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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Howdy, Mas.

The question is, do you endorse their findings? That is, do you inject yourself into the controversy?

I know Sanow -- and I don't disagree that he's a nice guy. But that has nothing to do with the study. My position is:

1. The a priori assumption that it is the catridge (and a particular loading at that) that is the determining factor is wrong.

2. The data is questionable -- people cited by M&S as data sources have denied they provided data.

3. The statistical analysis is inadequate. As someone else pointed out, it takes a 10% difference to make a statistical difference between cartridges, if the data is assumed valid.

After decades of staying in touch with police departments to get a feel of what guns and loads were working best for them, I can say that in the service handgun calibers, Marshall and Sanow's recommendations are pretty much the same as what I'm seeing from those sources.
No surprise there -- after all, the cartridges they list at the top have long been considered the most effective. More than a hundred years ago, without any study at all, a lot of people concluded the .38 Long Colt was inferior to the .45 Colt, based on what they saw in the Philippines.
 
Kind words appreciated.

Vern, I've found both Ed and Evan to be nice guys AND honest men. Taking your points in order:

1. I don't recall either Marshall or Sanow ever saying that ammunition performance was THE determining factor, just A factor. In fact, both have made it clear that they consider shot placement the key factor.

2. We share some of the same sources, and I'm hearing what they heard.

3. As noted, I'm not a statistician and do not have standing to argue with how they interpreted their figures. Anyone who quibbles with their results is free to perform their own exhaustive studies.
 
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...
Ironically, it's been theorized that part of the reputation that the .45ACP has garnered was built during the era when it was not a commonly issued LE weapon. The officers who chose it and were allowed to carry it were usually "gunny" types who purchased their own weapon and were likely to actually practice on their own time. Not surprisingly the .45 shooters tended to get better results in shootouts than the officers who carried the issue weapons and practiced only when they had to or when they were afraid of failing a qualifier.
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.
The nature of the topic (which prevents conducting controlled, real-world experimentation on humans) is going to make any research open to question and vulnerable to nit-picking.

I think there are some problems with the M&S work. I also think that it's extremely unfortunate that instead of addressing the problems constructively their opponents have attempted to discredit them and have tried to completely dismiss their work & their approach to the problem.

I think it's obvious that the real issues aren't who M&S are, what they did or how they did it but rather that some didn't like the results they obtained.
 
Last edited:
I think there are some problems with the M&S work. I also think that it's extremely unfortunate that instead of addressing the problems constructively their opponents have attempted to discredit them and have tried to completely dismiss their work & their approach to the problem.

I think it's obvious that the real issues aren't who M&S are, what they did or how they did it but rather that some didn't like the results they obtained.

I think this sums it up perfectly.
 
From JohnKSa:
I think it's obvious that the real issues aren't who M&S are, what they did or how they did it but rather that some didn't like the results they obtained.

Disagreement with how they present the evidence and how it was gathered isn't the same as disagreeing with the results. The statement also creates a straw man by lumping all criticism in together.

From Mas:
3. As noted, I'm not a statistician and do not have standing to argue with how they interpreted their figures. Anyone who quibbles with their results is free to perform their own exhaustive studies.

Kinda ducks the question and mildly insults the questioner. A fella can only question if they can respond by performing their own exhaustive tests? I'm out a luck then. Being a nobody without resources, maybe best to keep quiet.

I don't have any major disagreements with a lot of M&S write and say. Their gelatin tests are as good as anybodies. Their recommendations on ammo are sound, their many anecdotes are instructive, their history of developments in ammo are on point and useful, etc., etc. I recommend their books to folks. It's the "One Shot Stop" that causes a pause as here the science is poor and the work misleading.

Fact is M&S recommendations aren't all that different from many others. A good round in a service caliber is a good round and some are slightly better at some tasks (penetration through barriers, for example) then some others, as are some bullets. Developments in handgun ammo have developed rapidly over the last 30 years. M&S have helped me to keep abreast of some of them even if I strongly disagree with some of what they say.

tipoc
 
Looking for a result to fit your answer

Vern,

I think that critizing those who rant and nearly foam at the mouth with hatred anytime a quote from the M&S books is sufficient to make me wonder what is wrong here.

I used to be a COOPERITE. I really did believe that a .45ACP ball was effective 19 out of 20 times. Not anymore.

Has anyone questioned where Jeff COOPER got his data? Did he publish a list of morgues or police departments that supplied him with the grounds for his 19 out of 20 statements.
When I read COOPER'S book, it was pretty clear, he was giving his opinion based on his own observations. He never provided proof or scientific data for them.

