The truth about handgun knockdown power

Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought accepted doctrine was to keep firing until the threat goes down or the gun is empty?
Click to expand...

Given the Rules of Engagement that usually apply to civilians and police, spraying shots around the neighborhood might not be such a good idea. :uhoh:

And if the threat is still functioning while you have an empty gun it might be even less of a good idea... :eek:

It doesn't take a lot of shots, just a few well placed ones. :scrutiny:
 
"Spraying the neighborhood" was not intended. All rounds need to be on target. The OP was referring to a perp with a shotgun. Now, does anyone suppose that in such as mismatched situation an officer is going to fire one shot, evaluate and order the suspect down?

A few well placed shots sounds right but the guy still needs to go down without returning fire. If it takes six, it takes six.

I do not understand the firearm policy of this PD (Long Beach?). At that time, San Franciso (SFPD), standard was .41 magnum. How did this officer end up with a Colt 45?
 
Of course not. But as some well-known incidents in New York City and elsewhere show, this is too often what happens when a department goes to large-cap magazine pistols, without the necessary marksmanship training to match. With this combination it is all too easy to go into the "shoot until the attacker is no longer a threat" mode and end up doing a spray & pray.

Also if there is more then one attacker, concentrating too long on the first one may give the second one (or more) the opportunity to do what they intend to do. In my book it is much better to stop an attacker (or attackers) as quickly as possible with a few well placed shots, rather then punch them full of holes where many of those holes may be where in the short term it doesn't matter. To many people forget that outside of a military situation, the bad guys get to open the action and start shooting, after which the good guy can respond. I contend that the best way to respond to an attack-in-progress is fast, but accurate return fire.
 
All of this is basically a "So, what?" sort of discussion.

The only, and I mean ONLY, firearms capable of true "One-shot stops" are usually vehicle-mounted. A pistol is a compromise between power and portability, with the compromise heavily weighted towards portability.

It's been said before- if the slug was capable of knocking down the target with a single shot, it would also knock down the shooter.
 
An incident from the un-civil Civil War may be educational. During Sherman's approach to Atlanta, he spotted some Confederate Officers atop Pine Mountain, almost a mile away, and authorized a "sniper" shot. The shot was taken and General/Bishop Leonidas K. Polk was hit in the chest. An eyewitness report said he did not immediately fall over - no "knockdown" power.

The sniper's weapon? A Parrott rifle, firing a projectile weighing some 140,000 grains. If you want one, get a good holster - the barrel alone weighs 1750 pounds - but knockdown power isn't guaranteed.

Jim
 
I agree with the original poster. Shot placement is almost everything, provided that penetrastion is sufficent to get to whatever vital organs are being aimed at.

The problem with police and ccw training is the center mass shot. There isn't anything imediately lethal there. Heart shots should be placed much closer to a shirt pocket, but how many times will a threating person present himself the same way a sillouette target does on the range? Probably never.

This is why i carry a .44 magnum. All the penetration you could need, even with the slightly reduced loads I carry, and plenty of precision in a big heavy "N " frame Smith. Good trigger job, good sights, points well, almost always gets grasped right by the hand while in the holster, what is not to like? Recoil? Figure the recoil of a GLOCK 22 or 23 with some really effective .40 S& W loads, and get back to me.

I see two real problems with weapons and tactics today. The first is trying to turn a weapon into something comfortable to carry. Big, big mistake. It ought to be comfortable to shoot. Carrying a weapon, any weapon, is a pita. Learn to live with it. Second, training is lacking in reality. YOu must aim , yes, I said aim, for a vital structure. If pistols and revolvers were meant to be pointed, they would have a bead front sight like a shotgun.

Insofar as caliber, I could give a rip. What is important is penetration. A 30 lugaer will shoot through most anything a man might encaounter. Selous, wdm bell and other took quite a few elephants with 6.5 and 7mm rifles, with heavy for the caliber bullets at around 22-2300 feet per second. What they had in common was a bullet that would stay together, penetrate to the vital structure, and were capable of being aimed precisely. There is nothing wrong with a .38 special, provided that the bullets selected will penetrate. This means semiwadcutters, or flat points. (mm is entirely unsuitable, not because of caliber, but because it lacks bullet weight and shaspe. Feed it a heavy147 grain or more swc, and you will see business pick up. Same with a 40 or ten mm. The magnums are the best, but it is mainly because of bullet weight, accuracy, and bullet shape.

