Anyone have a link to gov data and caliber and number of shots to stop attack?

[Deaf Smith]

Handgun Stopping Power and Street Stoppers by Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow as consider the definitive study.

They have a new book titled "Stopping Power: A Practical Analysis of the Latest Handgun Ammunition."

Davis Spauling, Massad Ayoob, M&S, and others.

Upshot, larger diameter bullets TEND to stop better, faster bullets TEND to stop better, expanding bullets TEND to stop better, good shot placement TENDS to stop better, multiple hits TEND to stop better.

Shocking, right?

No small arm round is 100 percent, but some are highly effective.

Failures to stop? Sure even 30-06 has some. But in handguns such as .45, .44, .357 magnum have very good track records. But skill-at-arms is number one when the fur starts flying.

Deaf

 

[strambo]

A big part of the problem is people speak and think in generalities, even when they think they are being specific. Anatomy is very specific.

Someone was shot in the head and ran 15 blocks...almost meaningless. Someone was shot in the mid-brain and ran 15...wait, that is not possible.

Someone was shot in the "vital zone" or "upper chest" and fought for another 20 minutes. Well, even in the upper chest there is more lung and nothing than something that will rapidly incapacitate. Now, if someone was shot through the heart, they would only have about between 7-30 seconds of consciousness left.

Physical stops are not biased by psychology, but they require precise shot placement which is very difficult to achieve under stress. Heart or mid-brain/brain stem (spine is not realistic to try for on purpose). Practicing on 3D targets or photo-realistic ones with different angles to rapidly dump rounds in these areas is doable in training. So, if in training you dump 2-3 rds into the heart and 1-2 in to the mid-brain and then suffer a 50% degradation of skill in combat as estimated by many experts, you'll still hit the heart and/or mid-brain at least once.

Get 1-3 of these http://www.letargets.com/content/tac-man-3d-torso-shell-target.asp, put old clothing on them, they last for a very long time. My typical training session- I start out on small bullseye type aim points on armed photo-realistic paper targets to work on trigger control/raw marksmanship. I then move to working the photo targets in single and multiple targets with movement shooting for the heart/head. I finish my session on the clothed 3d targets with movement.

I always arm my human targets unless they are no-shoot, the photos are armed (you can buy unarmed no shoots of course) and they have cheap foam guns you can staple to a shirt sleeve on the 3d targets.

 

[old lady new shooter]

A big part of the problem is people speak and think in generalities, even when they think they are being specific. Anatomy is very specific.

Someone was shot in the head and ran 15 blocks...almost meaningless. Someone was shot in the mid-brain and ran 15...wait, that is not possible.

Someone was shot in the "vital zone" or "upper chest" and fought for another 20 minutes. Well, even in the upper chest there is more lung and nothing than something that will rapidly incapacitate. Now, if someone was shot through the heart, they would only have about between 7-30 seconds of consciousness left.

Physical stops are not biased by psychology, but they require precise shot placement which is very difficult to achieve under stress. Heart or mid-brain/brain stem (spine is not realistic to try for on purpose). Practicing on 3D targets or photo-realistic ones with different angles to rapidly dump rounds in these areas is doable in training. So, if in training you dump 2-3 rds into the heart and 1-2 in to the mid-brain and then suffer a 50% degradation of skill in combat as estimated by many experts, you'll still hit the heart and/or mid-brain at least once.

Get 1-3 of these http://www.letargets.com/content/tac-man-3d-torso-shell-target.asp, put old clothing on them, they last for a very long time. My typical training session- I start out on small bullseye type aim points on armed photo-realistic paper targets to work on trigger control/raw marksmanship. I then move to working the photo targets in single and multiple targets with movement shooting for the heart/head. I finish my session on the clothed 3d targets with movement.

I always arm my human targets unless they are no-shoot, the photos are armed (you can buy unarmed no shoots of course) and they have cheap foam guns you can staple to a shirt sleeve on the 3d targets.

Wow. I wonder if my range would let me use that, maybe I'll print out a picture and take it there to ask them. The other day I noticed they do at least have one where the heart and the aim-for face triangle are orange, I was planning to try that one next time, my shots tightened up hugely more toward the center of the 10 on the regular one now that I changed my grip, might as well try to get them actually into the heart now.

They did tell me (I don't know if this is only in California) it is illegal to use a target that looks like any living person or even a dead one who has "followers".

