Stopping Power- A Martial Artist Perpective.

[jon_in_wv]

Let me start by saying that I am NOT a firearms expert, a ballistics expert, and though I qualify as a marital arts expert I wouldn't refer to myself that way. After reading the FBI Ballistics reports reading other peoples writing about forensic reports and such I find myself taking issue with one aspect of what they said. The FBI report placed total emphasis on actual crush created by the bullet and penetration creating a standard of penetration that will puch towards bullets that would penetrate from one side of the target to another causing damage to nerves and blood vessels near the skin on both sides of the target. This part of it I think is valid enough. The part I take issue with is that thier expert said that velocity, energy, impact, etc....are all irrelevent. That handgun bullets do not generate enough velocity to stretch tissue enough to cause tearing outside of the bullet path so velocity and such does not add to the crush volume and is therefore worthless. But in my years of martial arts I have seen many, many "one shot stops" caused by punches, kicks, and other types of strikes that didn't even seem to have the kind of force you would expect to get such a result. These strikes didn't cause loss of blood or crush, they simply caused a stimulation of the nervous system that caused a momentary loss of muscle control or unconciousness. (spelling yech)
While I know there are a zillion factors involved here I cant' seem to discount the effect that velocity or impact could possibly have in stopping power. It may not be inclusive but at least it may give us an advantage. Remember that according to the FBI the Corbons and other +P or +p+ rounds that have been working well for us are totally inadequate. I have come to the conclusion that penetration and expansion are very important and if this can be achieved through high velocity I will be better off. Does this make any sense?? It seems like everyone is in the "light and fast" or "heavy and penetrates deeply" crowd. Maybe they are both right to some extent.

 

[OpFlash]

You bring up a very interesting point. Although I typically carry 9mm, I'm actually with the big and slow crowd (I carry a small weapon and .45 just isn't a good idea in a small CCW piece IMHO). If I carried a full sized weapon I would rather carry 230gr .45ACP than 38Super for example. Your comments about the effectiveness of non-tissue crushing shock in martial arts is making me rethink some of what I believed due to the FBI reports. I'd like to see more discussion on the subject.

 

[Omnivore]

'Course, most of us have seen the Keehoe brothers shootout video, taken from a patrol car, wherein one perp and one LE officer empty their pistols at each other from less than 10 feet. No one was hurt.

A typical handgun is extremely under-powered, as compared to something like a .30-06, so we're talking about different standards of "stopping power" plus its easy to get over-analytical about it. The bottom line is, the first combatant to make a good hit has an extreme advantage, to say nothing of other tactics and state-of-mind issues. Carrying a decent handgun in a decent caliber with decent defense loads, and learning to use it well with good awareness and an understanding of the judicious use of force, will thoroughly trump any amount of lab experimentation when things get serious. Guns and ammo today are better than ever.

If you're fielding thousands of wariors who are thoroughly trained, maybe you want to figure out the remaining .001% of the formula.

 

[Fosbery]

I remember seeing a documentary about martial arts where this ancient japanese man put his hand about an inch from the host's chest, punched him without drawing back or following through, and he went sprawling on the floor. Crazy stuff.

 

[JohnKSa]

Point is well taken--there does not have to be crushed, torn or cut tissues for incapacitation to occur. It seems logical that a temporary cavity could have the same sort of effect as a punch might, even though there's no obvious tissue damage.

 

[damyankee]

Not an expert in firearms but love em and use em on the reg. No matter what anyone says I believe all physics effect what happens when a bullet hits someone/something, just seems to make sense to me. I really replied here cuz it's nice to see other martial artists who like to extend into the gun format as well Also, the "one inch punch" is achieved through using body weight by turning your hips into the punch. basic but very effective if you want to hit harder.

Gracie/Muy Thai here!

 

[qlajlu]

I have killed hundreds of those great big Western Jackrabbits using CCI .22 LR Stingers, and I can tell you for a fact that the rapid expansion from those bullets carry a "wallop." That is an aptly used term when you see a big Jack sitting on his haunches taunting you, you hit him square in the chest between the shoulders just below the neck, and he literally shoots backward two feet. Now maybe some of that may be attributed to a reflex action of his great big hopping hind legs, but I don't think all of that movement is because he is hopping.

The same with taking a Mule Deer. I have seen them get hit broadside just behind the front shoulder with a .308 pointed soft-point round and get knocked off of their feet. That isn't reflex, friend. That is KNOCK DOWN POWER.

Those bullets were not "large" by any stretch of the imagination, but well placed in the body and responding as they were manufactured to do. Of course, they were fired from a rifle (except some rabbits were taken with a Ruger Single-six revolver with the same results) so I have to think that selective ammunition and shot placement has to be of the most crucial concerns in CCW. Size of caliber is next.

