One shot stops

[Vern Humphrey]

You could--or you could say that it's the energy that makes the difference in extreme cases and use energy as the tie-breaker. The point about the extreme case is that there's a huge difference in nearly any parameter you choose to measure. You can't just pick ONE parameter, scale the comparison back to a nearly trivial case and have any basis for saying that the single parameter you picked (essentially at random) is the one that's important when the difference is picayune.Those are called religious beliefs. Ok, that's pushing it a bit, but you get the point. Belief without evidence is fine, but only if that's how you sell it. You can't couch opinion or faith as fact to a non-believer and expect to make any headway.FBI did a study awhile back on exactly this topic. Their conclusion was that the issue pistols currently in use by U.S. LE are all effective. The difference between the winners and the losers was attitude, skill and training--NOT the firearm or caliber they were carrying. TFL search is sick right now. When it gets better, I'll post a link to the article.

Oh, everything you say is true.

But let's design a defensive cartridge, based on terminal ballistics only.

Should we go with a .40 or .45? We can't measure the difference in terminal effect between .40 and .45. But extreme cases say larger is better.

Should we go with FMJ or a hollowpoint? We really can't measure the difference in terminal effect between FMJ and hollowpoints. We can set up tests, but how do we validate them? But extreme cases say hollowpoints are better.

Should we go with a 3" barrel or a 5"? We can't measure the difference in terminal effect between those barrel lengths. But extreme cases say longer is better.

Should we go with +P or standard? We can't measure the difference in terminal effect between +P or standard. But extreme cases say boosting velocity and energy is better.

Now we have designed two cartridges -- a .40 standard load in FMJ out of a 3" barrel, and a .45 ACP +P hollowpoint out of a 5" barrel.

And we may well be able to measure which is best by keeping track of actual shootings. No one element is proveably more effective, but the sum of our decisions is another matter.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

There is a reason why fmj bullets are illegal for taking big game, and why the softpoints show much more tissue damage, blood loss and shock. The larger cases permit you to load more powder.

Are we talking about cases or about bullets? How does changing to a softpoint bullet increase case capacity?

More powder is necessary to get more velocity. The 223 softpoint has the same momentum and 1/4 the "frontal area" of .45 ball ammo. However, the 223 sp knocks big dogs ( 80+ lbs) on their butts with chest hits, and .45 ball ammo does nothing of the kind. Contrary to what the ignorant claim, we most certainly can get service handgun bullets to the sort of speed (ie, 2400 fps or so) that the 223 still has at 100 yds (where it still knocks over those big dogs).

We're not comparing rifles with handguns -- we're comparing cartridges with others in the same class.

Now, it's difficult to prove by actual measurement that a hollowpoint in, say .45 ACP is "better" than FMJ. We don't have accurate data from actual shootings (and much of what we have is contaminated.) But we can look at extreme cases and say, it OUGHT to be better, even if we can't measure it.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

performance in flesh is performance in flesh.

But we don't have enough reliable data to tell us what the performance in flesh is between, say a .38 Special and a 9mm.

Velocity is velocity, whether from rifle or pistol.

Again, we don't have enough reliable data to tell us what the performance in flesh is between, say a .38 Special and a 9mm.

If you can get the same performance from a pistol (at defensive pistol ranges, ie, 30 ft and less) as the 223 gets at 100 yds, you can reliably expect the same performance as the 223 sp has on critters at that distance. Which is to say, it's very, very much more impressive than .45 ball ammo.

But we're not comparing a hypothetical pistol with .223 velocity to a .45. We're comparing the .38 Special with the 9mm, and the .45 with the .40 S&W.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

we CAN get such info, by shooting animals, as I said.

Live animal tests, even when done, don't allow us to definitively state that the .38 Special is better or worse than the 9mm.

we can also get the 2400 fps velocity in a service pistol. Even without fully supported barrels, stronger cases,and today's powders, THV got 60 gr .45 ACP bullets to 2300 fps, 25 years ago. Obviously, you don't know that to be the case.