Back to your 3D torso target, one related thing I was actually wondering about, it's clear where to aim when facing the attacker, but what if you are to the side or behind, which could be the case in a terrorist-type situation?

 

[old lady new shooter]

The most interesting part of that study by Greg Ellifritz is his look at data on the failure to incapacitate

I notice that the .38 spl shows a bit higher rate of failure to incapacitate than the other "common" calibers, I'm wondering whether that could be because a large percentage of people who carry that carry it in a snubbie, i.e. lower velocity is the reason. ???

 

[strambo]

Back to your 3D torso target, one related thing I was actually wondering about, it's clear where to aim when facing the attacker, but what if you are to the side or behind, which could be the case in a terrorist-type situation?

Odds are good it will be at some angle. That is the rub, you have to aim 3 dimensionally. The heart is about the size of an orange centered in the chest front to back and slightly offset to the left (right as you are looking at them).

Visualize where to aim from different angles and practice. They make paper targets at different angles, some have aim points marked. Some of the markings are off though.

http://www.letargets.com/content/us...lence-situational-photo-target-version-10.asp

Check that target out. For the heart, aim for where the middle finger intersects the thumb. For the mid-brain, aim for his right nostril.

Of course you can't expect to hit that precise under combat stress, but that is what you are training for. You certainly can't expect to hit what you don't aim for!

If you put a fast burst of 3-6 rounds while focusing on either point I mentioned above, odds are decent at least 1 bullet will hit the organ you want if you have trained realistically.

Don't know what to tell you about ranges, rules, and silly laws that may be in your area. What you can do that nobody can stop you is train with photo-realistic paper and 3d targets dry-fire (and airsoft) at home, then do the best you can live fire at a range.

 

[Kleanbore]

Post #30 has some good points, but I suggest that in a rapidly unfolding real attack by a fast-moving aggressor, no defender will have the luxury of deciding what inside the body to try to target.

Yes, three to six very rapidly, but probably one should be trying to get the shots in the upper torso, back somewhat from the surface of the chest, and no more precise than that, if the attacker is moving.

 

[Librarian]

They did tell me (I don't know if this is only in California) it is illegal to use a target that looks like any living person or even a dead one who has "followers".

No such law in California.

It is, apparently, policy at a number of ranges.

 

[old lady new shooter]

No such law in California.

It is, apparently, policy at a number of ranges.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[strambo]

Yes, three to six very rapidly, but probably one should be trying to get the shots in the upper torso, back somewhat from the surface of the chest, and no more precise than that, if the attacker is moving.

We're on the same page. Executing what you wrote above will have a good chance of hitting the heart and would be a vast improvement to the 2D, static, frontal, square range shooting and mindset practiced by the vast majority of shooters. Gotta start somewhere but there is a reason for the typically dismal hit rate and stop rate in most shootings. Lack of realistic training is the reason.

All the articles and studies on stop rates/percentages do is perform the role of "Captain Obvious." Um, yeah your best chance is with a duty grade caliber that penetrates 12+" in ballistic gel. Roger.

As difficult as it may be to do in life or death stress, the fact remains that only a heart or mid-brain/brain stem shot will rapidly or instantly incapacitate. Anything else is just rolling the dice. Whatever you can do to increase your chances of hitting the heart or mid-brain area under stress will have the greatest controllable impact on your survival. Once you have checked the "Captain Obvious" box of choosing a decent gun in a caliber .38 SPL through .45 ACP with a bullet designed to go 12-18" in gel...you've got to place the shots. And don't expect a whole magazine in the high chest to matter...if you didn't hit the heart, spine, or vena cava/aorta.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I notice that the .38 spl shows a bit higher rate of failure to incapacitate than the other "common" calibers, I'm wondering whether that could be because a large percentage of people who carry that carry it in a snubbie, i.e. lower velocity is the reason. ???

Actually, I doubt that one can really draw any meaningful conclusions from the relatively small differences.

If you look at the study itself and review the summary of results by cartridge you'll see that the sample sizes were relatively small. The largest sample was for the 9mm Luger at 456 cases. For most of the other cartridges the sample sizes were between 100 and 200, and for several cartridges the samples were fewer than 85 (down to 24 for the .44 Magnum). With such small sample sizes small differences in result don't really mean much.

So one can reasonably infer a difference in performance from the difference in the failure to incapacitate rate between the .25 ACP (35% based on 68 cases) and the .38 Special (17% based on 199 cases). But inferring a real difference in performance from the difference in the failure to incapacitate rate between the .38 Special (17% based on 199 cases) and the .45 ACP (14% based on 209 cases) would be something of a stretch.

