Stopping Power- A Martial Artist Perpective.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I saw the Fight Science show in the link that Rumble talked about. I believe the link has a mistake, they list the energy as pounds per square inch, and I think that was total energy. Anyway, I was comparing the strikes to ft/lbs of various rifles, and it's fascinating. You do NOT want to be attacked by a Muay Tai fighter.

That was probably the single most fascinating show I've ever seen. If National Geographic runs it again, watch it, you won't be disappointed. Beside the 5 disciplines listed on the link, they also did some amazing tests of judo, ninjitsu, and hard body training.

I was going to start a thread on it, but it was off topic for THR. Sorry for the drift, and back to the show.
RT
 
Remember I am NOT talking about nerve DAMAGE caused by the bullet. Only physical stimulation or vibration of the nerves. The FBI expert I read the report from said that it doesn't exist and only the hole and the bleeding has any effect at all. Let's put it in the simplest terms I can.

1) Bullet #1 147gr. starts at 9mm and travels 850 fps. It penetrates 12 inches and expands to .60 inch.
VS
2) Bullet #2 115gr, starts at 9mm and travels 1350fps. It penetrates 12 inches and expands to .60 inch.

Is the performance EXACTLY the same for both bullets? According to what I read from the FBI it is. That doesn't seem right. I'm not saying that effectiveness is going to be vastly different between the two but it seems to me that the rouind with more velocity and energy will provide slightly more impact on the target and will at least have an advantage of some type. But while this appears to be true to me, others will pick the heavier and slower round but in this scenario I see no advantage to it. What is the advantage?
 
I haven't read the FBI report but perhaps they are trying to say the difference in actual energy imparted is not enough to cause a significant change in the overall effect of the different rounds. Since the difference is neglible either because the actual difference is neglible or the total energy imparted is insignificant compared to the physiological damage to bodily systems through crush and cutting they ignore the effects of the energy transfer. Your overall thesis seems valid but in the context of gunshots it is perhaps irrelevent.

As a practicing Martial Artist myself I have to agree with the original poster that training of police should include martial arts training. Not just for the techniques themselves but for the psychological advantages of difficult disciplined training. I've seen twelve year old kids shake off punches and kicks that would have your typical adult complaining bitterly about the pain of the blow they just received simply because they have trained long and hard in a martial art. Martial arts in my experience are more mental than physical. Properly taught they increase confidence, strength, mental toughness, speed, and reaction time. Extensive training and lots and lots of time are required to become proficient in any martial art but some training, particularly if it's training focused towards specific situations and with limited time for training as a given could be very beneficial in my opinion. Being armed with a handgun is good but not always useful when in contact range. If you are holding a handgun on me in grabbing range of my hands I can get it pointed away from me before you can shoot. Thats not bragging or bravado it's simple truth related to reaction time. Thats not just because I'm particularly fast as I'm actually pretty slow. Cops deal with people in direct contact all the time. They have to be able to subdue them without shooting them or losing their gun to be shot by them.

Sorry for the off topic rant there but folks need to realize that shooting in "social situations" is a martial art and should IMHO be part of an overall approach to self defense or defense/offense in the case of law enforcement and the military.
 
I agree about the martial art comments. I'm just curious about the difference in effect the rounds may have. I built a water trap a few years ago to catch some rounds and all of the 230 grain HP I tested performed really well. The last shot I fired was a Remington 185gr +p. The round hit the water trap and the hydrostatic shock split my water box in half and water sprayed all over the place. The difference was really dramatic. None of the slower 230gr rounds created the impact that the 185 round did. I don't think that people are water but there was a real difference. Overall, the Hydrashoks expanded dynamically and the impact seemed greater than the other rounds but the +p round was just rediculous.
 
I believe that if you carefully read the FBI documents it will say "the only RELIABLE wounding mechanism is the permanent crush cavity" or something to that effect.

There are many, many real world reports of very light, very fragile high velocity rounds putting down all sorts of creatures like they were struck by the Hammer of Thor. Or lightning, if you will.

The problem is there are also spectacular failures with said frangible rounds that are really hard to predict. You are playing the odds using them whether they will work amazingly well or fail miserably in a defensive shooting situation.

A 90grn .25 caliber bullet will down an elk if you hit it in the neck near the spinal column (see Thor's Hammer above). The same bullet in the buttocks will make the elk jump and run away griveously wounded.