Don't know what to be the case? That there have been various experimental loads in the .45 ACP? Or that the .45 ACP has been necked down to as small as .22? Or that all sorts of wonder bullets have been tried -- including jacketed wood bullets weighing around 60 grains?

 

[JohnKSa]

But let's design a defensive cartridge, based on terminal ballistics only.

But you DIDN'T design it based only on terminal ballistics. Or you would have gone to the legal limit of diameter for a handgun (.50 cal) and would have gone to the longest barrel that was feasible--maybe 8 or even 10 inches. And rather than bothering with +P, you'd have gone to the highest velocity and bullet weight that the average person could hold onto while firing.

In short, you would have designed a .500 S&W Magnum or maybe something a little more powerful.

The reason you didn't do that is because capacity, shootability and portability also play MAJOR parts in the selection of a defensive round.

You CAN'T design for terminal ballistics alone.

One must consider the practical size limitations of the firearm because it will need to be easily carried--maybe even concealed.

One should maximize capacity within reason realizing that a defensive scenario may involve more than one attacker.

One should maximize the shootability of the cartridge within reason realizing that multiple accurate and rapid shots may be necessary to end an attack.

All of those things and more will limit your terminal ballistics. ESPECIALLY--since it has been repeatedly shown that:

1. Having a gun is critical to surviving a violent attack.
2. Having more rounds can make the difference between surviving and dying.
3. Shot placement is possibly the most important variable in the survival equation.

WHILE--and this is CRITICAL--while it has NOT been shown that minor differences in terminal ballistics (such as the differences between calibers within a performance class) have ANY significant effect on the outcome of a handgun defense scenario.

It's completely unreasonable to design for terminal ballistics alone because that, out of all the parameters in a gunfight, has been shown to be the LEAST important factor. (Given our standard disclaimer about comparing calibers within a general perfomance class.)

One doesn't begin a design spec with the least important factor and work upward in imprtance. Just the reverse. It would be FAR more reasonable to begin with size, shootability, and capacity as the primary design goals and then try to maximize terminal ballistics within the framework that the primary design goals dictate. (Again, staying within a general performance class).

 

[Vern Humphrey]

But you DIDN'T design it based only on terminal ballistics.

Yes I did -- but I stayed within the rules, which was class-with-class.

 

[JohnKSa]

Ok, point taken.

But that still doesn't change the fact that it doesn't make sense to design for terminal ballistics as a primary requirement when it CAN'T be shown to have a significant effect.

One should start with the requirements that CAN be shown to make a difference and then work downward to the ones that can't be scientifically shown to be significant.

 

[Lucky]

I think that if you get hit in the hip you stop. Something about the pelvis being like the keystone of a bridge. If it breaks you can't physically stay up.

And when a bullet passes through or close past the spinal column (with enough velocity to make a good wave) then the person loses all control, and will fall.

Discussing this and one person said, "Hey, that happened to me!" Turns out he was paintballing, and was shot in the back at close range, directly on the column. Collapsed without control, temporarily.

About momentum carrying you forward, ehhh I dunno. It would carry you forward, but gravity would carry you downward. Essentially it's 'timberrr', hit or spinal damage doesn't allow you to take one more step.

 

[nyresq]

no one ever fires one shot.... unless they only have one bullet.



Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang thud... Bang Bang click...chick-chick ...Bang Bang Bang Bang... "dude I think he's dead"... "yea, I know"... Bang Bang Bang click.... "crap, I'm out!!!"

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Ok, point taken.

But that still doesn't change the fact that it doesn't make sense to design for terminal ballistics as a primary requirement when it CAN'T be shown to have a significant effect.

One should start with the requirements that CAN be shown to make a difference and then work downward to the ones that can't be scientifically shown to be significant.

You're not wrong. But my point is that you can get a measurable effect by adding things that themselves make too small a contribution to be measured in isolation.

And the way we idenify those things is to look at extremes -- comparing a very low velocity round versus a very high velocity round tells us that added velocity should have a positive effect -- even if we can't measure the effect when we go from, say 850fps to 950 fps.