On the other hand, one might expect the .45 ACP to perform better than the .38 Special based on specifications, i. e., bigger holes, more penetration, etc. And perhaps if the samples were much larger more difference would start to show up.

One difficulty with these sorts of statistics based studies is that to mitigate the influence of random variables which can affect outcome, one needs very large samples.

 

[herrwalther]

I thought that you might have meant that study. But in post 19 you claimed that the study showed:

I made no claims about the study mentioned. I paraphrased what I remembered and what stood out to me about the data. I used what I remembered from the study to find it. Nevertheless, I like that study as it is probably the most comprehensive I have come across, even though it doesn't meet the government requirement of the OP.

Moreover what I like about the study is it does include a variety. It is not just a 9mm vs 45 study. It throws in weird outliers in SD calibers like .22 .25 and CF rifles.

As you pointed out there are failure to incapacitate rates among the data. I found those numbers interesting as well. It takes a great amount of training to develop the ability and mindset to develop shot to CNS to stop a threat. Even among experienced police and military, hitting an extremity is common.

I also wish Ellifritz would have done a little bit more leg work (or at least delved into it if he left it out of the article) the aspects of psychological incapacitation. Discounting instances where alcohol or drugs are used to psych up the ability to withstand pain, it is far more likely for someone to get shot and escape to avoid getting shot again. Or even more accurately the sight or sound of a firearm was enough to cause a criminal to break contact.

I agree with the conclusions of the study. There is no magic bullet and shot placement is king. Something that is gone over quite well on THR with relatively minimal chest thumping bravado ie "I shoot a 45 because shooting twice is stupid." Not a perfect study by any means but a nice eye opener.

 

[strambo]

"I shoot a 45 because shooting twice is stupid."

That's funny, hadn't heard that one before.

 

[JohnKSa]

Back to your 3D torso target, one related thing I was actually wondering about, it's clear where to aim when facing the attacker, but what if you are to the side or behind, which could be the case in a terrorist-type situation?

You can find pictures that will help you learn enough anatomy to know where to aim from various angles.

Here's one of the head. Notice how much of the head is not occupied by the brain.
http://secure.doereport.com/imagescooked/9646W.jpg

Here's one of the chest. If you aim for the heart and miss low, the bullet may not hit the heart or lungs. Some teach aiming a little higher, just above the heart. It's hard to get a bullet in to that general area without hitting something that will lead to fairly rapid incapacitation. Top of the heart, large veins, lungs, windpipe, etc.

http://cache3.asset-cache.net/gc/14...2o90IfqCyq8JnVJHyWDAXOD5SrTdfv0aL91GQ7j3g7kIo

Here's one of the torso & head from an angle. Note the position of the internal structures from that angle. Even from this angle, the aimpoint for a headshot should be a little behind the near eye and a torso shot should be aimed along a vertical line that goes through the right nipple. Sometimes, from an angle, it's most helpful to visualize the position of the spine and aim just a little in front of it.

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/anatomy-male-body-circulatory-system-26594476.jpg

 

[old lady new shooter]

Thank you, that is very helpful.

 

[herrwalther]

That's funny, hadn't heard that one before.

Really? That is the most common one I read. Usually it is on Facebook (which is probably why) about an article about X caliber being selected by the Army, FBI, etc. Which turns into a caliber war.

 

[Librarian]

As well as shot placement, other considerations would be

- range: I personally break that into 4 bands: contact distance; 0 to 3 feet; 3 to 25 feet; 25+ -- too far for many folks to try with a handgun

- level of training: I'd say that ranges from 'here, point and shoot; good luck' to Jerry Miculek (though I am not familiar with his specific SD training)

- time of day: day/night/twilight

- kind of location - the defensive shooter's home; in some building; outdoors

- complications: other persons to avoid shooting or to protect; physical disabilities (temporary and long term); level of surprise (awakened from sound sleep, etc)

- which gun and barrel length/sight radius: a .38 from a snubby at 20 feet is going to be different from a 9mm Glock 17 at 20 feet.

That is to say, I think focusing on number of shots and calibers is akin to wondering which car will win a race by evaluating tire brands and tire pressure, while neglecting drivers and engines.

 

[basicblur]

There is no way for any researcher to take the subjects state of mind at the time he was shot or even how his mind had been conditioned to view a gunshot wound.