 

[Kor]

Gunwriter Chuck Karwan has a similar background(West Point wrestling team), and he posits the possibility of an "internal punch" effect from the temporary cavity - if you can, get hold of his Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery, 3rd Edition. Karwan feels that such an "internal punch" could be very effective if it impacted the solar plexus or any other similar nerve cluster.

Personally, I'd rather not sacrifice adequate(as opposed to excessive) penetration merely for the sake of maximizing temporary cavity through velocity/expansion - such an ultralight/ultrafast bullet may not penetrate the thoracic cavity deeply enough to have any physiological effect, if it fragments on heavy winter clothing or in a very thick layer of abdominal fat. It may create a nasty-looking surface wound, but if it doesn't make it into the rib cage or past the abdominal muscles, I don't think it can be counted on to rapidly incapacitate an aggressor under all circumstances.

 

[DunedinDragon]

But in my years of martial arts I have seen many, many "one shot stops" caused by punches, kicks, and other types of strikes that didn't even seem to have the kind of force you would expect to get such a result. These strikes didn't cause loss of blood or crush, they simply caused a stimulation of the nervous system that caused a momentary loss of muscle control or unconciousness.

It would be hard to compare the overstimulation of the nervous system caused by a blow or kick to the effects of a bullet simply because the velocity and mass characteristics are so different. You're talking incredibly higher amounts of mass and incredibly lower levels of velocity, not to mention the distribution of that force across a surface area, so the physiological effects on the human body aren't something you could relate to a traditional bullet that's designed for an entirely different purpose.

A blow or kick is more relevant to a discussion on non-lethal rounds such as a bean-bag round in which you're getting much closer to the mass/velocity and distribution of force profile of a blow or kick. Traditional bullets are designed to penetrate so the biological effects start out with that premise.

That is unless you believe a high-caliber fast round can knock a guy off of his feet and blow him back several feet like they do in the movies.

 

[CNYCacher]

That handgun bullets do not generate enough velocity to stretch tissue enough to cause tearing outside of the bullet path so velocity and such does not add to the crush volume and is therefore worthless. But in my years of martial arts I have seen many, many "one shot stops" caused by punches, kicks, and other types of strikes that didn't even seem to have the kind of force you would expect to get such a result.

There is do doubt in my mind that an actual punch from a martial artist can deliver much more force than a handgun bullet, and I'll tell you why.

Simple physics dictates that it would be impossible for a bullet to impart a force upon the target that is greater to the recoil force of the gun. Newton's "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" law sums it up quite nicely. So, as a comparison of a punch to being shot, lets simply compare a punch to absorbing recoil.

Now, imagine yourself holding out your right hand with the palm out and open, as if to say "stop". Lock your left hand behind the right, and lock the elbows. You are now in a shooting stance, but without a gun and with your palm open and vertical out in front of you. Now invite a martial artist to haul off and deliver a one-stop-punch right to your right palm. Is that going to knock you back a lot more than the recoil of firing off the biggest, baddest, dirty harry gun you can find? You bet it is!

handgun rounds wound and incapacitate because they are so small that they punch through instead of being stopped by the skin, ribs, skull, whatever. If your fist was as hard and as narrow as a bullet, you could punch right through people too!

 

[strambo]

Absolutely no comparison between gunshot wounds and physical blows. One involves a high velocity (700-1,000mph), small cross section projectile while the other involves a heavy, (20-200lbs? depending how much body weight is moving) large cross section impact device moving maybe 40-70 mph.

The central nervous system reacts differently to each stimulus as well and further differences based on what is hit. Bullet trauma happens in milliseconds, it takes the central nervous system time to catch up. Strikes happen at a speed the central nervous system can react to in real time which is why you can strike someone and have them immediately react. Shoot someone and they may not react immediately (or at all until/if they bleed out) based on what was hit and their state of mind. An even further consideration is there aren't nerves deep in the body like there are near the surface. The strike may very well stimulate more nerves than a deep, small bullet wound.

 

[jon_in_wv]

I understand that guys. I'm not trying to draw a direct correlation between gunshots and strikes. I'm trying to explain the effect of nervous system stimulation caused by the impact of the round or the effect of the stretch cavity. I have seen people knocked unconcious by strikes to the legs and torso and I have seen people dropped by other strikes that didn't pack the puch of a solid hit but they went down anyways. I do agree that the crush area and blood loss are most important in causing the type of incapacitation that will put someone down and keep them down and I understand that a handgun round does not have the wounding ability of a rifle round. I just suggesting that all other things being equal, ex: two rounds penetrate the same depth, expand to the same diameter, the round with the higher velocity and energy will have an advantage over the slower, lower energy round. The FBI seems to express that the two rounds are equal and velocity, stretch volume, nervous system stimulation, etc...are a fallicy.

