Truth Behind Stopping Power - Magic bullet vs shot placement [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Truth Behind Stopping Power - Magic bullet vs shot placement


eXistenZ
10-12-2009, 18:57
While browsing through previous Combat Handguns issues I ran across this article and felt it was very well written and should be considered mandatory reading. It may be long but it's worth it. Enjoy! :wavey:


Truth Behind Stopping Power
Written by Ralph Mroz

Magic bullet versus shot placement—it’s practice that saves the day!

There are endless debates about “stopping power.” We are all legitimately concerned about it and many people have some pretty vigorous opinions about it. They cite gelatin studies, cadaver studies, animal studies, statistical analyses and experience. In the end, only actual experience counts but the anecdotes that describe experience are as flawed a means to arrive at conclusions as any of the other methods. The reason is that no one has shot enough people in a controlled way with all of the thousands of variables controlled and normalized, to arrive at a valid conclusion.

In the bullet itself, the bullet weights, caliber, construction, materials and velocities must be considered. Other factors include shot placement, and the thousands of permutations in it and the damage it causes in a body. Then there are differences in body type, composition, age, sex, health and so on. Don’t forget to also account for blood chemistry like adrenaline, drugs and the like. Then we have intermediate barriers like clothing to factor in. Do the math and the physical factors alone multiply out to an astronomical number of permutations. And we haven’t even considered the immeasurable mental factors that vary by person: aggression, rage, attitude, willingness to fight, etc. In short, it’s impossible from the physical evidence to determine what constitutes “stopping power.”

No one seems to completely agree on just what “stopping power” means. Does the bad guy stop immediately? If so, can you put a time definition on “immediately?” One tenth of a second? Two tenths? And what do you mean by “stop?” He doesn’t take any more steps? Moves no further forward? Takes only one more step? What’s a step, by the way? Also, how many bullets do you have to fire to achieve this result? And fire them what time?

Simply put, stopping power is impossible to define, impossible to agree on, and impossible to measure, both in theory and in practice. But we all know what “stopping power” means to most of us, that if we shoot a bad guy he becomes incapable of hurting us. One-shot stops are desirable, but I think we all also know that handgun rounds are pretty anemic and that one-shot stops will be the exception rather than the rule, no matter what caliber or round we pick.


Myth #1: Magic Bullet
Today there are two popular methods taught to achieve maximum stopping power from a handgun. First, there is the “magic bullet” approach. Following this method, we pick the biggest caliber gun that we can manage to conceal and control, and we pick the “highest performance” round we can to load it with. Adherents of this approach like big-bore guns, preferably .45s.

They pour over the latest studies containing the most arcane minutiae from non-reproducible and un-authenticated sources, and draw hugely important dubious conclusions from it. If some round is somehow “rated” by some methodology to be 2 percent “more effective” than what they’re now loading with, they will scour the earth for a box of it. These folks spend hours upon hours on Internet forums debating the merits of one round versus another.

Unfortunately, the “magic bullet” theory is more or less a waste of time because we all know as a matter of common knowledge that no handgun bullet is an effective stopper. There are simply too many stories of people being shot with even .45s to trust that picking the right bullet is the answer. The “magic bullet” theory is belief in magic, indeed.

If you want to stop someone right there right now, you need a rifle. Bullet considerations do make sense at small-caliber rifle velocity and energy levels (such as a .223), because at those levels some rounds do suck and some rounds don’t. But once you get past a certain energy level, again bullets really don’t matter, because they all work. No one has debates over which .50 caliber rifle round is a better man-stopper than another.


Myth #2: Shot Placement
The alternate popular approach to stopping power is shot placement. Hit ‘em in the head or the high upper chest, so the theory goes, and you have a real good chance of stopping your adversary. Maybe. High chest shots, while usually hitting high-value anatomical targets, are certainly not sure stoppers. Ditto with headshots. The cranium is very thick and there are too many stories of bullets traversing the circumference of the skill under the skin to trust even head shot placement (a huge headache is not a show stopper). The real problem with the shot placement theory is that precise shots are all but impossible in the dynamic, chaotic seconds of a gunfight, and further, often everyone is moving, making shot placement even more difficult. The shot placement theory seems to break down a bit in actual practice.

