; whether it was ball, or hollow-point.

Handgun terminal effect is a result of knocking holes through things that we need to to keep intact, in order to stay conscious, upright, alive and relatively content with that condition. Where you locate that hole is problem number one; making sure that it gets through the things that need peforated, is problem number two.

If our bullet expands some while accomplishing this, all well and good- but a coroner (who does this stuff for a living) will probably never be able to tell the difference.

[OF]

Gabe you mistake recognizing the futility of continuing an argument with someone you have decided no longer has anything pertinent to say for failing to keep an open mind. If you say so, my mistake.

To be clear, the 'field they have no business in' comment (if that's what you took such offense to) was directed not at you, Webley, but to make the distinction that when you observe the debate between people in the field on the forum I refered to (and debates linked off those threads) it is clear who has their ducks in a row and who does not (Marshall, etc. are 'in the field', you and I are not - as far as I can tell). I brought it up because you are in this thread debating the subject (I've typed all the debate on this I'm going to type - you can search these forums if you want my opinion in more detail), it reached an impasse so I'm offering up a new source. That source in particular because I was an M&S believer until I was exposed to the real-time debate there. If you're looking to see the tenets of each 'camp' taken apart bit by bit and defended...at length...you owe it to yourself to spend some time there. There isn't anything I'm going to offer (or you for that matter) that hasn't been through the wringer there, and by those much more knowledgeable and involved in the real science than anyone here.

You've stated that you have seen all there is to see and have the full story on this, so I offered up a source you might be interested in. You're not interested, that's fine, and evidence that my 'closed mind' characterization is closer to the money than you admit. To be honest, I post in these 'over and over again' threads more for the many who read these threads than for any single person involved. The back-and-forth of it re: ammunition selection got old a long time ago. I just like to make sure that people stopping by and seeing only this thread on the subject, who many be new to guns or looking to choose personal defense ammunition are aware of what I feel is an important and substantial debate on the subject - as opposed to the superficial arguing you find other places...say, about battleships or something. ;) You telling me you are a member of the true church and I am not?No church membership implied, Webley. I think you're wrong and I'm right, but that's as religious as this gets for me. Exposure to new information will sway me from one 'camp' to the other in a heartbeat. I have no dogmatic affiliation to any of this. The fact that so many people do is just baffling. Some of which I could also list and some I could not. Those links are there for people to click on, not as some sort of resume.

I'll ignore the personal insults and aspersions and leave it with: read Gary Roberts, et al debating at that forum. If you're interested in this subject (anyone, not you specifically, Webley) it's worth the time.

- Gabe

[Webleywielder]

I can't get too offended by computer forum comments, everybody has a tendency to let it all hang out. It is harmless.

I am more open-minded than you think. My conservative republican friends sometimes think I'm a socialist and my liberal democrat friends sometimes think I'm a fascist. Yet I remain friends with both groups.

My apologies if my mediocre communication skills have created the perception I swallowed M&S hook, line and sinker. I am to old and cynical for that. When I was young, I slavishly adhered to the dogma of the Cooperites until I realized the "Guru" has feet of clay. Because of that I don't whole heartedly accept any of the "experts" dogmas. Please believe I am familiar with just about all the dogma from Cooper's to Fackler's to Sanow's and a lot of other names from C to S in the alphabet. What it has led me to believe is that a good light fast bullet is comparable to a good heavy slow bullet for self-defense against humans. I don't think the questions addressed in the "Great Stopping Power Debate" will ever be conclusively resolved. It is just short of the futility of debating how many angels can dance on a pin head. If it wasn't so fun to ocassionaly stir things up by engaging in it, I would never make comment. I find most of the "experts" to be to zealous for me to want to socialize with them. The debate will only end when hand-held projectile weapons are a distant memory. Sure wish I had a phaser.

Please forgive any offense my previous sharp reply inflicted. I was just reflecting what I percieved you to be shining on me.


"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun".

[OF]

And with that most gentlemanly and appreciated comment, we return you to your regularly scheduled Stopping Power debate...or not as the case may be. ;)

- Gabe

[Para Bellum]

The correct analogy would be to compare a 5" destroyer gun to a 16" battleship gun. M&S claim that the 5" gun (.40 S&W) is essentially equivalent to a 16" battleship gun (12ga slug). This is extremely silly on the face of it.
That's not silly at all. We are talking about shooting homo sapiens sapiens (mondern mankind). Whether you hit one of this species with a 5" destroyer gun or a 16" battleship gun or a Saturn V Rocket wouldn't make and difference. Overkill is overkill. And stopping power is ... got it? ;)