If we are to survive a gunfight, we need a bullet that will reach the vitals from most any angle, and training that will teach ust to aim, yes I said aim, for a vital structure. A marginal hit from any caliber is not going to do the business. A .22 is great for slaughtering hogs, but if you go hog hunting, you want a 41 or 44 magnum. Why? It is very hard to hit them between the eyes at the distances they are generally engaged at. You still need to practice until you can hit the heart, or get a double lung shot. Why is it any different with self defense? Any thinking person knows it is not.
 
Whew!

Man, discussions like this are like zombies, you can't kill 'em no matter what.

Simple physics dictates that a bullet will not knock someone over. If it did, the shooter would also be knocked over by the equal and opposite recoil.

People don't act like the movies. Some have the "OMG!, I've been shot!" attitude and will give up due to a superficial wound. An example would be buckshot to the hand. Severed a finger, dude cried uncle. Others don't have the good sense to die when it's their turn. I watched a taped interview with a Ca. Officer who was called to a domestic disturbance. Upon entering, the husband grabbed the rookie parters .357, shot her and his wife, both one shot deaths. Partner in the head, wife in the chest. Husband proceeded to take ELEVEN rounds from a .357, all center of mass/head. Two were contact shots, one to the head and one through the ribcage. The police officer fended him off with an object (don't recall what) while he bled out.

Autopsy revealed no substances. Dude wasn't high, just mean.


When you can give me a projectile superior to a fifteen pound sledgehammer and propel it past 4,000 FPS, I'll start considering "stopping power". Until then, I want time, distance and reloads. All I can get.
 
Upon entering, the husband grabbed the rookie parters .357, shot her and his wife, both one shot deaths. Partner in the head, wife in the chest. Husband proceeded to take ELEVEN rounds from a .357, all center of mass/head. Two were contact shots, one to the head and one through the ribcage. The police officer fended him off with an object (don't recall what) while he bled out.

Autopsy revealed no substances. Dude wasn't high, just mean.
Click to expand...
This sounds VERY similar to an incident that happened in Baton Rouge, LA and was described/dissected in an Ayoob Files article.

Two cops (one male, one female) responded to a possible burglary and found a closed door upstairs. There was a man inside. His behavior was erratic but when he calmed down the male officer (Steve Chaney) relaxed. At that point the man (John James Mullery) made a grab for Chaney's holstered gun. The female rookie officer (Linda Lawrence) drew and shot Mullery in the wrist. Mullery continued to wrestle with Chaney for his gun but Chaney won and shot the man twice in the chest. Mullery turned, grabbed Lawrence's pistol and killed her with a single shot. That started a long sequence of events in which Mullery was shot ten times with the service revolvers. Chaney ultimately ended up with both guns--both S&W Model 64 revolvers loaded with 125gr .38sp +P.

Among the shots, Mullery was hit once in the head and another time in the ribcage. Chaney reports that when he shot him in the ribcage Mullery said: "Oooh, you got me a good one that time." and then lifted Chaney and threw him across the room. The head shot penetrated the skull but at an angle that allowed it to completely miss the brain.

Chaney had to reload at one point facing into a corner while Mullery beat him about the shoulders and back with a tire iron. Mullery also stabbed Chaney once during that reload.

Mullery was finally disabled by a shot to the pelvis and eventually bled to death. He was later found to be under the influence of PCP and cocaine. It is thought he came to the apartment to murder his girlfriend.

Ayoob describes nine of the shots (all of Chaney's aimed shots) as solid hits.
 
Last edited:
Mullery was finally disabled by a shot to the pelvis and eventually bled to death. He was later found to be under the influence of PCP and cocaine. It is thought he came to the apartment to murder his girlfriend.
Click to expand...


PCP is a dissassociative that is closely related to Ketamine and other horse tranquilizers developed for anesthesia. I haven't seen or heard about PCP on the streets in 15 years, it just isn't popular any more. Yet all gun forums are full of comments that you need to carry a 454 in order to fend off the PCP junkie zombies that plague the streets. I'll bet everyone who reads hightimes.com could go looking for PCP for a week and would come up empty. It just doesn't exist anymore.

On the street now there is coke (crack), heroin, ecstacy, speed, pot, and steroids (pretty rare). Speed is the most dangerous because it leads to paranoia and psychopathy but it amplifies pain. The only decent drug argument for carrying a 357 would be steroids, but they are used by a small group of athletic types, not common criminals.
 
Last edited:
I thought accepted doctrine was to keep firing until the threat goes down or the gun is empty? Wouldn't that apply to all calibers?
Click to expand...