Note that I’m talking here about responding to sudden, spontaneous attacks, or in any case attacks that your attacker initiates. Gunfights that are the result of something like entries by a SWAT team, in which the action is initiated and largely controlled by the good guys, do allow for precise shot placement in many cases.

Stopping an Attacker
There are only three ways that a bullet can stop an attacker. One, it can destroy central nervous system function but that requires very precise shot placement. Two, it can cause the blood system to depressurize but that also requires either precise or lucky shot placement and in any case it happens slowly even at best or three, it can cause so much shock to the body that the body shuts down.

How would you cause a lot of shock to the body? It’s actually pretty simple: put a lot of bullets in a short amount of time into the bad guy. In practice this translates to a multiple shot burst with hits anywhere on the torso. The good news is that you may get lucky with one or more of these shots and also causes some pressure loss.

Now, I’m not advocating that we spray and pray. I still believe in good, solid fundamentals and practicing center-mass shot placement because we will perform worse under extreme stress in real life situations, which are often much more complicated and difficult than the static range drills that constitute of most people’s practice on that range.

An “A” performance on the range might give us “C” performance for real, but “C” is still passing. What I don’t like to see in training, though, is an emphasis on the all-but-impossible-to-make-in real-life headshots or an over emphasis on small group size. If you are keeping your groups the size of your fist, I’d suggest that you are shooting too slowly with too much emphasis on seeing your sights. You are doing what I’ve best heard described as “intellectual shooting,” which I’m sure you won’t be doing on the street.

I’d suggest that you shoot faster or with more target focus until you achieve consistent 8-inch groups (on full-profile targets, I’m even fine with groups that consistently stay on an 8×11-inch piece of paper). You still need good marksmanship because you may not have a full-profile target available to you or you may in fact have to make a distance shot. So practice shooting at small targets and at distance with your handgun, too. Just don’t make it your only practice.

On the street any bullet that hits anywhere on your assailant is a good hit. They all cause some shock, and even extremity hits (the leg, arm, had or even foot) will cause both some shock and some incapacitation. Of course, I’m not advocating that you aim for the extremities. You should still be aiming for center mass but hits anywhere are great. On the street, it’s only misses that do us no good and in fact cause us harm because of the liability they represent. You should train in multiple-shot bursts: 1-2-3-4, rather than the 1…2…3…4 that we tend to do in practice.

So do pick a reasonable caliber handgun; however a .22’s performance is not equal to a .45. Like everyone else, I hate to go below .38 in caliber. Also, do pick a high performance bullet to carry in your handgun; I’m not saying that hardball is as good as modern hollowpoint designs are. Take advantage of the studies and shooting results out there.

Use that information to pick one of the top four or five rounds that you feel performs best under the conditions that you will have to fight and then forget about it. Don’t get your knickers all in a knot every time some new opinion surfaces. Re-check your logic and data every couple years to take into account new shooting results and new designs, and you’ll be making very efficient use of your time.

You can use the time you used to spend on the net looking for that magic bullet to practice true survival shooting. If you can’t help but bear down on your front sight and getting anything more than an inch spread drives you crazy, then learn to shoot in a more street-realistic way. If, on the other hand, you keep ‘em all on the target but also all over it at 5 yards, then learn to make a headshot at 25 yards. That skill isn’t likely to be needed, but neither are you likely to win the lottery. But someone does, every day.


http://www.tactical-life.com/online/combat-handguns/truth-behind-stopping-power/

TM1
10-12-2009, 19:45
Logical article, I'd agree.

JohnKSa
10-12-2009, 20:45
Some years ago I spoke with a TX constable who had done extensive study of LE shootings.

He came to a similar conclusion--namely that winning a gunfight meant putting as many shots as you could on target as rapidly as you could and hoping for the best. In the final analysis his feeling was that getting a rapid stop was largely a matter of probability and the best way to help your chances was to get a lot of shots on target really fast.

His caveat was that you needed something that would reliably get to the vitals with a decent sized bullet. His practical minimum was .380 but he advised FMJ in that caliber to get sufficient penetration.

One interesting comment he made in the course of the discussion was: "Don't pick a caliber so large that it gets you killed.". His point was that if your caliber choice significantly hampers your ability to get a sufficient number of shots on target very rapidly (either due to more recoil or lower capacity) that it was likely to hurt your chances of surviving a gunfight.

