"Stopping Power" Study

[Loosedhorse]

But I think one of the strengths of Greg's study, which a lot of folks seem to be missing, is that it begins to highlight the difference between a psychological stop and a physiological stop.

I'm still mssing it.

The definition that Greg says he is using for "incapacitation" seems to include "psychological stops"--just as Marshall and Sanow's did. So I see not improvement here.

I mean, I get the presumption (if this is what you mean?) that psychological stops are roughly the same for both "minor" calibers and "major" cailbers, and that (therefore) the difference we see in "incapacitation" between major and minor calibers is the difference in physiological stops...

I just don't see that this study helps justify that presumption. In fact, as the (IPSC) "minor" (and sub-minor) calibers range from 21-34% fatalities (the ultimate "physiological stop"--although, again, a person might stop first and die later, so the stop was actually "psychological" at the time it happened), and the major calibers range from 25-34%, they seem to be about equal physiologically (with perhaps the exception of the .32 pistol calibers).

Unless you perhaps mean that the major calibers are better at producing psychological stops? I think that might be.

 

[JohnBT]

Nah, he left because he saw the .25 and didn't want to laugh and hurt your feelings.

 

[Sig Bill]

I wouldn't laugh at a 25. Maybe they won't kill you maybe they will, either way it's gonna hurt.

One winter I shot my Titan 25 at a gallon jug of solid ice twice in my backyard. They both went through it. I thought damn, if I stabbed it with a knife it wouldn't go far.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I mean, I get the presumption (if this is what you mean?) that psychological stops are roughly the same for both "minor" calibers and "major" cailbers, and that (therefore) the difference we see in "incapacitation" between major and minor calibers is the difference in physiological stops...

I'd call it a hypothesis. And it's essentially how Ellifritz interprets the data. See post 21 where I quote him.

 

[Skribs]

I also just realized that the Shotgun category is very broad, it would seem to include everything from #12 ratshot out of a .410 to 10-gauge slugs.

With a mixture of ammunition, you cannot really conclude anything. Were the people shot with a .22 hit with varmint rounds or 40 gr hypervelocity hardball rounds? Were the people shot with a 9mm shot with ball ammo or JHP ammo? He touches on the fallacy in the article, but doesn't go into how much it affected the results.

 

[joecil]

Here is an interesting article I just saw for the first time this morning. The facts of shots to stop might be a bit surprising as the was to me also.

http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=...um=Email&utm_campaign=Chronicle+Vol+1+Issue+1

 

[coalman]

Here is an interesting article I just saw for the first time this morning. The facts of shots to stop might be a bit surprising as the was to me also. http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=2...+Vol+1+Issue+1

From that article discussing a hole size in a bucket of water and water loss as analogous to holes in living things, and the point I stopped reading: "Personally I don’t think [there] is much difference between .0034% and .0054% in relation to the human body. After all it’s only 0.002%!!!". This is a common error in analysis I see time and again. You must establish a relative percentage scale when comparing the numbers as all the numbers are small which misleads a conclusion as to the differences comparing the numbers at face value. So, just using the numbers from the article as written, the .0034 of 9mm divided by the .0054 of .45acp = 63%, or if you prefer .0054/.0034 = 1.59%, both outcomes greatly favoring .45acp. Does that % matter to you? Maybe, maybe not, and there are other things to consider. But, it's not the "0.002%!!!" touted in the article and many in the smaller caliber camps misunderstand this.

 

[MCgunner]

Quote:
Except for the guy in NY last week who shot his friend in the leg, because his friend asked him to. The friend wanted to know what it was like to get shot.




How much you want to bet he stopped asking after the first round? One round stopping power!

Well, if I were doing this study, I'd toss out data that had too much dumbass factor.

 

[elrowe]

That's the key - almost any of these will pass through a human target - having more energy than another round that also goes through means the energy advantage is wasted. The diameter of the various service calibers doesn't really vary by enough of a percentage to mean much difference in size of hole in pass through shots. So the extra hundred or so ft/lbs. of energy just means the bullet goes farther out the other side.

 

[beex215]

that why i carry a steel hammer. its much better than firearms. it wont ever jam or need ammo. i can even throw it.

 

[mortablunt]

Thanks a million. Great read!