You don't get to pick your shots when defensively shooting so you are better off choosing the deeper penetration option which is the more dependable stopper.

Oh, comparing ANY firearm to a good, hard punch isn't fair. I have seen a 225lb man send a 150 pounder flying backwards over 10 feet with a solid chest punch. He hit a wall or he would have gone farther and nearly died from a bruised heart. NO handgun or rifle (including 50 BMG) will move someone that far so the energy comparisons aren't even close.
 
What sources are we using to say that the shock happens too quickly to be beneficial?
Click to expand...
I am not aware of any such sources.
The reponse of tissue to blunt force is not similar to the response to cutting (knives)...
Click to expand...
Nor is the response of tissue to cutting similar to the response to high velocity projectiles. I have never heard of a temporary stretch cavity resulting from a knife wound.

It's overly simplifying the problem to suggest that bullets and knives cause similar trauma.
 
Last edited:
Apples and oranges

With 26 years of being a certified TKD instructor, I can say that to compare a bullet to a kick is not even close. In raw killing power, a well-trained TKD (or other martial expert) can far exceed the damage of a bullet.

Many people who have been shot stand there unaware. Back in the day, when I was a professional fighter, I never once had an opponent "stand" there unaware after me connecting with his choppers. I rang many a bell, and have seen people literally kicked out of the ring by an opponent. The level of danger involved with "the-big-boys" is the reason why in the USTA we did NOT allow people of 2nd Degree Black Belt and higher, certified instructor to spare except at nationals. We fought full-contact to the knock-out, no gear other than mouth piece and groin cup.

Now, I am not saying I would want to trade a bullet for kick, but, the "power" factor is simply not there. I have videos of people in body armor taking a bullet from a .30-06 at point-blank-range. It did not even move him. Tell me you would stand there and allow a 2nd, 3rd, 4th or high degree Black Belt kick you through that bullet resistant vest? I assure you, even with a concussion plate, a skilled and conditioned instructor would cave in a person's ribs all the same. Both are potentially deadly, but the two can not effectively be compared.

Re: a permanent cavitation as it is called, pistols create FAR less permanent cavitation (destruction of tissue and bone) than rifles. Velocity. For me, I prefer both...martial arts and a pistol. I wouldn't want to be without either one.

Edit to add: there are dozens of high-quality videos on the market that you can view re: these and similar topics. I have posted the titles of some previously. Some are gross. Fair warning.

Doc2005
 
Jeremy,

As a long-time martial artist myself, I've seen a lot of interesting things. The hardest hit I've taken did indeed take me down (it was to my bicep; it would wake me up in the middle of the night, for almost a month), but I took quite a few hard hits.

I rarely resisted, would usually let my body move with the impact, and if I went down, I was usually back up and ready to continue the fight in less time than it takes to say those three words.

I've trained in dojos where I would always walk out with bruises, and I've trained in places where the average member wouldn't train with you if you gave them more impact than a half-hearted push. I've taken uke strikes that sent electrical shocks through my body, and I've given quite a few.

I usually address these issues as "pain compliance", though of course the issue is more involved. I always conclude that there are only 3 reliable ways to stop a machine, regardless of your method. These are:

electrical
structural
hydraulic failure.

That's it. Knife, blunt object, firearm, whatever. You break or perforate the attacker.

John
 
I think you guys need to reread my original posts. I'm not tryin to draw a direct correlation between a kick or punch and a bullet as they are obviously two different things. I'm talking about the physiological effects of impact on the body. I've watched this steady trend of people advocating the heavier and slower rounds over the lighter faster ammunition and I've even heard people advocate ball ammo over a hollowpint saying, "the HP probably won't expand anyways" but noone seems to be able to tell me what the advantage is over the newer light and fast rounds that are less fragile and still get good penetration, EG: Gold Dots, Fed HST, Corbon DPX, and even the Powerball from Corbon seems to penetrate pretty deeply for a light round. I've asked for sources of information several times now and I've gotten none. I've asked what the advantage of the slower round is given equal penetration and there have been none given. I've tried to simplify into this question.

1) Bullet #1 147gr. starts at 9mm and travels 850 fps. It penetrates 12 inches and expands to .60 inch.
VS
2) Bullet #2 115gr, starts at 9mm and travels 1350fps. It penetrates 12 inches and expands to .60 inch.