BOGE
10-13-2009, 03:07
...They pour over the latest studies containing the most arcane minutiae from non-reproducible and un-authenticated sources, and draw hugely important dubious conclusions from it. If some round is somehow “rated” by some methodology to be 2 percent “more effective” than what they’re now loading with, they will scour the earth for a box of it. These folks spend hours upon hours on Internet forums debating the merits of one round versus another...


Hey, he just described over 75% of the posters in Caliber Corner. :supergrin::rofl:

fastbolt
10-13-2009, 12:10
Hey, he just described over 75% of the posters in Caliber Corner. :supergrin::rofl:

Just 75%? :whistling:

Gallowglass
10-13-2009, 14:11
Opening with this
In the end, only actual experience counts but the anecdotes that describe experience are as flawed a means to arrive at conclusions as any of the other methods. The reason is that no one has shot enough people in a controlled way with all of the thousands of variables controlled and normalized, to arrive at a valid conclusion.
and closing with this
Take advantage of the studies and shooting results out there.

Use that information to pick one of the top four or five rounds that you feel performs best under the conditions that you will have to fight and then forget about it.
struck me as a little incongruous.

Dreamaster
10-13-2009, 14:57
Opening with this

and closing with this

struck me as a little incongruous.

Not at all... he is saying "Pick one of the top 4 or 5... then forget about it"... in other words, he's telling people like me "HST's aren't magical Dreamaster, if you can't find them, buy something else in the top rated list and stop worrying about bullet selection... don't come to Caliber corner and debate the merits of .1" extra expansion all day."

eXistenZ
10-14-2009, 04:59
Not at all... he is saying "Pick one of the top 4 or 5... then forget about it"... in other words, he's telling people like me "HST's aren't magical Dreamaster, if you can't find them, buy something else in the top rated list and stop worrying about bullet selection... don't come to Caliber corner and debate the merits of .1" extra expansion all day."

That's also what I got out of this article. It blows my mind when I see someone post "Wow look at those results! I need to sell my Rangers and get those HSTs because they expanded .1 more and retained 1% more weight!" :faint::faint::faint::faint:


PS: I carry HSTs :supergrin: My disclaimer being that they are a good solid affordable round and the biggest plus of all is I CAN FIND THEM LOCALLY! I would just as soon carry Rangers, Golden Sabers, TAPs, etc...

Gallowglass
10-14-2009, 06:28
Not at all... he is saying "Pick one of the top 4 or 5... then forget about it"... in other words, he's telling people like me "HST's aren't magical Dreamaster, if you can't find them, buy something else in the top rated list and stop worrying about bullet selection... don't come to Caliber corner and debate the merits of .1" extra expansion all day."

Yeah. I used to tutor english and I'm teaching an intro to writing course, so I've developed the ability to spot discrepencies in writing even when I'm not looking for them!

SDGlock23
10-14-2009, 08:00
Good read, it makes a lot of good, valid points.

English
10-15-2009, 08:23
....
Truth Behind Stopping Power
Written by Ralph Mroz

Wow! This is what I have been looking for all these years! Someone who knows the truth!

.....
Today there are two popular methods taught to achieve maximum stopping power from a handgun. First, there is the “magic bullet” approach. Following this method, we pick the biggest caliber gun that we can manage to conceal and control, and we pick the “highest performance” round we can to load it with. Adherents of this approach like big-bore guns, preferably .45s.
Not true!

If some round is somehow “rated” by some methodology to be 2 percent “more effective” than what they’re now loading with, they will scour the earth for a box of it.
Not true!

Unfortunately, the “magic bullet” theory is more or less a waste of time because we all know as a matter of common knowledge that no handgun bullet is an effective stopper.

Not true
There are simply too many stories of people being shot with even .45s to trust that picking the right bullet is the answer.

That is because most .45 are just not very good. The assumption here is that it is "common knowledge" that the .45ACP is the best stopper and so if evidence shows it isn't much good then nothing can be any good.

The alternate popular approach to stopping power is shot placement. Hit ‘em in the head or the high upper chest, so the theory goes, and you have a real good chance of stopping your adversary. ...High chest shots, .... are certainly not sure stoppers. Ditto with headshots. The cranium is very thick and there are too many stories of bullets traversing the circumference of the skill under the skin to trust even head shot placement (a huge headache is not a show stopper).