Does anyone call COOPER a fake or a liar because they disagree with him? I think that some of the attacks on M&S border on fanaticism.
If you disagree with their data, why not just say why and see what the reply is?

M&S have issued results similar to other groups who did not have a personal agenda (THE FBI).

The FBI started the modern stopping power debate when poor tactics used by its agents resulted in the so called "MIAMI MASSACRE", were two criminals shot it out with a group of 8 FBI agents.
The FBI blamed the poor performance of their agents on the failure on ONE BULLET!
No one wants to admit they made a mistake and a beauracy is even less likely to admit it. I speak from experience on this.

What about all the other shots fired?
Why was only one agent carrying a semi-automatic pistol? The rest had revolvers.
Why did they not have even one AR-15 or MP-5 with them? They knew these two bad guys used at least one RUGER Mini-14 and one shotgun when the pulled robberies.
Why not call for uniformed police officers to back them up before forcing the stop?
Why did one agent not even fire a single shot?
ON AND ON.
The result, the FBI said it was the failure of ONE BULLET to not penetrate enough.
So now only deep penetrating rounds will do. Well, how many other gun fights have been lost by a failure to penetrate? I don't know the answer and from what I have seen, neither do the heavy bullet backers or they would be throwing out example after example to prove M&S wrong.

The M&S books list the 155 grain .40 caliber load as very, very effective. Equal or superior to an .45ACP load.
This statement usually sends the FACKLER followers into fits. However, it was not M&S who were responsible for developing this load. It was the I&NS with their gunfight experience along the southern border.
Can anyone tell me why that FBI data is more reliable than the data gathered by the BORDER PATROL in actual gunfights.

The BORDER PATROL, along with many police agencies acknowledged the great effectiveness (for a handgun) of the .357 magnum.
Does anyone question the effectiveness of this round? Is there anyone who wants to claims that .45ACP ball is a better round at incapacitating a bad guy?
Yet, many of the heavy bullet backers claim a 230 ball is more effective than a 155 grain hollow point moving 300 feet per second faster.

So why, when we are talking about 9m.m. versus .45ACP or .40 caliber versus .45ACP are we shooting the messengers. M&S, have issued their opinions.
If you disagree with M&S, please document with actual data (like gunfight results). Don't forget to list your sources or we will know that you are liars and fakes like certain people have been known to call M&S.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Jim
 
One Shot Stops

Thanks Jim for your 2cents . What a lot of the disagreement is over is just some folks rooting for their favorite load. The actual results of M&S is what matters to LE. The 155Gr.JHP in .40 S&W has been the best in Actual shot results. The Kansas State Patrol uses the 45ACP in Glock21. Texas has gone for the 357SIG round in Sig pistols ,but at last account there have not been enough shootings to see where it rates in stops. Anecdotal statements from officers who have had to shoot BGs with it [357 Sig.] state that the person hit went down in a heap.
 
If Massad Ayoob is still here, there's one point I'd like to add. In discussing the use of sights in gunfights, Mas made a critical point (I'm going by memory here.) The question was raised that since some people do use them and others don't, it really doesn't matter.

Mas pointed out if you separate winners from losers, you find that winners are much more likely to report using the sights, and losers to report not using them. Now that is a valid approach.
 
From a purely statistics perspective, the M&S study methodology was/is so insanely poor and so utterly intellectually indefensible, that frankly I didn't think that anybody much tried to defend it anymore. I am surprised that it generated this much heat within this thread.

Say what you will about their conclusions - their means of identifying appropriate data for analysis is fatally flawed.
 
Sounds like you're casting aspersions on those who criticize Marshall and Sanow.
The statement also creates a straw man by lumping all criticism in together.
Since I said in my post I believe there are problems with M&S' work, I'm one of their critics and obviously I'm not casting aspersions on myself. I'm also lumping myself in with their critics but I'm not one of their "opponents".

The issue is not their "critics" but rather their "opponents". As an example, a critic is someone who states that there are problems with your work or points out problems with your work. An opponent is someone who writes a letter to try to get you fired.
Disagreement with how they present the evidence and how it was gathered isn't the same as disagreeing with the results.
I agree, and that's part of my point.

M&S' opponents have not simply pointed out the issues with the evidence and how it was gathered, they've tried to completely dismiss the entire effort and discredit M&S besides. Beyond just saying that the evidence is presented poorly and there were problems with how the data was gathered I've seen allegations that the data wasn't gathered at all but was simply made up. That goes far beyond disagreeing with the evidence presentation and data gathering.