What is the advantage of the slower round. I've heard many people say that the 147 has the advantage here. The FBI would say there is no advantage. And I'm saying that my knowledge of what I've seen shooting animals, from seeing real shootings, and from my training and knowledge of the human body, I see the advantage going to the 115gr. Both are capable, yes, but if the slower round has the advantage, what is it?

I have changed my philosophy a bit after reading the FBI report though. I used to be solidly in the light and fast crowd. Now I choose ammunition like the DPX that I feel provides a better balance of impact and penetration.
 
Original post
“The reponse of tissue to blunt force is not similar to the response to cutting (knives) or high velocity projectiles.”

JohnKSa’s selective quote:
“The reponse of tissue to blunt force is not similar to the response to cutting (knives)”
(in its entirety).

Great use of selective quote.

More of John:
“Nor is the response of tissue to cutting similar to the response to high velocity projectiles. I have never heard of a temporary stretch cavity resulting from a knife wound.

It's overly simplifying the problem to suggest that bullets and knives cause similar trauma.”

You created that straw man.


The point is that knives deliver very little energy, yet are deadly.
Hands can deliver a lot of energy and may be deadly.
Bullets are in the middle, and may also be deadly.

Energy is not the driver in any of these things.
 
Energy drives everything. Energy is simply an objects ability to do work. A round that has 400 ft-lbs of energy is "capable" of doing more work than a bullet that has 200 ft-lbs of energy. That kenetic energy is lost to heat, bullet deformation, tissue destruction, etc..... Momentum, velocity, bullet design, are all factors in how the kenetic energy of the bullet is used. In the case of a knife its mechanism doesn't require as much energy to puncture and slice tissue. If two bullets strike a person and stop within the person and one has a greater energy, it has the "capability" of doing more work. Shoot anything with bullet that have less than 200 ft-lbs and shoot it with something that develops 400+ ft-lbs and you can see how much more "work" is done. I don't see how this has NO value on a living target? I understad that energy is NOT the only factor to use when deciding on a round, but does take a certain amount of energy to get the job done. Fire a 147gr Gold Dot at 200fps and see if it has enough energy to perform like it does at 1000fps. Wether it's a punch, kick, bullet, knife, car, or you. It's energy that makes it move. You can't take it out of the equation.
 
1) Bullet #1 147gr. starts at 9mm and travels 850 fps. It penetrates 12 inches and expands to .60 inch.
VS
2) Bullet #2 115gr, starts at 9mm and travels 1350fps. It penetrates 12 inches and expands to .60 inch.
Click to expand...
Just fwiw you'll usually find the lighter faster projectiles don't penetrate as deeply as the heavier slower ones so for say 9mm you might trade a few inches of penetration in to get an extra 100 foot pounds of kinetic energy behind the projectile. My 147gr 9mm round of choice is more like 15.7" through 4 layers of denim and .66" across. The 115 gr To me I have yet to see proof that makes me believe you disable people with handguns via temporary cavitation/energy dump, and all the magic is in creating as big of a hole as you can in the person so I'll pick round that makes the deepest/widest hole possible. Thats not to say light and fast won't work, I just don't think it has anything to do with 100 ft/lbs difference in kinetic energy.
 
Bless you for your opinion. I can honestly say I respect what you just said. A bullet needs enough energy to do the job and a well designed bullet can do with less. The early 147grain 9mm rounds didn't seem really apt to expand but the newer ones seem to perform really well. I fell there is a shift in bullet desings that is allowing lighter faster bullets to penetrate and expand like the heavier hollowpoints and with thier added energy I think they might have an edge over the slower rounds. It may be a slight edge. Personally, this was all just for discussion because it was running around in my head. I think training, practice, and the skills to place the shots on target are the real keys.

Thank You for all your opinions.
 
Jon,
Trying to answer your question sufficiently seems to be harder than I thought it would be.

Two similar size bullets penetrating to the same depth SHOULD yield the same results. If the depth allows contact/crushing of vital organs/nerves...good. If they stop short...bad.

The heavier bullet will normally be a more dependable penetrator because it has about the same amount of momentum (as the lighter bullet) but greater sectional density. SD is very important to the ability to get in there deep.

A 14" long ice-pick (very high SD) can be thrust all the way through someone with very little speed or force....hence, little 'energy' is expended in their body....but they are grieviously wounded.

The faster a bullet strikes the target, the more difficult the mechanics of making it work properly....and so the increased chance of mechanical failure.