 

[rem22long40x]

Shot placement is #1 , there will always be a reasond for any cal. to preform good or bad. I saw a man shot to peaces and did not go down untill the drugs ran out. on the othere hand I saw a man shot in the leg with a 22 lr.and it came out the top of his head and he fell limp as a wet rag.

 

[Flopsweat]

Under discussion here already:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=660014

I saw what you did there...

 

[skoro]

Didn't look like a study to me. Just a survey. And the survey's finding that .32 caliber is most effective doesn't lend it a lot of credibility.

 

[303tom]

Didn't look like a study to me. Just a survey. And the survey's finding that .32 caliber is most effective doesn't lend it a lot of credibility.

I will tell you what, this .32 carries a lot of credibility..............

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/46...agnum-100-grain-jacketed-soft-point-box-of-50

 

[Skribs]

That's part of the problem, Tom. .327 and .32 ACP are lumped together.

 

[Powerglide]

Mass of projectile and speed of said projectile. Area of placement.
Common sense again.
I still carry a 1903 Colt 32. Why? It probably will work, if I do mine.

 

[KTXdm9]

No round stops everyone every time. Not even with a perfect hit. Stopping power is a myth. If you want to be sure of stopping your opponent with one hit every time you need to carry something like a 90 mm recoilless rifle loaded with flechette rounds.

There are no magic bullets. Any modern handgun bullet in caliber .38 special or larger is sufficient to incapacitate a man in a reasonable amount of time, but that incapacitation is not guaranteed to happen with one hit. Not even the mythical perfect hit. There are no magic bullets.

Well said. Best post in the thread.

 

[303tom]

That's part of the problem, Tom. .327 and .32 ACP are lumped together.

They are both .32`s................

 

[Rampant_Colt]

They are both .32`s................

Their [terminal] ballistics are so completely different it's like saying a .38 Short Colt is the same as a .357 Sig; or a .380 ACP is the same as .357 Mag. .32 ACP is an autoloading cartridge, .327 Federal is a revolver cartridge. Apples & oranges. They're not even remotely close.

This seriously flawed "study" has more holes in it than the patterning board at the shotgun range

 

[duns]

These are very important data and I take my hat off to Mr. Ellifritz for collecting them. Unfortunately, the data need to be reported in greater detail for a proper statistical analysis. Terminology also needs to be defined more clearly. For example:

1. "Average number of rounds until incapacitation" has been calculated as "# of people shot" divided by "# of hits". This implies that the numerator was actually "# of people shot AND incapacitated".
   
2. "% of hits that were fatal" only took into account hits to torso and head, but we are not told how many people were hit in the torso or head, nor how many shots landed in the torso or head.
   
3. We are given "% of people who were not incapacitated" but not told how many people that was.

After collecting data for so many years, it would be a shame not to publish it in full detail so that those with the necessary statistical skills could analyze it rigorously.

 

[303tom]

Their [terminal] ballistics are so completely different it's like saying a .38 Short Colt is the same as a .357 Sig; or a .380 ACP is the same as .357 Mag.


Them are all 9mm...............

 

[Skribs]

There's differences beyond simply bullet diameter. For example, with .32 ACP, you're likely to use hardball. With .327, you're likely to use hollowpoints. With .380 ACP, it's about 50/50 whether people use hardball or hollowpoints. With 9mm, people tend to lean towards hollowpoint (but military skewed that towards hardball). With .357, you have virtually no excuse but to use a hollowpoint or similarly effective round over a hardball that will zip through.

They may both be 9mm, but if you're using hardball in a .380 to get the desired penetration and BJHP in .357 to get expansion, you are not going to have the same hole.

The .223 is only 0.003 wider than the .22 LR, but it is vastly more powerful.

 

[X-Rap]

So this whole stopping power debate marches on while a newb shooter in one trip to the range could decide their "perfect " balance in cartridge power vs. controllability.
The equation will probably change over the life of a shooter but the "fact" will remain that quality of shot and quantity on that target will rule the day with most typical handgun rounds.

 

[CSestp]

Brings to mind an old quote I saw on here a long time ago during a .45acp vs whatever argument;

"If your neighbor steps out on his front porch and shoots you in the head with a .22lr you've had a bad day."