Confusion regarding Remington .45 185 gr.

[landmass]

As a new member, I conducted a search for the answer to my question and did not find one. According to the "Stopping Power" chart on a web page, the .45 ACP Remington 185 gr GS(Golden Saber, NOT +P) has a "One Shot Stop" percentage of 96. The .45 ACP Remington 185 gr +P JHP has a percentage of 92%. With only two listings for the +P 185 grain bullet, the second listing shows a Remington 185 gr +P JHP(virtually identical to the first bullet listed for +P) with an 89% rating. My questions are:
1. What is the difference between the two .45 185 gr +P bullets? Both are listed simply as JHP. Are these Golden Sabers - or an older manufactured Remington bullet?
2. The Remington .45 185 gr bullet is shown as a Golden Saber and IS NOT +P, yet has a higher rating at 96%. How would a 185 GS +P perform for self defense? Better? Is there no data for the 185 GS +P? Thanks for any information I can get on this issue.

[UncleEd]

Simply don't worry about it or
fret about the small differences.

Different guns, tests, reports, etc.

And don't expect that should you get
into a shooting, hopefully never and
never, any of those results.

[Aguila Blanca]

Different bullets. If it doesn't specify Golden Saber (which, by the way, is no longer offered), they're probably talking about Remington UMC JHP. The bullet shape is similar to the Golden Saber, but the bullet construction is different. The cartridges may also be loaded to a different velocity.

[landmass]

Thanks, Aguila. Do you know why the Golden Saber was discontinued? Was it replaced with the HTP JHP?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by landmass

Do you know why the Golden Saber was discontinued? Was it replaced with the HTP JHP?

Marketing. Aside from having a bullet shape that almost always fed reliably in 1911s that would choke on other self-defense rounds, the Golden Saber was a bargain because they sold it in boxes of 25 for about the same price everyone else charged for boxes of twenty. Apparently, the bean counters at Remington finally woke up. They dropped the Golden Saber and replaced it with their new Ultimate Defense line -- which has twenty rounds per box.

I talked to the folks at the Remington exhibit at the SHOT Show and they confirmed what I already suspected pretty strongly. It's the same ammo, with a different name and in a different box, but now you get twenty for the price that used to buy you twenty-five.

[Water-Man]

You can find either one of the Golden Saber rounds at SGAMMO.

[landmass]

OK, but is there no "stopping power" data on the 185 GS +P round as there is on the non-+P round?? The 96% on the standard round is impressive, and my 1911 feeds that bullet shape with reliability.

[Hal]

OK, but is there no "stopping power" data on the 185 GS +P round as there is on the non-+P round?? The 96% on the standard round is impressive, and my 1911 feeds that bullet shape with reliability.

I bet there is data on it somewhere - - just not at the source where the other data is located.

Don't be at all surprised if the data found elsewhere isn't anywhere near what you found at the site you mention either...

The reason is simple - -stopping power is - at best, an unproven theory.
At worst, it's pseudo-science. (Strasbourg goat shoot.)...

Whole volumes & books have been written on the subject. One or tow or even a few dozen charts won't even scratch at a teeny tiny spot on the surface.


BTW --- Welcome to TFL.

[44 AMP]

Part of the answers you are looking for are right in front of you in the data you linked to.

Leaving completely aside (for now) discussion about the different loads and discussion about the validity of one-shot-stop data and conclusions, the reason you see a 92% on one and an 89% on another is simple mathematics, and nothing beyond that.

It has to do simply with percentages and SAMPLE SIZE.

And, the percentage of X result in your sample size has NOTHING to do, directly, with real world result. At least, not until you get a large enough sample, then one can predict trends, reasonably accurately, but one cannot accurately predict the results of any single specific shooting.

Let's look at how the numbers can be "crunched", and how, while mathematically correct, they can give a distorted image of actual shooting results.

Lets say your sample is one shooting. If the bad guy was stopped with one shot, then your math rating (%) is 100%. Yay!!! report to the world that load X has a 100% one shot stop rating!!!

Now lets say the bad guy didn't stop after being shot ONCE. SO, in the real world, you shoot him again, and again, until he does stop.

But in the math world, now your one shot stop rating for load X is 0%. ZERO percent. Because he didn't stop from one shot. Same exact load but two different, and mathematically correct ratings, one 100% and the other 0%.

Now lets say your sample size doubles to 2 cases. One where the bad guy was stopped with one shot, and the other where he wasn't.
Now your math rating of load X is 50%.