Been a while since I thumbed through my Marshall & Sanow book, but I'm pretty darn sure they stated such in the book.
Their cases covered how many rounds it took to stop someone - they did not care if it was a bullet through the heart, brain, etc., or if the attacker just said screw it...this hurts too much to continue.

After reading way too many reasons why their work is without merit, I gotta admit I still don't get why folks get so bent out of shape over their work.
A lot of the vitriol I see directed at them seems to come from folks with competing work (and they're SCIENTISTS I tell ya!).

"I shoot a 45 because shooting twice is stupid."

Mebbe we should ask Occifer Tim Grammins (Skokie PD) how he feels about that quote!

He was on the latest ProArms podcast, where they cover the case where a BG he confronted soaked up 14 rounds of 45 ACP.
If I'm not mistaken, he has since switched to 9mm, opting for capacity over round size.

It should also be noted that Tom Gresham has recently given up his beloved 45 ACP as his daily carry, also opting for capacity over round size. He said reading a number of reports and feedback from LE and trainers (as well as the improvement in SD rounds over the years) had finally convinced him it was time to make the change.

I have to laugh a bit - I've long recommended to some of my former co-workers that they go against "conventional wisdom" and go with the 9mm for those very reasons.

Seems some folks are finally catching up with me!

Now if I can just drive a stake thru the focus on the front sight and sqeeeeeeze the trigger mantras...

 

[kgpcr]

The bigger the hole the more they bleed and the better the chance you hit more vitals

 

[Deaf Smith]

The bigger the hole the more they bleed and the better the chance you hit more vitals

What is more, the FBI's own protocol says diameter plays a part .. But one does not understand what part since they say stopping power is a myth.

A myth with protocols saying penetration, diameter, bullet configuration, fragmentation, etc.. somehow does something but it's not stopping power.

But yes, diameter, as long as adequate penetration, does increase you-know-what.

Deaf

 

[TimSr]

I love this caliber vs that caliber stats that do not take into account what bullet, what load, and what gun is being used. Most calibers, especially for revolvers, have such a wide range of velocity and bullet possibilities that it is impossible to even guess what "a .38" or "a 9mm" or "a 45" will do.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Two dimensional targets often do poorly in teaching people how to aim who will in actuality be shooting at three dimensional targets in real life, should they ever have to put their training to work.

http://www.tacticalanatomy.com/ might help in adjusting thinking a bit.

Louis Awerbuck used to build 3-D targets out of cardboard targets by notching and folding two of the cardboards together and placing a traditional paper target over top of the cardboard framework, and teach students to drive shots deep to the vitals thereby.

-- Img from http://patheyman.com/louis-awerbucks-shotgun-class/

He used the factory 3-D targets as well, but the cardboards came first.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I like that targets over cardboards idea, also slanting them. A nice bonus is that that probably wouldn't run afoul of rules at any range.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

Deaf, the best I ever heard it described was by a police officer who was guiding traffic around my stalled car as we were waiting for a tow truck in 1994. We talked about guns. He said "bigger bullets make bigger holes." I liked it and have never forgotten it.

Strambo, Fred, I completely agree regarding 3 dimensional thinking. Louis Awerbuck was my firearms sifu and we spent a great deal of time shooting on curved targets. Another way to practice this is to use a cardboard box with a balloon in it that is tied to something so that when you hit the balloon the box drops. It was shown on one of Michael Bane's shows but I can recall which.

Thanks to all for being high road and keep caliber more or less out of the discussion. Louis used to say it doesn't matter which you use if you keep missing your target and that was the real problem , not getting good hits. I can't argue with Yoda.

 

[lemaymiami]

Here's a tip on shot placement that I passed on to my young officers on more than one occasion.... While aiming exactly where you want to hit works very well in a target setting - aiming just a bit low in that real life, once in a lifetime survival moment will serve you well on the street.... Under serious stress, with adrenaline pumping strong, and your heart up into your throat (in other words -scared to death...)... most will shoot high. Aim just a bit low and you'll hit where it's needed, period. That goes for pistol, shotgun, or rifle by the way.

 

[JohnKSa]

Under serious stress, with adrenaline pumping strong, and your heart up into your throat (in other words -scared to death...)... most will shoot high.

Interesting comment, not one I've heard before and sort of counterintuitive since one would normally expect a person under extreme stress to jerk the trigger and shoot low.

Do you mind my asking where you found this information or how you developed this idea?