A solid, non-expanding bullet performs the same each and every time. The .45 guys like to say their rounds are 'pre-expanded' before they hit! Penetration ALWAYS trumps potential energy...in a pistol round.
 
brickeyee,

Your comment was getting two points across--I agreed with the first point and disagreed with the second.

The first point indicated that blunt traumas and cutting traumas are different, the second point implied that bullets and knives caused similar injuries. I agree that blunt trauma and cutting traumas are different (that's the part of your quote I reproduced and agreed with), but I was disagreeing with the latter part of your comment that implied that bullets and knives could both be grouped as cutting injuries and therefore were similar.

In fact, bullets deliver both blunt trauma (temporary stretch channel) AND cutting trauma (permanent channel) and therefore share some properties of both.

Cutting trauma doesn't have a lot to do with energy, but blunt trauma has a LOT to do with energy. My point was that you can't group bullets and knives as you did in your comment.

I could have reproduced the entire quote but then I would have had to do a lot more typing to get my point across. (Which I guess I ended up having to do anyway.) :(

I don't think that the way I quoted you was misleading or twisted your meaning--in fact, I'm not entirely sure why you seem so offended. At any rate, it was not my intent to twist your meaning or mislead. I have edited my post to include ellipses at the end of the quote to indicate that I did not reproduce your entire sentence.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
Perfect example:

In Ayoob's LFI-4 class we went to a slaughterhouse to test out our carry rigs on live targets. My Glock 26 (subcompact 9mm) launched a 115gr HP standard velocity bullet; used on a cow, the result was a perfect instant DRT lights-out one-shot-stop. The effectiveness shocked me. Autopsy revealed that the round completely missed the brainpan, penetrating 6" of hard bone - and only bone - and yet caused instant total hemmorhaging of the brain. The crush zone was not vital, yet the shockwave zone extended a good 5" radius minimum, and had instantly & completely lethal effect, uniform across the entire brain.

Bodies are complex. Poked hard one way, things can terminally break; poked hard a different way, the same things will be fine. I've seen an interview with someone shot thru the heart with a .357 Magnum; same week I saw footage of a cop killed with a .22LR. Sometimes the crush zone is what takes someone down; sometimes it's the shockwave that terminally damages things like nearby nerves. And sometimes is just the idea, as the recipient decides to die.
 
Last edited:
So, you're saying I should move up to a 10mm? ;)

The same force, applied in the same way, can have different effects depending on where it hits, condition of the target, environmental conditions, etc.

I've seen people instantly incapacitated with bare-handed hits to the torso or head. Heck, I once took a punch to the solar plexus from a Green-belt (shoulda been paying attention) that put me down for a good 20 seconds.

OTOH, we've all heard (and some have seen) anectdotal evidence of people walking away from heinous gunshot injuries.

What I can say is that, in a self-defense scenario, if I were an attacker, the guy in the dojo sure as heck bought himself plenty of time to retreat, and I was incapacitated instantly (and pretty sore for awhile after). There's every possibility that I might be able to take one or more rounds from a handgun before succumbing, and in that time, I could cause my victim some serioius harm. Sure, I'd succumb sooner or later, but not before I got mine in.

It's best to be prepared to use either. A gun and some training is good, but it needs to be backed up with some hand-to-hand as well. The gun's the first option I'd use, given the choice, for two reasons: a) the psychological factor ("Oh crikey, I'm shot!" is better than "Is that as hard as you can hit me?"), and b) the fact that I don't have to get into arm's length to use the gun.
 
Wow. I wish I could have attended one of his classes. I spoke to an officer of the Costa Mesa, CA police department about a shooting that happed out there. He stated that one of his partners was approaching a house when he heard a shot. He felt pain in his chest and went down momentarily stunned. When he rose he saw a man standing in front of him with a rifle. He pulled his service SIG P220 and fired one shot at close range, in the brain pan, killing his attacker. When he took the guys rifle to secure it he realized he had been hit in the vest with a 22lr.?!?! A one stop shot can be a wierd thing. Obviously with the vest on the bullet would have penetrated and possible injured something that would have kept him down but the end result is the fact that he was dropped by a 22 that didn't penetrate at all. I know thats merely anecdotal, its just a story.
I do have to take issure with recoilbobs statement that added velocity makes it HARDER for a bullet to perform properly. Every bullet design has a performance envelop at which it is designed to perform. As long as the bullet is within its design velocity perameters it will perform just fine. In most cases it seems that if a bullet is pushed faster towards the upper end of its perfomance envelope it will perform better in a wider variety of circumstances.
For example, through barriers, heavy clothing, etc.....where the slower bullet may get clogged with materials the faster bullet expands. I think this plays true with the Gold Dots when companies like Double Tap drive the bullets at a faster velocity or when you compare Speer's standard and +p rounds. Rounds like the DPX are the opposite though. It uses a different construction that allows a VERY deep HP so it takes more material to cause it to clog. Additionally if it is driven too fast the petals will fold back along the sides of the bullet decreasing its crush path. I've also heard that the 147gr Silvertip, when driven too fast, will OVER expand causing shallow penetration.
 