Increase the sample size to 3, and lets say 2 one shot stops, and one not.
Math makes your Load X rating now 66.6%

Look at the data you provided, 80 out of 83, 71 out of 77, 16 out of 18, one shot stops. Math gives you different percentages, but its just a percentage of the sample, but not a definitive percentage of what actually happens in each individual shooting.

The possibly hundreds of factors involved in real world shootings can skew the math results in any direction, depending on what, and where the researchers sets their parameters.

That second digit in the "stop" percentage is insignificant, except as a math number. And none of them is guarantee that they accurately reflect what will happen in any particular shooting situation. General trends, yes, actual individual performance, each and every time? No.

[peterg7]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Different bullets. If it doesn't specify Golden Saber (which, by the way, is no longer offered), they're probably talking about Remington UMC JHP. The bullet shape is similar to the Golden Saber, but the bullet construction is different. The cartridges may also be loaded to a different velocity.

Not necessarily, I still have a box of 185gr jhp Express, Golden saber was available in both jhp and bonded HP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by peterg7

Not necessarily, I still have a box of 185gr jhp Express, Golden saber was available in both jhp and bonded HP.

I am fully aware that the Golden Saber came in both bonded and unbonded flavors. Are you saying the unbonded used the same bullets as the [much] less expensive Remington UMC JHP ammunition? If you are saying that, I'll have to respectfully disagree.

[peterg7]

No I said there was another bullet, Express.

This cartridge and the Golden Saber JHP shoot the same in my guns but the bullet is different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[landmass]

Hal, thank you for your response and the welcome to TFL. I agree with most what you say. However, I have used the data taken from Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow's, "Stopping Power" for several years to help select self defense ammo for the weapons I use for that purpose. The fact that the data is collected from actual shootings, to me anyway, adds irrefutable credibility to the information given. I know shot placement is critical, as well as speed of getting the first shot off - and is the responsibility of the defending shooter. But, bullet performance is solely up to the bullet. You say that "at best, an unproven theory. At worst, it's pseudo-science." I tend to call thousands of examinations of shootings within the parameters of what Marshall was looking for, to be a collection of data conducive to drawing intelligent conclusions to the probable performance of a particular bullet when shot into the upper torso of a human being by people with various skill levels. This, I believe was the start of a science, with real data, usable on many levels, and trustworthy enough for any self-defense situation, police force, or military. Examining REAL results, and producing REAL information. Am I wrong? Maybe I'm missing something - I don't know. In my mind I would much rather face a bad guy(hopefully I will never have to) with nine rounds of Remington 185gr Golden Saber rated at 96%(based on 83 shootings), rather than nine rounds of 230 gr FMJ rated at 62%(based on 575 shootings of combined Remington, Winchester and Federal). I feel any advantage I can get out of my ammunition is a good thing that may increase my odds of survival. I know ammo is only one part of the equation, and many other things contribute to the outcome, too. Hal, I recently lost a race by a mere 1/1000 of a second, and many things contributed to that loss. If I could have changed only one of them - I might have changed the outcome of that race. I think the same is relevant to any type of challenge - with the idea that striving to have the best and most efficient of everything MAY help you in the end.

[Hal]

Landmass,
I can't fault you for trying. Actually, I admit I agree 100% with what you are trying to do.

I call ammo selection - something in my control.
Ammo, gun, skill, setting, awareness...these are just a few of the things I control.
As you mentioned, thousands of different things come into play and in order to make an informed decision, the more you can cover, the better your chances...

But..

"Stopping Power" was written back in 2001.
As you're somewhat running up against now,,,,,much of the data is outdated.
Back in that time frame (1998-2001), I made my selection of the Federal .45acp 230 grain Hydra Shok as my "go to"....based on the data @ the time that "proved" it was right there with the 125 grain .357 magnum as having something like a 96% stopping power something or other.

All I know is - I bought a box of them and they shot spooky accurate ( an 8 shot , roughly 3/4" hole @ 25 feet - from a two handed standing hold"). I've beaten that with handloads, but, not by much.

Now? I don't think anyone (other than me maybe) even considers Hydra Shok as a possible choice.

Another round that gathered a whole lot of praise was - the Federal Nyclad.
Those went the way of the wind.

Regarding the number of shootings - - in 2001, according to the CDC, there were 29,573 deaths by firearm.
The M&S data collected was/is based on what, a few hundred at best?
Even if it was based on 3,000, that only 10% - for that year alone.

One of the knocks against M&S has always been the small sampling size & the current (@ the time) data.