There is one-shot-stop data I rely on: Our Austrian Police shoots some three to five people each year. At least that's what I hear of. In each of these cases one shot from a 9x19mm Glock 17 with a 115gr bullet center mass was effective stopping drugged knive wielding maniacs, one guy in a 500hp car driving amok and last month one guy breaking through a police road block: One shot fired: Glock 17, 9x19mm, 115gr, went through the car's door into the pelvis of the maniac. Maniac stopped. In coma ever since.
(Try shooting though a car door with a .45 - oooups did I say something wrong? ;) )

By the way: I can't remember anyone being shot by our police with that amo and gun having survived at all. The last guy I remember going on living died in the hospital after a few days. Never woke up

[tackdrivr]

Source: FBI, 2004.

THE MYTH

In many of the classic, albeit simplistic, cowboy movies from the early days of the American film industry, the stereotypical “good guys” wore white hats, whereas the “bad guys” donned black ones. After meeting in the middle of a dirt street in some small town, two shots would ring out. The bad guy’s bullet always missed, but the one from the hero in the white hat inevitably found its mark and freed the town of the criminal threat. With one shot from the good guy’s gun, the bad guy immediately dropped to the ground and became completely incapacitated.

In today’s films and television programs, Hollywood has varied not only the clothing of the actors but also their standards and demeanor, both the good guys and the bad guys. It now has become difficult to distinguish the protagonist from the antagonist. Unfortunately, however, this increased realism has not always carried over to the portrayal of gun battles. Many current shooting scenes continue to display unrealistic reactions and underlying expectations regarding ballistic effects. For example, one shot from a handgun often lifts the wounded person 2 feet off the ground and causes immediate incapacitation.

Even knowing that these are movies and television programs, some in the law enforcement community still expect one-shot drops in real-life shootings. In fact, few actual instances end this way.

Realistic and regular law enforcement training must counterbalance and mentally and emotionally override the fallacy of the one-shot drop still promoted by some media. Short of disrupting the brain or severing the upper spinal column, immediate incapacitation does not occur.3 Therefore, the threat remains to the officer. Yet, implicit in the media presentations of law enforcement encounters is the belief that with the “proper handgun” and the “proper ammunition,” officers will inflict immediate incapacitation if they shoot offenders anywhere in the torso. Varied and multiple real-life law enforcement experiences contradict this false and dangerous belief.

Actual Shootings

In the authors’ ongoing study of violence against law enforcement officers, they have examined several cases where officers used large-caliber hand guns with limited effect displayed by the offenders. In one case, the subject attacked the officer with a knife. The officer shot the individual four times in the chest; then, his weapon malfunctioned. The offender continued to walk toward the officer. After the officer cleared his weapon, he fired again and struck the subject in the chest. Only then did the offender drop the knife. This individual was hit five times with 230-grain, .45-caliber hollow-point ammunition and never fell to the ground. The offender later stated, “The wounds felt like bee stings.”

In another case, officers fired six .40-caliber, hollow-point rounds at a subject who pointed a gun at them. Each of the six rounds hit the individual with no visible effect. The seventh round severed his spinal cord, and the offender fell to the ground, dropping his weapon. This entire firefight was captured by several officers’ in-car video cameras.

In a final case, the subject shot the victim officer in the chest with a handgun and fled. The officer, wearing a bullet-resistant vest, returned gunfire. The officer’s partner observed the incident and also fired at the offender. Subsequent investigation determined that the individual was hit 13 times and, yet, ran several blocks to a gang member’s house. He later said, “I was so scared by all those shots; it sounded like the Fourth of July.” Again, according to the subject, his wounds “only started to hurt when I woke up in the hospital.” The officers had used 9-millimeter, department-issued ammunition. The surviving officers re ported that they felt vulnerable.

They wondered if they had done some thing wrong that caused their injury or placed them in the proximity of physical danger. They also wondered if they would react differently if faced with a similar situation.

Practical Expectations

Social science discloses that if people expect to see something, they well may see it. For ex ample, in basic psychology courses, instructors generally include the perceptual set theory, which shows students a picture. Although exactly the same picture, it appears to some as an old woman, whereas others see a young woman. People often see what they expect to see. This explains why so many sightings of the Loch Ness “monster” turn out to be floating logs.

Officers’ expectations of how they will respond when shot significantly affect their reactions to these situations. Development of advanced, practical expectations may be influenced best by clarifying misconceptions and imparting new knowledge during purpose-driven training concerning the topic. Absent a clear, purposeful understanding of the session’s training objectives, little influential and practical learning can occur. Further, lack of purposeful training may prove detrimental to an officer’s practical expectations, psychological preparation, and capabilities when employing complex tasks in response to the significant stressors of a life-threatening, critical incident.