In my opinion, the real issue that M&S opponents have with M&S isn't with their processes or presentation but rather with their results and that's why they declared an all out war on M&S rather than saying--you have to do X, Y, & Z to fix your process & presentation. It's worth noting that the M&S opponents should have access to shooting data as well, yet they have not even attempted to publish conflicting results based on studying large numbers of shootings--an approach that the FBI's expert, Patrick Urey stated would be productive in his paper entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness".
 
3. As noted, I'm not a statistician and do not have standing to argue with how they interpreted their figures. Anyone who quibbles with their results is free to perform their own exhaustive studies.


From a purely statistics perspective, the M&S study methodology was/is so insanely poor and so utterly intellectually indefensible, that frankly I didn't think that anybody much tried to defend it anymore. I am surprised that it generated this much heat within this thread.

Say what you will about their conclusions - their means of identifying appropriate data for analysis is fatally flawed.
...Better get your exhaustive study started :neener:
But seriously, you don't have to do your own exhaustive studies to understand their methods sucked. Statistics are statistics whether you're studying shootings or anything else under the sun.
 
The one thing missing from most of the "critiques" of M&S is the thing I was most looking for from this thread: how would you do it better?

We already know that the M&S data is horribly flawed, that they made up half their data and faked the rest, and that when they're not busy hoodwinking the shooting public they eat babies. Yet another post to that effect isn't exactly groundbreaking work.

I hope the folks who have critiqued without offering alternatives will chime back in.
 
The one thing missing from most of the "critiques" of M&S is the thing I was most looking for from this thread: how would you do it better?

Number one, I'd save all the raw data/reports, of course with names left out so that victims privacy was respected. Some of the data that was thrown out, such as multiple failure.

Also, I'd like to see how many shootings could be subdivided into groups where the BG was on stimulants/hallucinogens, cross referenced by body mass and enumerate if a stop was elicited...and how many COM shots it took to elicit compliance.

Also, layers/type of clothing the bullet had to penetrate. There would have to be sufficient incidents to be able to get meaningful analysis. Also, it would be nice to have the database accessible for peer review and possible compilation of data as new data comes in on "new and improved" bullet designs.
 
Number one, I'd save all the raw data/reports, of course with names left out so that victims privacy was respected. Some of the data that was thrown out, such as multiple failure.

I know that in hunting, the first shot, if not fatal, can sometimes seem to make the animal "bulletproof". Subsequent shots -- even shots that should be quickly fatal -- seem to have little effect. I am not sure if this is ever the case in humans, but I can understand leaving out such instances.

Also, I'd like to see how many shootings could be subdivided into groups where the BG was on stimulants/hallucinogens, cross referenced by body mass and enumerate if a stop was elicited...and how many COM shots it took to elicit compliance.

This would be interesting, but I'm not sure if it would be statistically relevant, unless it can be shown that dopers or the obese are more often shot with one caliber over another.

Also, layers/type of clothing the bullet had to penetrate. There would have to be sufficient incidents to be able to get meaningful analysis. Also, it would be nice to have the database accessible for peer review and possible compilation of data as new data comes in on "new and improved" bullet designs.

Yes, this would also be interesting and useful information to have -- but does the lack of such information devalue the information that was provided?
 
The one thing missing from most of the "critiques" of M&S is the thing I was most looking for from this thread: how would you do it better?

The first thing I realize, is that it really doesn't matter. So I wouldn't even try to validate such a theory on 1 shot kills. Why? Self defense and shooting an attacker, is NOT MATHEMATICAL. And as such, statistics will play very little in finding the truth. On the other hand, physics and biology are 2 areas that do play an important part in determining if an attacker can be stopped or not.

1) Self defense; shooting another human being; and their psychological response based on numerous factors at that time and place; makes such a theory as "1 Shot Stops" a non-mathematical reality. In other words; no two people shot with the same caliber bullet, in the same exact location, are going to have the same exact REACTION to the shot.

2) Everyone agrees that shot placement is the most important factor when using a handgun for self defense. Whether the gun is a 45acp or a 25acp; if shot in the proper location, the target WILL CEASE their attack on you. And counter to that; even the 44mag or 50cal shot in a non-vital area will allow the target to continue their advancement towards you.