Some bullets traverse the circumference under the skin. This happens with bullets with nice ogives which are not powerful enough and have poor barrier penetration properties hitting the skull at a glancing angle. It is unlikely with TC or hollow points in 357SIG or 10mm. A thick skull has less resistance than windscreen glass. People going for head shots have to hit the ocular cavity, about 3"x2" in size with ordinary bullets or hit about 1.5" inside the visual edge of the skull with better bullets, about a 5" inch diameter circle.
...
There are only three ways that a bullet can stop an attacker. One, it can destroy central nervous system function but that requires very precise shot placement. Two, it can cause the blood system to depressurize but that also requires either precise or lucky shot placement and in any case it happens slowly even at best or three, it can cause so much shock to the body that the body shuts down.

You don't need to destroy the CNS. Just damaging it enough will do to stop someone. What is this undefined term "shock"? Sounds like pseudo science to me!

If you are keeping your groups the size of your fist, I’d suggest that you are shooting too slowly with too much emphasis on seeing your sights. You are doing what I’ve best heard described as “intellectual shooting,” which I’m sure you won’t be doing on the street.

I’d suggest that you shoot faster or with more target focus until you achieve consistent 8-inch groups (on full-profile targets, I’m even fine with groups that consistently stay on an 8×11-inch piece of paper)....

This I can agree with apart from his idea that it is to produce "shock".

On the street any bullet that hits anywhere on your assailant is a good hit. They all cause some shock, and even extremity hits (the leg, arm, had or even foot) will cause both some shock and some incapacitation. Of course, I’m not advocating that you aim for the extremities. You should still be aiming for center mass but hits anywhere are great.

I can agree again apart from the "shock" idea.

So do pick a reasonable caliber handgun; however a .22’s performance is not equal to a .45. Like everyone else, I hate to go below .38 in caliber. Also, do pick a high performance bullet to carry in your handgun; I’m not saying that hardball is as good as modern hollowpoint designs are. Take advantage of the studies and shooting results out there.

This means pick the best magic bullet you can find in as big a calibre as you can manage! I think this must be the part that is meant in the title!

Re-check your logic and data every couple years to take into account new shooting results and new designs, and you’ll be making very efficient use of your time.

Don't bother looking for a better magic bullet too frequently!

...If you can’t help but bear down on your front sight and getting anything more than an inch spread drives you crazy, then learn to shoot in a more street-realistic way.

That bit is good advice but overall, C-

English

Ak.Hiker
10-15-2009, 08:59
Just 75%? :whistling:
The percentage will go up when you factor in the guys that pick their ammo from watching videos on utube.

eXistenZ
10-15-2009, 17:09
Today there are two popular methods taught to achieve maximum stopping power from a handgun. First, there is the “magic bullet” approach. Following this method, we pick the biggest caliber gun that we can manage to conceal and control, and we pick the “highest performance” round we can to load it with. Adherents of this approach like big-bore guns, preferably .45s.
Not true!
If some round is somehow “rated” by some methodology to be 2 percent “more effective” than what they’re now loading with, they will scour the earth for a box of it.
Not true!
Unfortunately, the “magic bullet” theory is more or less a waste of time because we all know as a matter of common knowledge that no handgun bullet is an effective stopper.
Not true
....


I don't suppose you could offer proof to any of your opinions could you?

I have personally observed the first two and for the last one, well it's a universal truth that handguns are lousy for killing/stopping people. How many people survive getting shot with a handgun vs. surviving getting shot with a rifle vs. getting shot with a shotgun? Go forth, Google, and learn. :thumbsup:

If you're going to rate an article I would appreciate it if instead of just writing "Not true!" you would take the time to write a well thought out response as to why you feel this to be true along with supplying facts. If that's not to much to ask. :dunno:

vafish
10-16-2009, 06:49
The article is wrong,

There are magic bullets.

The problem is you only get 1, and you don't know if it will be your 1st shot, your 5th shot, the 10th shot in your 3rd magazine or if you left it in a box of ammo at home.

If someone attacks you, you need to keep shooting them until you get to your magic bullet that stops the fight.

English
10-16-2009, 10:29
I don't suppose you could offer proof to any of your opinions could you?