Humans are largely differentiated from animals through their miraculous ability to develop skills and abilities to perform multiple, complex tasks simultaneously through repetitive practice. By necessity of minimizing risk to themselves and others, officers effectively learn many firearm-use procedures and tactics through a progressive building-block process. Herein, initial exposure is given to learning gross and fine motor skills. Some conscious behaviors develop into subconscious ones. Officers progressively hone skills to a reasonable level of mastery, then apply them under shorter time constraints during which they must incorporate and maintain mental processes of assessing their surroundings and changing conditions. Trainers need to remain cognizant of the role that repetition plays in the mental processes reinforced during training scenarios and courses of fire. From learners’ perspectives, ideal firearms and tactics training objectives should embrace an achievable notion that they will learn “something new” about their personal performances, skill levels, and capabilities with their equipment each time they receive training.

THE DATA

To better grasp the scope and gravity of the myth of the one-shot drop, the authors provide an over view of felonious, line-of-duty law enforcement officer deaths. From 1993 to 2002, 636 officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty.4 Offenders used handguns, ranging from .22 to .50 caliber, to kill 443 of the officers.5 Forty-five of these victims were slain with their own weapons.

Fifty-six of the 443 officers (12.6 percent) were killed by small-caliber weapons that fire lightweight bullets at low velocity and included .22, .25, and .32 calibers. Undoubtedly, no officer would consider any of these firearms as a primary weapon of choice, and no records indicated that agencies issued any of these to their uniformed patrol officers.

Concerning the 45 officers killed with their own weapons, 3 were slain with small-caliber rounds from backup/off-duty weapons they carried, either .22 or .25 caliber. Twenty-five officers (56 percent) were killed with their 9-millimeter or .40 caliber service weapons, common to law enforcement during the time period examined. The remaining 17 officers were slain with other weapons, including .38 caliber, .357 magnum, 10 millimeter, .44 magnum, and .45 caliber.

In two previous studies on violence against law enforcement officers conducted by the authors, offenders stated their reason for selecting a particular firearm as availability, 41 per cent in the first study and 68 percent in the second.6 These offenders did not care about bullet weight or velocity. The majority of the offenders in both studies had been involved in prior shootings before assaulting or killing the officers. Their major concern was being “fast on the trigger” and delivering the bullet to its intended target. One stated, “There’s no time to sight up the gun. If you hesitate, you’re dead.”

Because of the time needed for adjudicating these offenses, the most recent disposition data available for offenders involved in line-of-duty law enforcement officer felonious deaths are for the 10 years 1991 to 2000.7 Of the 665 persons charged with killing a law enforcement officer for this time period, only 9 remained fugitives. The majority (464) of these individuals were arrested and convicted of murder. The victim officers justifiably killed only 23 of their attackers. Other officers responding to the scene killed an additional 78 offenders. Sixty-two of the perpetrators committed suicide after killing the officer. In their ongoing research, the authors are examining if any of these incidents could have started as an officer-assisted suicide or, more commonly, suicide by cop.

THE TRAINING

A firm understanding of what an officer possibly may expect if shot or severely injured during a violent confrontation with an adversary remains crucial. This includes heightening an officer’s aware ness about establishing a survival mind-set and practical measures to combat reactions to extreme stress concerning natural physiological, psychological, and emotional responses that occur in normal people during abnormal situations. Such training is imperative in conquering survival versus succumbing to an otherwise treatable, recoverable injury.

[tackdrivr]

Survival Training

Effective survival training should provide a clear under standing of how authorized weapons and ammunition likely will perform under varying conditions to 1) strengthen officer confidence in personal skills with equipment and 2) prepare officers to efficiently and quickly incapacitate/control a threat against life. First and foremost, officers should possess a working knowledge about terminal ballistic performance of bullets when fired through intervening obstacles that they, by necessity, may have to shoot through and penetrate to incapacitate a violent adversary. Some common intervening obstacles encountered in law enforcement shootings can include heavy clothing; building materials, such as wood and drywall; automobile windshield glass; and sheet metal used in vehicle doors. Such obstacles may alter terminal projectile performance (i.e., the medium may plug or close the hollow point of a bullet, making it perform as a ball round or become deformed and, thus, limit penetration).

Officers also should know about ammunition performance at different, reasonable distances. Such training promotes greater understanding of agency policy when applied to different situations encountered in daily work experiences (i.e., when it is reasonable to shoot, not shoot, or seek alternate methods of self-preservation). Agencies using firearm ranges of 25 yards or fewer may consider options of periodically shooting at reduced-size targets, simulating a longer-distance handgun shot.