 

[R.H. Lee]

I'd trust a .22lr in the head before anything else COM for a 'one shot stop'.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I'd trust a .22lr in the head before anything else COM for a 'one shot stop'.

Sure. But can you trust yourself to be enough better than the guy who you go up against (remembering that he is the aggressor and initiates the action) to put a .22LR in his head before he puts a .45 ACP or .357 in your COM?

 

[R.H. Lee]

Sure. But can you trust yourself to be enough better than the guy who you go up against (remembering that he is the aggressor and initiates the action) to put a .22LR in his head before he puts a .45 ACP or .357 in your COM?

Good point, but it's outside of the theoretical 'one shot stop' argument. Of course you're going to keep shooting until the threat stops. The primary goal all the while is to not get shot.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Good point, but it's outside of the theoretical 'one shot stop' argument. Of course you're going to keep shooting until the threat stops. The primary goal all the while is to not get shot.

I keep thinking about a certain gun writer who praised a S&W super-lightweight .22 LR as a defensive gun, saying you could "put one in his tear duct."

There was a picture of this writer with the article, and I looked at it and thought, "He, whoever 'he' is has a much bigger target to shoot at."

 

[JohnKSa]

But my point is that you can get a measurable effect by adding things that themselves make too small a contribution to be measured in isolation.
...even if we can't measure the effect when we go from, say 850fps to 950 fps.

However, the gestalt of all the parameters you advocated still doesn't result in a measurable effect on the attacker while they do result in a measurable increase of recoil, a loss of weapon capacity for a given size and probably adversely affect the overall size of the handgun.

You've penalized the user of your design in two--perhaps three critical areas but by your own admission have given him nothing measurable where it counts.

Now, if the changes you suggested could be made without affecting any other design parameters of the resulting firearm, that would be one thing. But that's not the case. It's had a directly negative effect on other design parameters, and not only that, on design parameters that can be shown to actually make a difference in the final outcome of a defensive scenario.

Clearly there is a large group of people who share a strong belief--they are happily willing to forego signficant and measurable advantages in a defensive scenario because of their belief that the measurable disadvantages they are incurring will be more than cancelled by an effect that they can find no hard evidence to support and which they admit is not measurable. To my mind, that is a very poor tradeoff.

It may not be a majority position, but I choose to rely more heavily on the parameters that EVERYONE agrees have a measurable positive impact and refuse to significantly handicap myself by choosing a handgun which has been designed to exploit parameters which MAY be helpful but can't be shown to have a direct positive impact.

Standard disclaimer about operating within a given performance class, blah, blah...

 

[BluesBear]

It always makes me laugh to see one person use information from a single source in an attempt to discredit the findings from yet another single source.

Especialy when the discrediting information comes from someone engaging in a long standing personal vandetta against the original findings.

All it ends up being is a He Said/He Said urinals at 20 paces contest.
And another name on the twit list.


The One Shot Stop is a concept, a dream. It is not a reality.
When it does occur using any form of small arms (and especially when using a handgun), it is more a matter of luck or happenstance than anything else.

 

[owsi26]

I was a true-blue .45 man for self-defense. Now I'm a 10mm convert. At least for home defense. Glock makes a small 10mm but boy is it heavy. So for now, .45 and .40 are my carry calibers but the following story makes me wonder if I should start carrying a RPG!

I read in a gun magazine about a cop that had a bad guy approaching him with knife in hand. The bad guy kept coming despite warnings that he was going to get shot. The cop then shot, and shot again. The guy took six bullets to the chest before he dropped the knife. He DID NOT fall down even then.

The bad guy lived and said the bullets felt like bee stings, big deal to him. The article didn't say if he was high on drugs but that really got me to thinking. I don't know if the same thing couldn't happen with 10mm too but a head shot would be appropriate after a few chest shots, I would think!

It also brings up for discussion how much spare ammo one should carry. The Glock 36, (.45) that I often carry holds 6 in the magazine. I added a Pierce one round extension so I know carry 7 in the magazine. But I think at least one extra magazine is in order after reading this story!