I have personally observed the first two and for the last one, well it's a universal truth that handguns are lousy for killing/stopping people. How many people survive getting shot with a handgun vs. surviving getting shot with a rifle vs. getting shot with a shotgun? Go forth, Google, and learn. :thumbsup:

If you're going to rate an article I would appreciate it if instead of just writing "Not true!" you would take the time to write a well thought out response as to why you feel this to be true along with supplying facts. If that's not to much to ask. :dunno:

Well. I sympathise with your desire since I often try to argue against people who quote authority without any support of logic or fact. On the other hand it is a lot to ask because a proper answer would take a lot of my time and I didn't think the article justified it. In this case I responded only because it irritated me with its platitudes and complete lack of anything worth reading it for.

For the first "not true" I was responding to the sentence, "Adherents of this approach like big-bore guns, preferably .45s." This might be true for many but not for all. 10mm, 357SIG and .357 Magnum are all better choices and the 9x23mm Winchester is probably better than any of them, in my opinion. That is three medium bore and one in between.

For the second, it would be a very rare individual who believed in better bullet performance related to design, weight and velocity who would scour the earth for a difference of 2%.

For the third, I believe that 10mm, especially and the two 357s are very good stoppers with good loads and bullets. The fact that only a very small percentage use them means that we don't have good statistics but past stats for 357 Magnum and present stats from PDs for the 357SIG seem to indicate good stopping power for relatively high speed 125 gn hollow points. More common cartridges and bullets like all but a few 9mm, .40S&W and .45ACP are poor stoppers. But a universal truth means all of them and not just most.

I should say that my opinions are biased by the fact that I believe the findings of the Courtneys - that is, I believe ballistic pressure wave incapacitation effects work when the hydrodynamic pressure created by the bullet is high enough. That gets me into lots of arguments here but it is hard to argue with their data. In fact no one has yet argued with their data but just call them liars. Some scientists lie but eventually they get found out and so it is something the relatively few scientist would do. The slight "fame" dr Courtney has achieved on GT and the slight career advancement he might have achieved do not balance the risk of faking evidence. In contrast, calling scientists liars because they say they have evidence for something that others don't believe is something many people here have no compunction about. I find that quite astounding.

As far as I am concerned, pistol bullets hitting deer at pistol velocities and producing collapse within 5 seconds is a very good indication that they will do the same thing with humans, give or take a little. if you allow for the fact that the deer probably does not know what it is doing for that time and that a BG would probably be unable to make a controlled shot either means it is a very useful effect in a gun fight. As Vafish says, the problem is that you don't know which one is the magic bullet. What you do know from the Courtney's work is that with a good design and velocity the 357SIG averages out at about every second or third bullet and with good 10mms it averages out at about two out of three bullets. At 5 yards you can make 5 good hits with a 10mm it the time it takes a rifleman at 100 yards to make one good hit. That seems like pretty good stopping power to me and asking for much more is indeed looking for magic.

English

eXistenZ
10-16-2009, 18:45
Well. I sympathise with your desire since I often try to argue against people who quote authority without any support of logic or fact. On the other hand it is a lot to ask because a proper answer would take a lot of my time and I didn't think the article justified it. In this case I responded only because it irritated me with its platitudes and complete lack of anything worth reading it for.

Well thank you for gracing us with your personal opinion, maybe YOU should write articles in national published gun magazines?

For the first "not true" I was responding to the sentence, "Adherents of this approach like big-bore guns, preferably .45s." This might be true for many but not for all. 10mm, 357SIG and .357 Magnum are all better choices and the 9x23mm Winchester is probably better than any of them, in my opinion. That is three medium bore and one in between.

"Preferably" doesn't mean 100%. Also, I believe the dogma the author was trying to convey is "Carry the most powerful round you can comfortably shoot." Hence, if you can shoot the .45, shoot it, if you can shoot the 10mm, shoot it, etc... We're talking overall power, not just the biggest bore size.

For the second, it would be a very rare individual who believed in better bullet performance related to design, weight and velocity who would scour the earth for a difference of 2%.

I've seen people do it.