I'm not saying ignore it by any means since - you are (IMHO) on the right path of collecting as much data as possible.
I just hate to see someone go "trend chasing", trying to find that magic bullet.

Personally, I still favor the 230 grain weight in .45 acp. I still carry Hydra Shoks in .45 acp in my Kimber.
In my 3" barreled S&W Shield, I carry Winchester (the old Q load) 230 grain hardball (FMJ)
My practice ammunition is - 230 grain cast lead @ ~ 890 to 900 fps (according to the loading manuals).

I like to stay constant & practice with something that closely duplicates what I carry...

As for the goat tests.....
I read a story back in the 1970's in Playboy about an interview they did with an ex-CIA agent. Who knows if it was true or not.
At one point in the story, he said some people came to his house - either on Christmas Eve or New Year's Even - and took him off to a plane. They flew to some undisclosed location, where they proceeded to dress up - either goats or pigs - in Russian Great Coats - then shoot them.
Personally - I think it's a bunch of fiction - and the same goes for the Strasbourg story.

One last item for right now..
We had/have a member here @ TFL that's in law enforcement. He told a story of getting into a wrestling struggle with a bad guy, that turned deadly when the bad guy tried to get his gun. The cop got control of the gun & at contact distance, put three .45 acp 230 grain Hydra Shoks point blank into the guy's body cavity.
He mentioned that he was surprised the first one didn't stop the guy, and a bit scared when the second one seemed to have no effect either...and relieved when the third one was the charm.

Those are the types of "research" I put a whole lot of stock in.

Be safe buddy, and stay on the right track!

[buck460XVR]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

.

It has to do simply with percentages and SAMPLE SIZE.

And, the percentage of X result in your sample size has NOTHING to do, directly, with real world result. At least, not until you get a large enough sample, then one can predict trends, reasonably accurately, but one cannot accurately predict the results of any single specific shooting.

I'm not saying ignore it by any means since - you are (IMHO) on the right path of collecting as much data as possible.
I just hate to see someone go "trend chasing", trying to find that magic bullet.

If one crunches numbers on the given data, one could say all three rounds stopped men dead in their tracks, 9 outta 10 times.

Most folks lookin' for SD ammo nowadays have never killed anything. For those of us who have hunted all our lives, we know that every animal is different, and reacts to being shot differently. We also know certain bullets perform differently on different animals when those animals are hit in the chest area. Size of the animal, muscle tone, adrenaline and even slight differences in angle, can make huge differences in bullet performance. The bullet that works best on a 80# yearling, does not necessarily work the same on their 240# father, and Vice-versa. Sometimes we put two bullets in the animal before we know the animal is down for good. Does that mean the first wasn't a one-shot stop? While we attempt to use the best ammo possible, there are too many variables out there in real life that will outweigh two or three percentage points from tests to make a difference. What we do, is use ammo that will perform well over a wide variety of what we think we may shoot, at the distances we intend to shoot at. What we also do is make sure the ammo we have shoots the nest to POA, will go bang every time we pull the trigger and feed reliably if we need that second shot.

Just last week, a friend of my oldest son brought his new Shield .45 to our personal range. He had brought Remmie 185s with it as he claimed they were his "go to" ammo for .45ACP. After we went thru his box of ammo, we then shot my 230gr reloads using Nosler JHPs. My reloads shot to POA, where his 185s had to be adjusted with "Kentucky windage" to hit the 25 yard gongs. A common thing with fixed sighted guns that are regulated. So, while his 185s may have better numbers, which would I use if I was the average shooter who doesn't file or drift their fixed sighted guns? Do I go for accuracy or "one shot stops" hoping that in the stress of a gun fight I remember to hold high?

As 44AMP said, far too many folks tend to want that magic bullet that will make them invincible. Only thing that will make us invincible is ourselves. Sometimes when hunting, lady luck makes a difference. She may give us a slight better or worse angle form our boiler room shot. She may give us an animal that is relaxed and will react better to a heart shot or she may let us hit closer to the CNS which puts the animal down DRT. She may give us an animla that's body size and muscle tone that best matches the bullet construction we have chosen.These are things that may have also contributed to the numbers given for one shot stops.