I also understand that there is always anecdotal evidence to mess up the stats. In the martial arts I've seen people smash concrete with thier hands, or take solid punches and kicks to the body and head with no effect. But I've seen many videos of actual shootings where hitting something vital didn't do the trick either. In one video an officer shot the perp twice in the chest. BOTH rounds struck his heart and destroyed it. The guy continued to walk down the street and pointed his weapon at other officers before he was taken down by an aditional hail of fire.

Good responses though.

 

[Rumble]

Was poking around online (having seen a commercial for a show on Discovery or something talking about the power of physical blows). This site: http://tkdtutor.com/06Theory/Power/PowerPhysics.htm (which I have not done any due diligence on, mind you) says some interesting things at the bottom.

The one that got me was that a knee strike (while pulling down on the opponent's head) can deliver the same amount of force that one would receive in a 35MPH automobile crash.

Not exactly surprising, but still pretty wild.

 

[jon_in_wv]

Additionally, I understand the physics of a punch and the idea that a bullet isn't going to "physically" knock someone down. But if someone throws a punch at me, it is possible for me to block that punch, or catch it with my hand. I don't think I would be very successful catching a bullet with my hand. Even though a bullet did hit me in the leg at a range one day and the bullet bounced off my shin so anecdotal evidence would seem to suggest that I'm bulletproof.
Just Kidding.

 

[DunedinDragon]

I just suggesting that all other things being equal, ex: two rounds penetrate the same depth, expand to the same diameter, the round with the higher velocity and energy will have an advantage over the slower, lower energy round.

Are you saying this because you think the difference in energy will somehow make a difference in the nervous system's response to it? The energy difference isn't that great, and certainly isn't enough to have any kind of residual effect on the nervous system. That's part and parcel of the differences in what a bullet does and what a baseball bat does. A bullet doesn't affect the "shock" sequences in the body because it happens WAY too quickly.

A person shot in the heart can be expected to continue to operate for quite some time for that very reason. There has not been any significant degree of shock to the nervous system. The only way a bullet can deliver shock is by a direct hit to a nervous system cluster like the spine or brain.

 

[jon_in_wv]

Personally, I think anyone interested in thier personal defense should study martial arts. Law Enforcement should be REQUIRED to do it. The Marine Corps has recognized the benefit of martial arts training in recent years and I wish Law Enforcement would catch up. I believe martial arts training would save more officers lives than more firearms training. ( You can never have too much firearms training either though. )

 

[jon_in_wv]

What sources are we using to say that the shock happens too quickly to be beneficial? It would suggest that it happens even MORE quickly in a rifle round but it seem very effective then. Also from the shootings I have watched the guys getting shot often reacted immediately to the impact of the shot. Why should I believe thats not true?

 

[DunedinDragon]

What sources are we using to say that the shock happens too quickly to be beneficial? It would suggest that it happens even MORE quickly in a rifle round but it seem very effective then. Also from the shootings I have watched the guys getting shot often reacted immediately to the impact of the shot. Why should I believe thats not true?

The difference in the effect of a rifle round is due to the wounding pattern generally. Particularly in the case of certain rounds like the 5.56 rounds used in the military that tend to tumble and fragment inside the body causing MASSIVE trauma. In some cases that trauma can be enough to cause a sensory overload resulting in a shock effect.

Maybe it's better stated this way: the total amount of energy delivered is calculated by including that amount of energy across the entire area it's delivered upon. A force of 1psi across an area of 1 sq inch is not anywhere near the same total level of a force of 1psi across an area of 12 sq inches. That's the physics part. The physiological part is, what kind of force does it take for the body's natural shock effect to kick in. The shock effect is based on one thing only..how much of the nervous system fires at one moment in time to cause a sensory overload. When you look at it in that perspective you can see that a bullet whether it's fired from a rifle or handgun, regardless of the mass or velocity has little to no chance of kicking off the massive firing in the nervous system necessary to make much of a difference.

Reacting immediately to being shot is more likely to be due to a PSYCHOLOGICAL reaction than a PHYSIOLOGICAL reaction.

Personally, I think anyone interested in thier personal defense should study martial arts. Law Enforcement should be REQUIRED to do it. The Marine Corps has recognized the benefit of martial arts training in recent years and I wish Law Enforcement would catch up. I believe martial arts training would save more officers lives than more firearms training. ( You can never have too much firearms training either though.

I would agree except that in both cases if you don't develop the skills so that they are second-nature and consistently effective it may cause as much harm as good. In the case of martial arts this requires thousands and thousands of repetitions in order to develop the muscle memory, balance, technique and reaction time to make it all useful and consistent.

It's like I've told many of my students, when they get their black belt that will mean they can deliver a minimally adequate technique the majority of the time. In effect, they have now graduated from Kindergarten. Most officers don't set aside an adequate amount of time to adequately practice and hone their shooting skills, they certainly aren't going to set aside the time to develop and keep their fighting skills effective.