For the third, I believe that 10mm, especially and the two 357s are very good stoppers with good loads and bullets. The fact that only a very small percentage use them means that we don't have good statistics but past stats for 357 Magnum and present stats from PDs for the 357SIG seem to indicate good stopping power for relatively high speed 125 gn hollow points. More common cartridges and bullets like all but a few 9mm, .40S&W and .45ACP are poor stoppers. But a universal truth means all of them and not just most.

You can close your eyes and hope and believe really hard, but it still doesn't change that every person who even has a shred of knowledge and experience will say how bad handguns are at stopping/killing people.

I should say that my opinions are biased by the fact that I believe the findings of the Courtneys - that is, I believe ballistic pressure wave incapacitation effects work when the hydrodynamic pressure created by the bullet is high enough. That gets me into lots of arguments here but it is hard to argue with their data. In fact no one has yet argued with their data but just call them liars. Some scientists lie but eventually they get found out and so it is something the relatively few scientist would do. The slight "fame" dr Courtney has achieved on GT and the slight career advancement he might have achieved do not balance the risk of faking evidence. In contrast, calling scientists liars because they say they have evidence for something that others don't believe is something many people here have no compunction about. I find that quite astounding.

Sounds like something interesting that I'll have to research when I'm having a slow day. Somehow I don't think it's going to turn my ammo into magical "kill on contact" rounds. If you didn't see the program you won't get the reference.

As far as I am concerned, pistol bullets hitting deer at pistol velocities and producing collapse within 5 seconds is a very good indication that they will do the same thing with humans, give or take a little. if you allow for the fact that the deer probably does not know what it is doing for that time and that a BG would probably be unable to make a controlled shot either means it is a very useful effect in a gun fight. As Vafish says, the problem is that you don't know which one is the magic bullet. What you do know from the Courtney's work is that with a good design and velocity the 357SIG averages out at about every second or third bullet and with good 10mms it averages out at about two out of three bullets. At 5 yards you can make 5 good hits with a 10mm it the time it takes a rifleman at 100 yards to make one good hit. That seems like pretty good stopping power to me and asking for much more is indeed looking for magic.

Here's the problem. The deer are shot "perfectly" where as the bad guy is shot in a high stress situation and you're just trying to hit anything center mass, hence the reliance on "stopping power".

Comparing a 5 hits from 5 yards from a 10mm to a single rifle hit at 100 yards is just...well...no use for me to insult you.


On the conservative side rifles are twice as effective at stopping and killing people, and shotguns literally blow both of them away. There is just no comparison, handguns suck.

English

Responses in bold blue.

glock20c10mm
10-16-2009, 18:52
One interesting comment he made in the course of the discussion was: "Don't pick a caliber so large that it gets you killed.". His point was that if your caliber choice significantly hampers your ability to get a sufficient number of shots on target very rapidly (either due to more recoil or lower capacity) that it was likely to hurt your chances of surviving a gunfight.
Exactly why I don't carry Desert Eagles chambered for the 50AE.

glock20c10mm
10-16-2009, 18:59
While browsing through previous Combat Handguns issues I ran across this article and felt it was very well written and should be considered mandatory reading. It may be long but it's worth it. Enjoy! :wavey:
Just another opinion. As English has already pointed out, the author did contradict himself. I'm not impressed, nor did I learn from it. Not to say others won't, as there's almost always something to learn from everything.

Good Shooting,
Craig

Glolt20-91
10-17-2009, 01:21
Just another opinion. As English has already pointed out, the author did contradict himself. I'm not impressed, nor did I learn from it. Not to say others won't, as there's almost always something to learn from everything.

Good Shooting,
Craig

The author's ramblings showed his bias opinions, plus contradictions. The author should know from his 'street' comments that a person may only get one shot off on a felon, vis a vis, exemplified by engaging multiple felon scenarios. The concept of a fast shooting, more fired bullet v heavier, more powerful calibers doesn't hold water when a 3XL felon is only showing a through the arm/shoulder target.

When Texas DPS et al state the .357SIG is a 'stopper' on violent felons, that tells me the fast 9s have the ability to overcome mental, drug and chemical dump (adrenaline) issues.

There's more, but the article has already taken up too much of my time and I'm tired.

Nice comments Craig.

Bob :cowboy:

English
10-17-2009, 08:51
Originally Posted by English ....

1) (Comment from eXistenz) Well thank you for gracing us with your personal opinion, maybe YOU should write articles in national published gun magazines?

......