So, you're saying I should move up to a 10mm?
Click to expand...
Heh. FWIW, in the same setting & task, a guy shot a cow with a .45ACP HP. In the autopsy, they had to dig thru at least 5 feet of cow from entrance hole to lodged bullet. That, too, worked (first few inches went thru brain).

But I digress...

Having the luxury of controlled experimenting on live subjects (self included), martial artists can get a better sense of what does what to what degree. Shooters rarely have any such opportunity unless they are active hunters. Only thru careful study of body mechanics, plus hands-on practice in both roles, can one really get a sense of what strikes elicit what results. One friend enjoys inflicting "stupid human tricks" on me, demonstrating how some remarkably simple, even stupid, actions can induce excrutiating pain. Yes, some actions can cause remarkable neurological results and refined study thereof is useful ... but in an all-out fight, one may have limited opportunity to actually do something about it.

As most fights come down to a few applications of a few gross-motor movements, those actions should be chosen & trained on which are most likely to, under conditions not condusive to detached reflection nor precise application, have greatest odds of causing both crushing impact and neurological shock. Powerful punches & kicks, and large calibers & high velocities, delivered to support structures, COM, and brain/spine in a coarse manner are preferred.

12:40AM. Must sleep.
 
Energy absorbtion

A lighting fast bullet that punches a hole and travels out the other side takes most of it's momentum with it to a secondary impact.

A bullet that stays inside the body causes that body to absorb 100% of its' momentum.

To my way of thinking, "stopping power" is best measured by the amount of energy the bullet imparts to the body. Sure, a hole is a hole, some bigger than others and holes let blood out and death is eventual. But if you want slam a major wallop on somehthing then use a caliber, bullet, etc combo that causes major energy absortion by the body.

That I think explains why an elk will indeed be killed by a lung shot from a
.223, but will run off before doing so. Hit that same elk with a hopped up 400 grain .45-70 and it rolls over sideways in the air twice before comining to a stop. Minor exageration there, but you get the point.

I guess I am in the "big and slow" crowd when it comes to stopping power.
 
"In fact, bullets deliver both blunt trauma (temporary stretch channel) AND cutting trauma (permanent channel) and therefore share some properties of both."

No bullet cuts anything. The permanent cavity is created by exceeding the leastic limits of the tissue and it tears.
Knives cut. Bullets tear.

"...the second point implied that bullets and knives caused similar injuries..."
Neither stated nor implied. You are reading in something not stated.
 
To my way of thinking, "stopping power" is best measured by the amount of energy the bullet imparts to the body.

I guess I am in the "big and slow" crowd when it comes to stopping power.
Click to expand...
Just so you know thats pretty contradictory. The lighter and faster rounds are going to have more kinetic energy behind them to start with, plus they tend to penetrate less deeply than the heavy rounds so its more likely they'll expend that energy in the body without leaving the other side.

Lets look at a couple 9mm winchester rounds for example.
RA9115HP+ - 115gr +P+ jhp @ 1335 fps = 455 ft/lbs
RA9T - 147gr 9mm JHP @ 990 fps = 319 ft/lbs

The ra9t is going to leave a deeper permanent cavity, but has less kinetic energy. I think you're on the right path with slow and heavy, but that contradicts your theory of energy dump.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
REAL Stopping Power
2 3
Replies
64
Views
4K
JShirley
JShirley
M
  • Locked
Indirect ballistic injuries
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Michael Courtney
M
D
  • Locked
Buffalo Bore .38 Special
Replies
3
Views
816
Jim March
J
H
  • Locked
overpenetration and "expending energy in the target"?
2
Replies
32
Views
855
2zulu1
2zulu1
T
  • Locked
Remember Cirillo's "Felon Grabber ammo?
Replies
2
Views
330
torqem
T
Back
Top