"One Shot Stops": testing the effectiveness of handgun rounds

[18DAI]

Anyone here old enough to remember the "coroners big three"?

That referred to the rounds that coroners recovered from dead bodies most often. Those "big three" rounds were .22, .38, and double 00 buckshot.

If placed properly, any handgun round can produce the elusive "one shot stop". Don't forget that the primary purpose of a handgun is to enable you to fight your way to your shotgun or rifle (at least that is how I was trained). Much better chance of obtaining a "one shot stop" with those. My 0.02

 

[MCgunner]

I, personally, don't think the M/S data is junk. I think it's relevant and compares effectiveness of rounds to each other. If your vaunted round ain't on top, I'm sorry. However, they are not absolute numbers, only relative to each other. If a round scores over 70 percent, it's worthy of consideration for carry.

However, looking that stuff over, it hasn't changed my carry platforms. I carry the most powerful gun I can comfortably shoot and carry 24/7. I like the little pocket 9s and the .38 snubs. That's what I carry in a pocket. No, .38 special and 9x19 don't score on TOP of the M/S data, but they work well enough in the data. If one don't do it, I have 12 more in the Kel Tec to get the job done, all I need do is squeeze again.

Theory is theory and I look at it with interest and cuss and discuss it on the net. But, what I carry has a lot to do with what I can carry 24/7 because if it's at home when I need it, it's worthless. What cracks me up is the guys that carry their 1911s come hell or high water, won't be caught with a .38. Nope, by gawd my life is important! Cops carried the .38 for 80 years, but nope, ain't enough, never mind modern ammunition. I ain't settlin' for less than my .45! Meanwhile, the .357 magnum, in many loadings, and especially compared to ball, is more effective. If they won't settle for less than the best, they should be totin' the .357. Ya know, a SP101 is a helluva good carry and easier on the hip than any full size 1911.

Not to be outdone are the guys with the little .32ACPs that yap about shot placement and "having a gun". Wow, there's not a happy medium here? I think there is and M/S's data confirms that the 9x19 in its best +P loadings is nearly as effective as the .45ACPs or .357s best loadings, nearly, not quite, but nearly. .32 is way down on the list. Well, guess what, I sorta figured that, ROFLMAO. But, it's still fun to cuss and discuss these things face to face or on internet boards and I find the subject interesting enough to read the various research from M/S to Dr. Fackler to Dt Courtney. I happen to believe that Dr. Courtney's work is the best on the subject, the most well done, based in actual physics and backed up by neurology and statistics and other studies by statistical correlation. That's my opinion. But, hey, I also believe in natural selection, to the chagrin of many a Baptist, so sue me.

Ya know, carry what makes ya happy and I will, too. Meanwhile, let the arguments continue.

 

[Just One Shot]

A .380 through the heart is better than a .45 through the shoulder.

 

[MCgunner]

Yeah, but a .380 that just misses the heart with a thorax hit vs a .357 magnum with the same shot placement?

 

[Straight Shooter]

A .380 through the heart is better than a .45 through the shoulder.

In almost every thread where someone compares a .45 with whatever the guy with the .45 somehow always misses

Man, those of us with .45s really need to practice more...

 

[Vern Humphrey]

That's why for the study to be valid it would have to have three things:

First, valid data.

Second, valid statistical interpretation.

And finally, the dependent variable should be stops/encounters, not "one shot stops." In other words, the question to be answered is, "What do winners use?"

 

[huntsman]

There ain't one, as stopping power is not quantifiable measurement, but rather a phrase tossed around in gun shops to make you buy stuff.

Sounds reasonable to me, just like 80% of the fishing lures are made to catch fishermen instead of fish.

 

[tipoc]

"One Shot Stops": testing the effectiveness of handgun rounds

If the op didn't want a discussion of M&Ss work he may have tried to pick a different title for this thread. M&S developed the "One Shot Stop" formulas and statistics and are most well known for that. It is what they decided to make the marquee for their work in three books and many articles. So whenever someone refers to "One Shot Stop" stats they are referring to M&S work by default since no one else uses the concept.

To me it's most useful to look at their work as a part of a 30 year old ongoing study of wounding factors. More serious work has been done over the last 30 years or so than the previous 70 and a good deal has been learned. It's in this way that I encourage folks to read their books. There is no other way to adequately understand where they went wrong and what they did right other than looking at their books, and the work of others, and seeing them as part of an ongoing discussion.