2) (Comment from eXistenz) You can close your eyes and hope and believe really hard, but it still doesn't change that every person who even has a shred of knowledge and experience will say how bad handguns are at stopping/killing people.

3) (Statement by me in previous post) I should say that my opinions are biased by the fact that I believe the findings of the Courtneys - that is, I believe ballistic pressure wave incapacitation effects work when the hydrodynamic pressure created by the bullet is high enough. That gets me into lots of arguments here but it is hard to argue with their data. In fact no one has yet argued with their data but just call them liars. Some scientists lie but eventually they get found out and so it is something the relatively few scientist would do. The slight "fame" Dr. Courtney has achieved on GT and the slight career advancement he might have achieved do not balance the risk of faking evidence. In contrast, calling scientists liars because they say they have evidence for something that others don't believe is something many people here have no compunction about. I find that quite astounding.

4) (Comment from eXistenz) Sounds like something interesting that I'll have to research when I'm having a slow day. Somehow I don't think it's going to turn my ammo into magical "kill on contact" rounds. If you didn't see the program you won't get the reference.

5) (Statement by me in previous post) As far as I am concerned, pistol bullets hitting deer at pistol velocities and producing collapse within 5 seconds is a very good indication that they will do the same thing with humans, give or take a little. if you allow for the fact that the deer probably does not know what it is doing for that time and that a BG would probably be unable to make a controlled shot either means it is a very useful effect in a gun fight. As Vafish says, the problem is that you don't know which one is the magic bullet. What you do know from the Courtney's work is that with a good design and velocity the 357SIG averages out at about every second or third bullet and with good 10mms it averages out at about two out of three bullets. At 5 yards you can make 5 good hits with a 10mm it the time it takes a rifleman at 100 yards to make one good hit. That seems like pretty good stopping power to me and asking for much more is indeed looking for magic.

6) (Comment from eXistenz) Here's the problem. The deer are shot "perfectly" where as the bad guy is shot in a high stress situation and you're just trying to hit anything center mass, hence the reliance on "stopping power".

7) (Comment from eXistenz) Comparing a 5 hits from 5 yards from a 10mm to a single rifle hit at 100 yards is just...well...no use for me to insult you.


On the conservative side rifles are twice as effective at stopping and killing people, and shotguns literally blow both of them away. There is just no comparison, handguns suck.

English

1) It was you who asked for more detailed opinions but thank you for thinking I should be writing for money.

2) It is the shred of knowledge passed from person to person that is the problem. Not all rifle shots incapacitate with one shot. Plenty of pistol bullets incapacitate with one or a few shots but some are much better than others. Everyone with a shred of knowledge "knows" that all pistol round suck but the evidence contradicts that knowledge. But just keep right on believing that the majority automatically knows best. It is both comforting and comfortable.

6) You misunderstand. The deer were shot perfectly so that none of the heart, major blood vessels or CNS were hit. The purpose of this was to measure the frequency of rapid stops with different pistol bullets at pistol bullet speeds when the traditional causes of rapid stops were eliminated. In ordinary self defence terms you could think of these shots as deliberately imperfect shots.

7) It seems futile to insult you. If you don't believe that 5 shots with a 155 gn GD 10mm at close range from Double Tap will put someone down as quickly and as reliably as one .223 at 100yards you need to study some more.

You might recall that the article was about handgun stopping power and not rifle stopping power. No one will argue that good rifles are not generally more effective than good pistols but we can't carry rifles in concealed holsters. If you study a little more you will find out that many rifle bullets are unreliable stoppers. If you study a little of the Courtney's work you might realise why this is but if the BG is 100 yards away it doesn't matter as much as if he is 10 feet away.

Even if you read the FBI's output you will discover that someone with their heart shot out can still operate at a lethal level for 15 to 30 seconds. That is, heart shots are not "stoppers" within the time frame of the typical handgun fight. Other bleed out injuries will take longer. All bleed out injuries are reliable killers but they are useless stoppers in most circumstances unless, like a Komodo Dragon, you can wait in relative safety for your victim to die.

