Archie
Member
It's a Matter of Probability
I've been following this discussion since the late 1960's.
The first 'scientific' study was done by Major Julian S. Hatcher in the early part of the 20th Century - had to be after 1911 because the .45 ACP and the 9mm Lugar round were both included. They shot cattle and human cadavers (not soon to be repeated). The results were made from direct observations of the shooting done, by men who had served in combat and in police work. They concluded a big heavy round was the way to go.
Other studies have been done since then. Jeff Cooper had a formula for predicting 'stopping power', roughly based on Hatcher's findings. It favors large heavy bullets, oddly enough.
In about 1973/74, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) funded and performed a study to determine "Incapacitation Index". Incapacitation was defined as rendering the assailant incapable of posing a further threat, not requiring, but including death of the assailant.
To lay the groundwork, a number of trauma doctors were interviewed to determine what sort of wound would cause (or most likely cause) an instant incapacitation. The consensus was a wound generating the largest temporary cavity inside the body of the assailant at a depth of (some depth I don't recall at the moment) would be most likely to render him or her incapacitated.
Following that, the study tested various rounds in something along the lines of ballistic gelatin to see which rounds gave the greatest temporary cavity. They fired a number of rounds of each type and averaged the results. Then they announced the winners.
Sadly, when they repeated the tests a year later, the results were different. The top ten finishers were not the same as before (with one or two exceptions, the .44 Magnum 240 grain loading always did well) and the order of finishing was different.
Other tests and studies have been done with differing results. I recall the Strausburg Goat Shoot, the Marshall - Sanow study and some others that escape my memory. The DeMaio study of dead people in the morgue (which only determined that a person shot to death with a .32 ACP was just as dead as a person shot to death with a 106mm Recoilless Rifle) was another.
But all these data collection attempts could only give a 'probability' factor in incapacitating or stopping an attacker. Nothing is absolute. The variables of shot placement, energy delivered, size and condition of the attacker, mental condition to include drug effects of the attacker and so forth complicate the matter almost infinitely.
I would like to see the type of study as done by Marshall and Sanow performed on a larger scale. No 'editing' of information, simply what caliber was used, the approximate range and the immediate results. With enough data, that would show the 'likelihood' of a instant incapacitation with a specific round. With great enough data, it would iron out the 'sucker shot to the back of the head' and the 'huge lineback on PCP' factors. It would even out the 'nicked his left pinky' and the 'centerpunched the heart and spine' hits.
However, even that would only show a relative probablilty. There just ain't no guarantees in life.
I carry a large caliber sidearm with heavy bullets when I have a choice. You guys are all big kids; choose what you feel is best.
I've been following this discussion since the late 1960's.
The first 'scientific' study was done by Major Julian S. Hatcher in the early part of the 20th Century - had to be after 1911 because the .45 ACP and the 9mm Lugar round were both included. They shot cattle and human cadavers (not soon to be repeated). The results were made from direct observations of the shooting done, by men who had served in combat and in police work. They concluded a big heavy round was the way to go.
Other studies have been done since then. Jeff Cooper had a formula for predicting 'stopping power', roughly based on Hatcher's findings. It favors large heavy bullets, oddly enough.
In about 1973/74, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) funded and performed a study to determine "Incapacitation Index". Incapacitation was defined as rendering the assailant incapable of posing a further threat, not requiring, but including death of the assailant.
To lay the groundwork, a number of trauma doctors were interviewed to determine what sort of wound would cause (or most likely cause) an instant incapacitation. The consensus was a wound generating the largest temporary cavity inside the body of the assailant at a depth of (some depth I don't recall at the moment) would be most likely to render him or her incapacitated.
Following that, the study tested various rounds in something along the lines of ballistic gelatin to see which rounds gave the greatest temporary cavity. They fired a number of rounds of each type and averaged the results. Then they announced the winners.
Sadly, when they repeated the tests a year later, the results were different. The top ten finishers were not the same as before (with one or two exceptions, the .44 Magnum 240 grain loading always did well) and the order of finishing was different.
Other tests and studies have been done with differing results. I recall the Strausburg Goat Shoot, the Marshall - Sanow study and some others that escape my memory. The DeMaio study of dead people in the morgue (which only determined that a person shot to death with a .32 ACP was just as dead as a person shot to death with a 106mm Recoilless Rifle) was another.
But all these data collection attempts could only give a 'probability' factor in incapacitating or stopping an attacker. Nothing is absolute. The variables of shot placement, energy delivered, size and condition of the attacker, mental condition to include drug effects of the attacker and so forth complicate the matter almost infinitely.
I would like to see the type of study as done by Marshall and Sanow performed on a larger scale. No 'editing' of information, simply what caliber was used, the approximate range and the immediate results. With enough data, that would show the 'likelihood' of a instant incapacitation with a specific round. With great enough data, it would iron out the 'sucker shot to the back of the head' and the 'huge lineback on PCP' factors. It would even out the 'nicked his left pinky' and the 'centerpunched the heart and spine' hits.
However, even that would only show a relative probablilty. There just ain't no guarantees in life.
I carry a large caliber sidearm with heavy bullets when I have a choice. You guys are all big kids; choose what you feel is best.