 

[Vern Humphrey]

However, the gestalt of all the parameters you advocated still doesn't result in a measurable effect on the attacker while they do result in a measurable increase of recoil, a loss of weapon capacity for a given size and probably adversely affect the overall size of the handgun.

If what you say is true, then ball ammuntion should be as good as hollowpoints and so on. And we know that isn't the case.

 

[owsi26]

A few more things that I read relating to this subject:

In WWII, it took an average of 6 shots from a 9mm firearm to put the enemy on the ground. Not dead, but on the ground.

If someone is shot in the heart, they are able to remain conscious and return fire for 20 seconds. How many rounds can you fire in 20 seconds? Personally, I could easily empty at least two full magazines in that time.

BUT I came to the conclusion that I would fire several center mass shots, then try for a head shot. And that any gun is better than no gun.

 

[AndrewM]

I read in a gun magazine about a cop that had a bad guy approaching him with knife in hand. The bad guy kept coming despite warnings that he was going to get shot. The cop then shot, and shot again. The guy took six bullets to the chest before he dropped the knife. He DID NOT fall down even then.

That happens a lot more often than you think. Hnadguns suck for stopping power. Pure and simple, the survival rate for gun shot wounds is very high when it comes from a handgun. There just isn't enough disruption to cause a good "stop", if you shoot somebodies chest full of JHP, the BG may bleed out in a matter of seconds, but he's still a danger until that happens, you can empty a magazine into somebodies pelvis region and completely destroy any chance of the person walking, but BG can still pick up a weapon and use it against you, etc, etc. Head shots will almost always work (but not always), but the head is a much smaller target than the body and moves very quickly.

Andrew

 

[MLH]

Maybe an engineer can help me design this and we'll go into business together. It's a handgun that fires six pound sledgehammers at four thousand feet per second. Anything less than that, I'm shooting again.

Now that's one handgun I don't want to shoot! Ouch!

 

[1557]

A Police captain here shot a man a few weeks ago when responding to a domestic call. When he pulled up and exited his patrol car ,the resident came at him with a machete.
The attacker tuirned sideways at the instant the officer fired and the bullet went completely thru,entering one side and exiting the other.
The officer told me was going to do a double tap but the attacker fell down so fast,he couldn't get off the second shot.
I know this to be the facts. One shots stops do occur,but I don't believe there is any reliable way to even begin to predict when they will occur. The weapon was a Glock 22, didn't ask about the load.
Don't count on getting the one shot stop when you need it tho,regardless of what you use. By the way,no vital organs were hit and the man survived,but was under guard in the hospital for a while.
Keep shootin' 'til they drop.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

CCW Instructor Question = "When do you stop shooting?"

Mongo Answer = "When the slide locks"

Guy behind Mongo adds = "and then I slap in another magazine..."


Steps:

1. Aim, fire

2. repeat 1

 

[AndrewM]

I know this to be the facts. One shots stops do occur,but I don't believe there is any reliable way to even begin to predict when they will occur. The weapon was a Glock 22, didn't ask about the load.
Don't count on getting the one shot stop when you need it tho,regardless of what you use. By the way,no vital organs were hit and the man survived,but was under guard in the hospital for a while.
Keep shootin' 'til they drop.

You have to seperate "one shot stop" into the people who stopped because they are shot, realize it and come to the realization that they should stop being a threat. And the one-shot-stop that will truly incapacitate a person. There are plenty of incidents out there similiar to what you heard, somebody get's shot, and stops doing whatever it is they are doing by their own choice. But that person could have just as easily kept on being a threat.

 

[1557]

You have to seperate "one shot stop" into the people who stopped because they are shot, realize it and come to the realization that they should stop being a threat. And the one-shot-stop that will truly incapacitate a person. There are plenty of incidents out there similiar to what you heard, somebody get's shot, and stops doing whatever it is they are doing by their own choice. But that person could have just as easily kept on being a threat.

That's absolutely right,and as stated I don't believe there is any reliable way to predict either. Some loads work better than others most of the time,but either way it's a coin toss. Shoot 'til they drop.