The old concept of choosing the most powerful round you can handle well, in a gun matched to the task, and accurate shot placement has been re-inforced in every study conducted.

tipoc

 

[ArmedBear]

In other words, the question to be answered is, "What do winners use?"

THAT is what's essentially impossible to measure, at least if you want to draw conclusions about rounds. There are too many variables.

Home invaders are more likely to be "hopped up" on meth than homeowners.

Violent sociopaths are more likely to pull the trigger than cops.

Those who act offensively might have the advantage in terms of shot placement, since they shoot first.

Not sure how you can really surmise all that much about a BULLET from that.

 

[THE MACHINIST]

Special Agent UREY W. PATRICK

FIREARMS TRAINING UNIT
FBI ACADEMY
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA

July 14, 1989


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

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

Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding. Penetration less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, "too little penetration will get you killed." 42,43 Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet.

 

[LoneStarWings]

A little bitty .22 round punched into someone's belly will "kill'a fella". It won't knock someone down, but a .22 can and does kill.

So carry one. If you come up to some guy in a dark alley pop one of those .22 rounds in the middle of his forehead. He'll likely recover and you will have time to get away. No need to kill some one.

I can't tell if you're joking with the comment that someone will recover from a .22 to the head but I had a family member who comitted suicide with a .22 rifle and it just took one shot to the head and he was gone.

 

[Slamfire]

My personal feeling is that the basic premise of Marshall and Sanow's work is sound. I cannot see any better way of testing handgun effectiveness than evaluating the results of shooting a bunch of people with various handgun rounds.

That would be the best way, assuming the data base is large enough, and the scoring is correct.

I have read criticisms of the M&S data, mainly that statistical tests show that the results are made up. I don’t know what statistical tests these are, but I do know that financial expenditures can be examined for “randomness”, and that people have gone to jail because the “statistical test” showed their numbers to be made up.

I would agree with M&S on one thing: handguns are not very reliable weapons. If you don’t hit something mission critical, the target does not have to stop. Look, a fast ball at 90 mph is equal to (or greater) in momentum to a 158 grain 357 slug. How many batters have you see hit by fast balls? Were they picked off their feet and blown into the backstop? No. We have seen the expressions of pain, of jumping around on one leg, maybe if the ball hits the helmet the guy slumps to a knee. Momentum is the only energy conserved in a collusion. Kinetic energy is not. Any jumping, slumping, movement after the hit is due to the human’s reaction to the event. Ever been stung by a Yellow Jacket? The sting has zero momentum or kinetic energy, and yet that little wasp caused me to go from 0 to 60 in three seconds.

The amount of momentum a handgun can deliver is insignificant to the on target momentum transfer you can create with a pole axe, war hammer, mace, or flail. A solid hit with one of those will provide a one stop kill.

 

[ScareyH22A]

I wish someone could conduct a test. You know how when a boxing trainer is holding on to a suspended heavy bag and the fighter punches it, you can see the force being absorbed by the bag and the trainer. I wonder if there's a way for someone to conduct a similar experiment with bullets. And even measure the force with some sort of sensor.

 

[huntsman]

Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet.

Is that an endorsement for big and slow is the way to go?

 

[MikkOwl]

That stuff is easy to calculate. It's so small it's negligible. There's no more testing required. Suspending dead pig sand shooting them shows that they barely even swing in the slightest from being shot.

 

[MikkOwl]

Is that an endorsement for big and slow is the way to go?

No, it's an endorsement of extremely large, explosive and fast. But since that is not quite so practical or easy to score hits with..

The idea is to do a lot of damage and to hit. Repeatedly.

 

[Gryffydd]

I think in order to really reflect the reality of handgun stopping power you'd have to include data from all kinds of confrontations. This would include instances with multiple hits, it would include exact details on precisely what what damaged by each shot, it would include information on whether the deceased was on drugs, alcohol, or was extremely enraged during the shooting, etc. etc.
M&S didn't (and largely couldn't) do any of those. What you're left with is a cute over simplification of the issue. Sure, you get numbers that largely reflect what one would logically expect from a given caliber--but that shouldn't surprise us.
A center of mass hit from a 9mm blows through the heart causing a tick in the one shot stop column and a .357 125gr COM hit that narrowly misses everything vital and doesn't make a tick in the 1 shot stop column doesn't make the 9mm have better stopping power. Sure you can aggregate the data, but you still don't know about shot placement. For all you know .357 carriers are better shooters on average than 9mm shooters and get vital/CNS hits more often. This is the problem with non-controlled non-repeatable research. You have too many variables and you can't control most of them.