[Water-Man]

landmass,

Since you're doing research, here's an Underwood Xtreme Defender load to look at.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV_1zXdDf4Y&t=16s

[Frank Ettin]

...I have used the data taken from Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow's, "Stopping Power" for several years to help select self defense ammo ....Examining REAL results, and producing REAL information. Am I wrong? Maybe I'm missing something - I don't know. In my mind I would much rather face a bad guy(hopefully I will never have to) with nine rounds of Remington 185gr Golden Saber rated at 96%(based on 83 shootings), rather than nine rounds of 230 gr FMJ rated at 62%(based on 575 shootings of combined Remington, Winchester and Federal).....

What you're missing is that given the nature of statistics and relatively small samples small differences aren't significant.

So in the Marshall/Sanow studies, for example, there were relatively small differences between the data for the various .45 ACP JHP cartridge results examined and relatively small differences between the data for the various .45 ACP FMJ cartridge results examined. BUT there is a substantial difference between the .45 ACP JHP cartridges as a group and the .45 ACP FMJ cartridges as a group.

So one can infer with a high degree of confidence that a .45 ACP JHP cartridge is a better choice for self defense use. But because of the small samples the small differences among the various .45 ACP JHP cartridges aren't very statistically significant and therefore aren't necessarily all that helpful for choosing among them.

[landmass]

Hal, thanks for agreeing with me to a degree. And you're right, too - I see the dated material and wonder why the work wasn't continued. If not by Marshall, then somebody else. It's a shame, because I think the results are really a significant work. I've never seen anything like it. Collecting the data must have been a big job for Marshall. I did find this link with a Google search: http://www.oocities.org/yosemite/4800/one-shot.htm but I haven't checked it out, yet. Cover page says this: "It is assumed that a user selecting to carry a concealed handgun for self defense will select the most effective, readily available ammunition. Ammunition effectiveness for this study is defined by the One-Shot-Stop Percentage. One-Shot-Stop Percentage is a number highly written about and highly discussed in gun magazines. Sanow, Marshall, and Fuller are usually associated with this topic and Sanow and Marshall have published two books on the topic (the second book with Fuller). Marshall uses actual street data in determining One-Shot-Stop Percentage. Fuller uses a statistically derived equation in determining the Fuller Index which is an estimate of One-Shot-Stop Percentage. One-Shot-Stop Percentage (Fuller Index) is a number estimating how many assailants will be “stopped” when hit by a One-Shot-Stop Hit."
People keep bringing up the small sample size as a derogatory thing for the Marshall study. I don't agree and believe that a sample of 10 shootings, with 9 one shot stops, will grow to a sample, for example, of 500 shootings and have a one stop shot % very close to the original 10 shot sample. To test my belief, I found a "update" to the original work Published in Law and Order, Jan 2004, three years after the original work. Maybe tonight, I'll start pulling some sample numbers of popular calibers and compare them to see if the % changes as the sample number changes. Might be interesting, and possibly give the "small sample" people something to think about.
I, too, went for the 230 gr. HS, but my Colt Series 80 didn't like it AT ALL. Choked on almost every one of them. I stuck with hardball until recently, when I found the Remington 185 GS. I put 100 (now about 150) of them through the pistol with no problems, and I was very happy to have found that round. I'll stick with it and will quit searching for now.
Take care, Hal. Hope to catch you later. I've got work to do on my race car and hope to get back to the track soon.

[landmass]

Water-Man, I watched that video. That's one hell of a bullet, I'm not sure what to think about it. I wish they would have function tested it in a 1911. I'm not sure if it would work in my gun. But, thanks for the info.

[landmass]

You stated, "So one can infer with a high degree of confidence that a .45 ACP JHP cartridge is a better choice for self defense use. But because of the small samples the small differences among the various .45 ACP JHP cartridges aren't very statistically significant and therefore aren't necessarily all that helpful for choosing among them."

Very well stated Frank, and it makes a lot sense. After reading your post, a light came on for me. I'm the type of guy who worked in the technical field and I tend to see things as exactly white or black, numbers have exact meanings to me. There IS a difference between 96.15% and 96.16%. Such is life in the Space Shuttle business where I spent 27 years. If the specs called for 100 lines of video, that didn't mean 99.5 lines. So, that is my dilemma in this issue of stopping power. I'm looking at the numbers and seeing concrete, and I should be seeing something a little more flexible. Your opinion on the hollow point performance -vs- the FMJ just turned things around for me, and made me see the issue a little different. Thanks for the help. I need to lighten up, I guess.

[Water-Man]

landmass,

You're welcome.

Just wanted to say that I tested that Underwood ammo in 3.1", 4.0" & 5.0" .45 pistols without a hitch. Of course that doesn't mean they will run in yours, but the bullet profile appears to feed well.

Good luck with whatever you choose.