3) No human in their right mind is going to attempt "1 Shot Stops". if they do, they are crazy. Yes, if the criminal took off running after the 1st shot; you shouldn't be chasing them and continuing your shooting. But if they are still in the same spot they were when you made the first shot, then you should be continuing your shots until the attacker is no longer a threat, or when you run out of ammunition.

Even with hunting rifles/rounds where the effects of hydrostatic shock (If you go with that belief) doesn't kill an animal with one shot if they aren't shot in the proper location. Anyone who's hunted, has undoubtedly had to track an animal they have shot. And sometimes, we don't find the animal. And that shooting is done with a similar weight 140-180 grain bullet; that happens to be averaging 2200-3000 fps. And worse yet, the animal doesn't experience the same rationalizing psychological responses that human have. Meaning; They might be motivated by instinct and fright, but they aren't affected by a fear of dieing that humans go through.

The one and only truth when it comes to self defense shooting, is the law of physics and biology. The BIGGER the bullet, the more "POTENTIAL" blood loss the shooting victim will experience. If the shooting victim is mentally aware of it, it will "PROBABLY" have a psychological affect also on their behavior. This psychological behavior can happen from being shot with ANY CALIBER cartridge; however; some of the smaller caliber bullets aren't as effective in "Getting the attention of the shooting victim". In other words, like I mentioned earlier, the shooting victim has to be MENTALLY AWARE that they've been shot for the psychological affect to kick in. But other than that, the larger the bullet the more blood loss it can potentially can cause; and thus the quicker the person being shot will stop advancing and being a threat.

But sometimes we have to compromise on the size of the caliber we are carrying for protection. Carrying a 12 gauge or assault rifle isn't practical, so we choose handguns. Sometimes carrying a full size auto or revolver like a 1911A1 or a S&W 686 4" isn't always a practical gun to carry. So we sometimes go with a smaller caliber gun. Sometimes the availability of the ammo, price, etc... is a factor. Maybe it's a gun passed down to you. Maybe the person isn't comfortable with the kick of a larger caliber; or psychologically, they aren't comfortable without having 15-18 rounds in the magazine. Whatever the reason to use a smaller caliber gun, certain compromises must exist. Just like having a handgun at all, compared to a shotgun, is a compromise. The smaller the caliber, the better marksman we need to be. But if you're good, then a smaller caliber will work just fine.

I consider my "Self Defense" guns very logical. I'm not saying they are the best available. I'm saying they are logical for MY USE. The BIGGEST holes (Collectively) I can put into a human body is made by a shotgun. So I have a 12 gauge shotgun using either #4 or #00 buck. If that isn't possible or feasible; then if I'm at home; then it's a S&W Model 13-1 357 magnum with 158 grain Hydra-Shocks in it. It's a compromise from the 12 gauge, but it's more easily available; simpler to shoot for my family members when stress/fear/etc.... are involved in the situation. For me, when I'm carrying, I try and carry my SigSauer P220 45acp. It's the biggest caliber bullet efficiently available. (No, I won't consider a 50 cal). The 45acp with a JHP, will create the largest hole possible. And the larger the hole, the more blood loss and the better the odds are that I can hit a vital organ or the CNS. But sometimes the 45acp isn't practical. So I carry either the 32acp walther/feg PPK or the CZ-82 9mm Makarov. As for diameter, both are generally going to make about the same size hole as the 9mm, 38spl, etc... As for the 40/10mm; if I can go that big, I'd go with my 45acp. I doubt there's a 40/10mm the size of a walther PPK that wouldn't be about the most uncomfortable thing to shoot. So for civilian use, I find the 40/10mm to just be a waste of a caliber. Same with many of the calibers like the 327, 357 sig, 45gap, etc... Police, FBI, etc... can do quite well with a 9mm if they need magazine capacity; and a 45acp if they were content with 8 rounds. Anyway, that's another issue. Point is; my compromise when using the 32acp or 9mm makarov is that I have to improve on my accuracy, being the hole is smaller. But when shooting ANY HANDGUN, we have to improve on accuracy because of the simple fact that it's a handgun.

So, M&S or anyone else can do all the studies and make all the stats they want. And if you believe that the stats have meaning, then by all means get the gun they say is the best for 1 stop shots. And because your confident level will be so high, you can have the Barny Fife arrogance and only put one bullet in the gun. Me personally; I'll be using my FMJ in my 32acp; HP in my 9mm makarov and 45acp; and #4/00 buck in my 12 gauge. IF; let me emphasize the word IF: I choose to actually pull out a gun on someone and pull the trigger; no M&S stat will mean anything. Because I WILL empty the entire magazine/Cylinder into that person's body. I even practice at least once a month, being able to shoot a magazine of 8 rounds, into a paper plate, at 20-30 feet, all in less than 2 seconds. If I can't hit all 8 in the plate, then I need to keep practicing. Then I practice 3 different plates. 3+2+3. Anyway; that's why I don't need to do such stats and why I believe that a 1 stop shot theory is a waste of time.
 