On paper, "Shoot till the threat is neutralized" sounds like it makes sense. In practice it has been a disaster. Bad doctrine, poor practice.

tipoc
 
So, where does the myth of "knockdown power" come from?

Is it because some of the more powerful firearms incapacitate a person so quickly that it appears to knock them down?

I've read accounts of soldiers from WWII, who swore that their 1911s would knock adversaries off of their feet. I've read similar stories regarding the effects of the big .44s and .45s in the old west. Are those stories simply BS, or is it that a well-placed shot from a powerful pistol will sometimes take a man down so quickly that it would appear to actually "knock" him down?
 
The body can go into shock and lose motor control instantly. If you have ever fainted its the same thing, you just fall over.
 
Just thought I'd add a little Myth Buster video. Sometimes they are a little "off" with their firearms testing, but this time they did a really good job:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCzD5uhSViY

Notice that even the .50BMG only pushed back the 180lb dummy an inch or two and the bullet lodged into the dummy. It did not penetrate all they way through and the full kinetic energy of the bullet was put into the target.

6gunner,

The caliber used in shootings with the greatest one shot stops is actually the .22lr. That's because "most" people fall down when they realize they have been shot. The psychological conditions of the person being shot are one of many examples that make one-shot-stop statistics worthless in determining caliber effectiveness. During WWII soldiers equipped with 9mm M3s actually had higher kill rates and better "stopping" effect than those using .45acp M3s. Probably because the 9mm versions were more shooter friendly enabling more accurate fire even though the larger .45acp did damage shot per shot. However, with recoil, blast, flash, and other pistol handling characteristics aside.....the most effective handgun caliber is ALWAYS the the one with the largest unexpanded diameter which can expand to 60% of its diameter which causes the greatest overall damage to the target. In most cases that is the .45acp.....although a lot of us prefer to use 9mm or .40S&W for improved pistol handling characteristics.
 
A bullet simply cannot knock a man down. If it had the energy to do so, then equal energy would be applied against the shooter and he too would be knocked down
Click to expand...

I learned that in freshman physics class. You can't break the laws of physics. I got to say that freshman physics class is still one the best classes I ever took.
 
From regal,
Because of legal fallout?
Click to expand...

Off topic but...No, not because of legal fallout (though that is a secondary consideration). There have been far too many cases where police officers have emptied their sidearms, reloaded and emptied them again at a suspect who was long dead or not a threat to begin with. Two famous cases in N.Y. and several in Southern Calif. come to mind. In each case three or more officers were present. One or two took the "shoot them to the ground" approach, shot till they were empty, reloaded and shot some more. While the others took the wiser shoot a few, move and asses route. The former shot almost in a panic or in excitement while the latter remained calm and mindful of their mission.

While it seems forthright the "shoot till the threat is neutralized" approach has given license to folks to shoot in a panic mode or in excitement. It has excused it and justified it. Without intending to it has in effect promoted poor shooting skills and poor shot placement. It has also tended to promote a tunnel vision focus on the one threat you see in front of you and a lack of awareness of what else is going on around you.

Old school, put 2 or 3 rounds in them, move (cuz a moving target is harder to hit than one standing there running their gun empty, and getting to cover is always useful) and assess the situation. The latter is useful if there is more than one target. There may be a time when a fella needs more than 5 or 6 rounds to stop them but before you run your gun dry make sure his partner isn't behind you with a baseball bat.

tipoc
 
Last edited:
Not a handgun, but shows that even a 12ga at close range won't knock you back.. you go down but forward.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The direction a person falls, if they fall, is determined by many things. Gravity, body position, and physiological response will be the primary factors in determining how a body falls more so than the actual impact of the bullet.

So, where does the myth of "knockdown power" come from?
Click to expand...

I would be willing to bet that this comes from the physiological response of those not immediately killed on impact that go down. Many people will have a physiological response to certain stimulus and respond accordingly.
 
So, where does the myth of "knockdown power" come from?
Click to expand...

Just my opinion but...

Mostly I believe it comes from hunting, that is the term comes from hunting. Folks that knew that no handgun or rifle round could literally knock a man or another mammal down none the less spoke of "knock down power" or "stopping power" or "knockout power", etc. They knew the rounds were not automatic stoppers, they knew well that shot placement was critical, but they were looking for a term, and ways to describe, the relative effectiveness of rifle or handgun rounds.