Now, to actually answer the OP's question, here's my opinion...

So I'm asking: what do you think is the best way to test handgun "stopping power" and why?

1. Measure penetration potential, the FBI 12" minimum is a good starting rule
2. Look at every performance related figure possible, aggregate them, and apply some logic...
3. Pick something that you can shoot well in a package you can carry.

I would define #2 as looking at muzzle energy, frontal area, sectional density, momentum, Taylor KO factor, etc. None of them is a very good way to measure effectiveness by themselves, but if you look at them all you start to get a good idea of a round's potential.
Every single one of those except #3 is repeatable, controlled, and consistent.
That's about it. Shot placement is King, penetration is Queen, and everything else is angels dancing on the heads of pins. And yet for some reason we'll spend hours arguing about those angels, or shaking that pin around...

 

[ScareyH22A]

That stuff is easy to calculate. It's so small it's negligible. There's no more testing required. Suspending dead pig sand shooting them shows that they barely even swing in the slightest from being shot.

Assuming that the bullet doesn't pass right through the suspended pigs or even using sandbags instead, it doesn't swing at all? I'm sure an average guy could punch a sandbag and make it swing quite a bit. And I've seen clay wounds on TheBoxOTruth that looked pretty impressive.

 

[MikkOwl]

It swings I'm sure, just so little it's not even worth talking about. Barely moves.

Bullets are cutting weapons foremost. Imagine talking about knock-down power with knives for example..

There's videos floating around of people getting shot with body armor by all kinds of vicious high end firearms, and nothing special happens. One guy was standing on one foot as he took a round to the center mass (7.62mm NATO I think) and he had no problems keeping balance.

It's similar to getting hit by a thrown baseball, if that gives a good impression of how small it is.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
In other words, the question to be answered is, "What do winners use?"

THAT is what's essentially impossible to measure, at least if you want to draw conclusions about rounds. There are too many variables.

Home invaders are more likely to be "hopped up" on meth than homeowners.

Violent sociopaths are more likely to pull the trigger than cops.

Those who act offensively might have the advantage in terms of shot placement, since they shoot first.

Not sure how you can really surmise all that much about a BULLET from that.

Who cares about a bullet? What we care about is winning. One of the major flaws in Marshall's "study" is that it assumes the cartridge and bullet are the most important factors -- but that has never been proven.

The first task is to identify the winners and losers. Next, sort the data for common factors among those groups. It is those currently unknown common factors that are important.

Let us suppose, for example, that we find cops armed with revolvers more commonly win than those with automatics. That would be valuable information.

 

[ArmedBear]

Let us suppose, for example, that we find cops armed with revolvers more commonly win than those with automatics. That would be valuable information.

It wouldn't, however, imply that one should go get a revolver, in the least.

It would merely offer an opportunity to form several other hypotheses to test.

And I LIKE revolvers. A lot.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

It wouldn't, however, imply that one should go get a revolver, in the least.

It would merely offer an opportunity to form several other hypotheses to test.

You are absolutely right -- a good study gives you a platform to launch another, more in-depth study. I personally suspect that a detailed multi-variate analysis of data from a study like this would show that training trumps all.

 

[Gryffydd]

It's similar to getting hit by a thrown baseball, if that gives a good impression of how small it is.

Yes, but who's throwing the baseball? Randy Johnson?

A 100mph fastball carries 103 lb/ft, just for your random number of the day

 

[MikkOwl]

I think just a fairly regularly (hard) thrown baseball It's not going to bother people getting hit. The effect is just irrelevant.

And to join the other discussion: Yes, training and skill trumps all, but it doesn't hurt to maximize once's chances with also having great equipment.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Yes, training and skill trumps all, but it doesn't hurt to maximize once's chances with also having great equipment.

And that's what a study of winners and losers would show -- with multi-variate analysis, you could sort out and measure all factors, training, equipment ammunition, experience, and so on.