Last edited:
The one thing missing from most of the "critiques" of M&S is the thing I was most looking for from this thread: how would you do it better?
Start by looking at winners and losers.

Abandon the a priori assumption that it is the cartridge (and a particular loading of that cartridge) that is the important factor.

Use multi-variate statistics to locate those factors that are statististically significant in separating winners from losers.

Publish both the results and the data base -- allowing peer review.
 
just IMO a shot placed in the snot locker or headlight is gonna stop an attack.
from anything even .22LR Hi-Vel.
I once was at the scene of a woman attempt suicide with a .25acp by placeing the gun under her chin and fireing. the slug stopped in the 'roof' of her mouth - doesn't say much as there's no telling about the make or condition of the ammo.
a fellow that lived down the street from me attempt suicide with a .38 spcl by shooting hisself in the head. he stuck the muzzle against his head forward of the temple area and succeded in blinding hisself but lived to regret his actions. I wasn't present when he did this but talked with his brother who was there.
another fellow in a neighboring county (didn't know of him but know fellas that did) stuck a 12ga under his chin and pulled the trigger - blew his face off but he lived through it - and another few years as a veggie.
granted the only lesson of this relevant to stopping an enraged/determined attacker in a combat situation is placement which is king.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why this is always so controversial. Carry as much as you can, and let shot placement do the rest. If you aren't going to carry if not with a .22 LR, then for goodness sakes, carry the .22. If you can/are willing to carry a .45 or .357, DO IT!

I'm just happy to see armed citizens who can defend themselves, no matter what caliber they're packing! :)
 
The one thing missing from most of the "critiques" of M&S is the thing I was most looking for from this thread: how would you do it better?
I think this thread has had quite a number of good answers to this question. Though it certainly has taken quite the path, as any thread on M&S will do...
 
From JohnKsa:
Beyond just saying that the evidence is presented poorly and there were problems with how the data was gathered I've seen allegations that the data wasn't gathered at all but was simply made up. That goes far beyond disagreeing with the evidence presentation and data gathering

I've seen the same allegations as well and they are wrong and beside the point. There are two things to point out here: One, the folks who made these allegations did so in the early and mid 1990s, over a decade ago. This was when the Fackler and M&S debate was at it's height and allegations were flying back and forth. The heat died down from that fight some years back. Two: None of the "enemies" of M&S are here at present so fighting them, rather than replying to the critiques, is fighting a "straw man". The old fight becomes an excuse for not dealing with new questions. Most folks don't "foam at the mouth" when M&S are mentioned.

It is a mistake to believe, even for a minute, that many newer shooters don't accept on face value the "One Shot Stop" statistics as valid. For that reason it's useful to point out, calmly and logically, the problems with them.

tipoc
 
"they were shot at a range of 200 yards...with a .22."-man in the wheelchair from the movie Shooter

Shot Placement is all that matters. you have to hit it in the vitals. the bullet has to mushroom. it needs to do alot of damage inside of the body. a 7mmm mag bullet will do more damage if it mushrooms right in an elk than a full metal slug will out of a shotgun. why? NO clean holes. a rifle bullet wound does massive damage inside of the body. because it mushrooms. a shotgun's slug, will make a clean hole and keep on flyin. no clean hole means more damaged tissue.
 
Just another "clean hole"?

Soda_monkey236
a shotgun's slug, will make a clean hole and keep on flyin. no clean hole means more damaged tissue.

attachment.php


BuckHammer® Lead Slugs

When it comes to delivering devastating knockdown power and superior accuracy, no other lead slug offers a more lethal combination than the Remington BuckHammer. Specifically designed for rifled barrels and rifled choke tubes, these high-performance slugs are capable of producing 3-inch or better groups at 100-yards with nearly 100% weight retention and controlled expansion to nearly one-inch in diameter.

Weight: 1 3/8 oz. (601.56 gr.)
Velocity: 1500 fps
Energy: 3000+ ft/lbs

So, you think a slug weighing 1 3/8 oz. at 1500 fps making a "clean hole" almost 1" in diameter wouldn't cause enough damage?

You might want to rethink that statement.
.
.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top