Gen. Julien Hatcher came up with his formula to rank the effectiveness of handgun and rifle rounds. Pondoro Taylor came up with his "knockout formula". Elmer Keith spoke of the .44 as being a real stopper, etc., etc. These men and many others knew no round was guaranteed to "stop" a man or animal but they were trying to figure a way to describe the punch or force with which a round struck and the relative effectiveness on men and game of various rounds.

But common myth, lack of experience and movies and TV convey something different.

There are many who take it to the other extreme and figure that most any round is as effective as another. This ain't true of course.

I was sucker punched once, stunned me, caught me off guard and I was "knocked off my feet". The same fella than punched me at least 15 more times in the next minute or so, all to no effect, cuz I was up and in the fight. Same fella, same punch, same me.

tipoc
 
"Knock Down" Power...

I've always preferred the term "Stopping Power". As mentioned, nothing short of major artillery will knock down an opponent, and sometimes not even then. However, a human can be 'stopped' or 'incapacitated' - which is to be rendered incapable of being a further threat - with a well placed hit from a serious firearm.

The idea of 'Knock Down Power' is a popular phrase, invented by unknown persons. No doubt the movie industry with depictions of people being physically moved by bullet impact. (The movie "Shane" used a harness and wire arrangement to propel a stunt man to simulate this action. Never happens in reality, but it's impressive in a movie.) Under some circumstances, the recipient of a bullet wound will physically react by massive muscle action.

Another misconception is the concept of 'killing power'. Many people have been actually killed by a gunshot wound, but the death did not occur for several days. During those days, the wounded person was able to continue his (or her) life and actions. Killing an attacker is way down the list of desired results, far behind incapacitation, or simply making them stop doing whatever they were doing to motivate one to shoot them.

This whole 'equation' is rather complicated, as it depends on several conditions of the designated stopee. Physical size, physical (strength and general health) condition, mental state and influence of drugs are the most obvious, but no doubt other factors exist.

Certainly, bullet placement is key. A hit in the central nervous system or major organs (heart, lungs, liver) is much more effective than a hit in the fleshy part of the upper arm or calf. Pain is useful at times, but not universally effective. So a well placed hit will actually shut down bodily functions, at least temporarily. But without question, a larger bullet - or a bullet with more kinetic energy - does more interruption of body function and incapacitation than a less powerful or smaller bullet. (In some cases, the .357 Magnum is 'larger' than a .45 ACP in the sense of kinetic energy and energy delivered. That's another argument.)

My main criticism of the original article claiming the .45 Colt round is insufficient is simply this: The Commander cannot determine at what point the shotgun wielding villain was rendered harmless. He seems (from his report) to have shot the villain five times in rapid succession. (I'm not criticizing firing five shots; I'm sure it seemed reasonable at the time.) However, there is no way to determine if the first shot striking the villain's thigh and breaking the leg actually rendered the villain helpless. Or perhaps the shoulder shot prevented the villain from using the shotgun he held. We don't know and there's no way to tell from the information presented.

As I mentioned before, a person can be on their feet and harmless or on the ground and still dangerous. It's a judgment call, and a remarkably difficult call to make while in the situation.

However the idea that a 'smaller' round properly placed is superior to a 'larger' round equally properly placed is simply indefensible. Nor do I see any real evidence the 'smaller' round is more likely to be properly placed.
 
I think we can all agree that at least three factors contribute to genuine "stopping power" or whatever term one wishes to employ here. Those factors are shot placement, penetration and tissue/organ damage. One historical instance that demonstrates how this trinity of factors operated in the real world concerns the shooting of John Wilkes Booth, the assassin of President Lincoln.

Booth was shot in the neck by a bullet which damaged his spinal cord, a wound that instantly incapacitated him. He remained paralyzed until his death a few hours later. When I read about such stories, the "trinity" of factors I previously mentioned seems to figure prominently.

Now, I do not deny that pain or psychological trauma can stop someone immediately. Others can cite cases where this has occurred. But reliable "stopping power" seems to involve the three factors mentioned above and also target the brain or upper spinal cord. In my opinion, I have done nothing more than to make common sense explicit in this posting.


Timthinker
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness
Replies
6
Views
1K
Water Garden
Water Garden
CptnAwesome
  • Locked
"Knockdown Power"
2 3 4 5
Replies
106
Views
5K
Robert
Robert
H
  • Locked
Why choose the 230 grain bullet in 45 ACP?
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
evan price
evan price
S
  • Locked
Knockdown Power (related to shot placement thread)
Replies
7
Views
659
smokemaker
S
M
  • Locked
Formulating the Pressure Wave Hypothesis
2
Replies
45
Views
4K
thales
T
Back
Top