 

[jon_in_wv]

I can't agree that martial arts training does harm at all. If a student is properly trained they will see the benefits. It doesn't take years to do that. I've trained students for a few months and then taken them to tournaments were they performed wonderfully. I know a tournament isn't a fight but they still used thier skills effectively. Also, I'm not even bringing psychological reaction into the equation and I haven't heard anything credible yet that discounts an advantage to using the higher energy of faster round or the advantage of the extra energy exerted by that round. I would still like to hear a source of the information presented that the energy is exerted too quickly to the felt. I understand what your saying about the difference between rifle and handgun ammo.

When I talk about nervous system effect I'm talking about a physiological reaction to the impact of the round and the energy exerted on the body. This is different than a hit to the spine or brain in which the CRUSH cavity is directly damaging the central nervous system. (example: lets say two rounds strike the torso near the solar plexus. One at slow velocity and one at a higher velocity isn't it possible that the higher velocity round could temporarily disrupt tissue more causing a stimulation of the nerves located there that could have SOME effect or advantage to promote its efectiveness?) Given two rounds that penetrate and expand comparably what is the advantage to the slower round?

 

[Sleeping Dog]

BOTH rounds struck his heart and destroyed it. The guy continued to walk

Zombies ... I hate zombies.

I don't understand how the two bullets can be equal in effect. Let's say one is a .45ACP, the other a .22LR. Both might penetrate half a foot into the body. Both might be moving around 800fps at impact. The .45 will have a lot more energy, and that's going to be absorbed causing hydraulic shock around the bullet path. If there's any motor nerves in that shock area, that should be a "knock down". If the target was standing off balance when hit, that might be a "knock down".

Any bullet can cause a "knock down" if it penetrates something critical, like a spinal cord. But I gotta think the .45 would be a lot more effective, more chance of knocking down the target.

Regards.

 

[hso]

Interesting ideas and valuable discussion. Thanks for the persepective.

 

[DunedinDragon]

You keep using the term "higher energy" and I'm not sure what you're referring to by that. The total energy delivered by a round (if I understand what you're saying) is a result of it's mass times it's velocity. So you can get to a given energy level one of two ways, a faster bullet with less mass, or a heavier bullet with less speed. If anything has a factor in delivering energy it's the physical size of the bullet because the energy is dispersed across a bigger surface area, although it's probably pretty negligable.

As far as the physiological effect of causing nerve damage from the force of a bullet, I personally have never seen any studies that focus on that. I'm not sure how you would do it other than to hook up an EEG to a test animal (not a human) and see if there's any difference. Even at that, how do you separate the psychological trauma from the physiological trauma since both look the same on an EEG? That's why lab discussion about ballistics will never be able to provide the whole story.

To me it's simply a matter of considering how much damage a small piece of metal can cause in a given area of the body to the nervous system, and numerous first-hand reports from people who have been shot and didn't realize it until much later. Heck, how many reports have you heard of people cutting hands and fingers with a power saw and not feeling it until later? It takes a while for synapses to fire and be routed to the brain. How many reports have you heard of someone getting slammed in the stomach with a baseball bat and didn't notice it until later? A nerve ending has to be touched in some way in order to fire and there's a LOT of room in the body between nerve endings unless you're talking about a cluster such as the spine or the brain.

I just can't see anything as small as a bullet causing that much nerve trauma given the actual size of the crush cavity most will create. So I'm not sure using it as a criteria for selecting ammunition is that valid.

 

[WayneConrad]

Just for fun:

30-06, 180 grains @ 2700 fps: 2914 foot-pounds of energy

A sprinter running into you, 180 pounds at 30 fps: 2518 foot-pounds of energy.

 

[Soybomb]

I don't think you can even begin to compare blunt trauma from punches and kicks with the type of damage done by bullets. Similarly I won't compare bullet wounds to those beaten with clubs.

I'm also a bit of a skeptic for most martial arts ideas though anyway so take that as you will.

 

[brickeyee]

"The total energy delivered by a round (if I understand what you're saying) is a result of it's mass times it's velocity."

Mass times velocity is momentum, NOT energy.
1/2 times mass, times velocity SQUARED is energy.
Be sure to use the correct units for mass in the energy equation. Slugs are required, nots pounds force.

The reponse of tissue to blunt force is not similar to the response to cutting (knives) or high velocity projectiles.
It is possible to convert the energy of a bullet into blunt force.
Enough layers of kevlar will stop even a rifle bullet. The underlying blunt force damage can still kill since the area absorbing hte energy will not be very large.
The trauma plate is not large just to protect more area. It also spreads the impact energy out over a larger area on the body to prevent blunt force trauma.