Finally, officers should possess a basic understanding of the human anatomy and related system functions from a three-dimensional perspective. Training should visually convey the placement and vulnerabilities of the cardiovascular system (heart, lungs, and blood-bearing organs) and the central nervous system (brain and upper spinal column). Knowledge of how these human systems likely will respond to low-velocity projectiles, such as from most hand guns, and high-velocity ones, such as from high-powered rifles, will augment officer awareness that reactions to being shot may not occur immediately. Perhaps more important, this information can help prevent officers from forming a false assumption or preconceived expectation that the adversary will be rendered immediately harmless following a well-placed shot from their firearm.

Firearms Training

Well-rounded firearms training programs should include instruction and courses of fire emphasizing fundamentals of marksmanship and position shooting. However, from a survival aspect, additional training points require consideration. Examples include alternate courses of fire that possess phases unfamiliar to the officer, as well as a preset number of fired rounds, such as routinely employed in qualification courses and largely gathered for the purpose of establishing a “standard” of proficiency if needed in litigation. Alternate courses of fire (e.g., specialized combat courses), by design, should reinforce desirable behaviors and thought processes. Combat courses should necessitate officers shooting until they incapacitate the threat (target) or the threat ceases. This can help prevent, rather than encourage, psychological reinforcement and presumption that the threat will desist after firing a given number of rounds. If lethal force is warranted and appropriate under the circumstances, the officer must shoot until the threat ceases. Use of cardboard or paper targets, although economical, inherently forces personnel to perceive bullet impacts on a single plane of reference with out dimension—much different from a human simulation with dimension and placement of organs/skeletal structure of a body. An occasional mix of training on a three-dimensional target, such as clothed mannequins, preformed targets, and other devices limited only by imagination, may better demonstrate and encourage personnel to exercise critical-thinking skills for delivering optimal shot placement and effective ness. An example is a shooting scenario requiring accurate shot placement on a three-dimensional target at an adverse angle substantially different from the usual 90-degree target placement in many training scenarios due to range design, safety, and economy of training resource time.

Economical, three-dimensional reaction targets made of cardboard to resemble a torso are available. These targets, suspended by heavy string or cord to one or two inflated balloons inside the body of the device, can become lifelike by placing old clothing, such as a shirt or jacket, on the exterior. When one or both of the bal loons are struck by a bullet, the balloon pops and the target drops from its suspended position. Such an exercise emphasizes that the officer must aim at a distinct spot on the torso to achieve incapacitation, rather than merely shooting at the entire target.

New technology incorporated into training simulators portraying lifelike, real-time scenarios permits course designers to define the zones of immediate or quick incapacitation similar to the relative area on a human body. Additionally, designers can denote zones of incapacitation based on the angle and distance of the adversary from the officer, as well as scenarios representing body armor worn by the adversary.

CONCLUSION

Just as in the days of the American Old West when only the peace officers’ superb gun-handling abilities stood between them and the violent outlaws of their time, today’s law enforcement professionals still must rely on their firearm skills to protect their communities from similar lawlessness. Employing deadly force against another human being is not an easy choice, nor should it be.

However, when an individual is intent on causing grave bodily injury, even death, to officers sworn to uphold this nation’s laws, those officers must react responsibly and quickly to protect their communities and to avoid the loss of innocent lives, as well as their own.

The perpetuation of the one-shot drop by movies and television programs has no place in the real world of violent criminals bent on their destructive missions. Officers must realize that they have to continually hone their survival skills, always expect the unexpected, and never give up.

AAYMMV

[CastleBravo]

How is it possible that a 5" naval shell be more effective than a 16" naval shell? Because technology changes. An 16" black powder filled shell or solid ball fired form a low velocity black power naval gun is not as effective as a modern 5" High Velocity Rifled Naval Gun using high explosive armor piercing ammunition. The reason for this is due to penetrating power and explosive effect upon penetration. Think about this: if at Hampton Roads the Monitor had not been armed with 11" smooth bores firing solid shot and instead been armed with one Modern 5" rifle that fired far fewer times, the Virginia would have been destroyed. I hope we can now stop further discussion of my analogy to explain the concept of why modern pistol bullets are effective.

Um, yeah, I imagine a few of us have heard of black powder, but thaks for the lecture. :rolleyes:

How this relates to shotgun slugs propelled by smokeless powder in comparison to pistol bullets propelled by smokeless powder remains elusive, however, since pistol bullet is less powerful than the shotgun slug, smaller diameter even when expanded, a shallower penetrator, and doesn't even explode. :D

When your handgun bullets can reliably knock over bowling pins, y'all get back to me. :p