Of course, as Mroz said, the only sensible strategy is to shoot an attacker to the ground. This uses a totally different strategy in which your repeated shots keep disrupting him enough to stop him shooting at you until you make a lucky hit on his CNS or incapacitate so much of his relevant musculo skeletal system that he is unable to fight back. Having a superior bullet and loading, rather than a magical one, does more damage and causes more disruption per shot and, if you use one with a high enough pressure level of the ballistic pressure wave effect, you also have a good chance that one of those bullets will incapacitate the CNS without directly impacting it.

You are doing a great job of repeating the shred of knowledge known to every knowledgeable shooter. You need to start thinking for yourself.

English

Glolt20-91
10-17-2009, 13:36
Ralph Mroz is certainly a prolific writer; however, I didn't notice any references given in this article. There's probably more to his LEO background than what I found, so if there is more background info please feel free to add.

Ralph Mroz is a police officer with the Leverett Police Department in western Massachusetts and is assigned to his county's narcotics/gang task force. Since 1973, Ralph has been a student of the martial arts. He is a well-known defensive tactics and firearms writer, with more than 250 articles published in professional law enforcement and use-of-force journals.

About the Leverett Police Department
The Leverett Police Department consists of one Chief of Police, one full-time police officer and a number of part-time police officers. The police station is on Montague Road in the Town of Leverett. According to the Town of Leverett, “Leverett itself dates back to 1774, when it successfully petitioned the state for separation from Sunderland. It was named for John Leverett, an early governor of Massachusetts, who stood strongly against religious persecution and British rule. Today nine faith communities are active in Leverett.”

Greenfield Police Department Narcotics Unit
and

Hampshire-Franklin Narcotics Task Force

http://www.greenfieldpd.org/specialoperations/narcoticsunit.html

http://www.lawofficer.com/news-and-articles/articles/lom_columnists.html

Bob :cowboy:

glock20c10mm
10-17-2009, 16:48
The author's ramblings showed his bias opinions, plus contradictions. The author should know from his 'street' comments that a person may only get one shot off on a felon, vis a vis, exemplified by engaging multiple felon scenarios. The concept of a fast shooting, more fired bullet v heavier, more powerful calibers doesn't hold water when a 3XL felon is only showing a through the arm/shoulder target.

When Texas DPS et al state the .357SIG is a 'stopper' on violent felons, that tells me the fast 9s have the ability to overcome mental, drug and chemical dump (adrenaline) issues.

There's more, but the article has already taken up too much of my time and I'm tired.

Nice comments Craig.

Bob :cowboy:
Thanks Bob, and yeah, I'm with ya 100% what you said too.

Good Shooting,
Craig:wavey:

sigcalcatrant
10-17-2009, 19:11
Opening with this

and closing with this

struck me as a little incongruous.It's not incongruous at all. He simply says, since there is no way to have definitive proof, choose one of the top 4 or 5 rounds and stop worrying about it.

degoodman
10-18-2009, 02:19
Having nothing to do for the next 3 1/2 hours except sit at work and be bored, I get to write a novella on one of my favorite debates.

Where to begin.

A tough question, made tougher because everyone is right and everyone is also wrong, all at the same time. How can this be? Because everything regarding caliber selection for use in a defensive handgun relies on a matrix of assumptions that the has as many completely correct answers as there are variables in the matrix. Choose one set of assumptions or criteria, and you are directed firmly in one direction, which is the polar opposite of the direction a different set of assumptions drives you toward.

Let begin by laying out some of the competing criteria in play when selecting a defensive handgun caliber. And in no particular order...

Kinetic Energy: The ability to do work, whether causing a bullet to expand, penetrate and destroy tissue, or simply fly through the air until air drag or a collision with the earth make it stop. We get all hung up on energy because its a number printed on the box along with bullet weight and velocity. More energy gives us the ability to do more work, pure and simple, so more energy is generally viewed as a good thing. However more energy comes at the cost of greater recoil and report, which are negatives in terms of shootability. Above a certain point, typically not reached by most defensive handgun calibers, more energy doesn't do much good, because it is impossible to expend all that energy in the target. Likewise, and more common in handgun bullets, if a bullet fails to expand or experiences some other action that allows the bullet to go all the way through the target, some amount of energy is not deposited in the target, and we don't get any benefit from it. The other thing about energy is that we compare the energies of handgun caliber bullets like they span a range from firecracker to nuclear weapons, when in fact from the weakest common defensive handgun calibers to the most powerful, we're talking about a range of less than 500 FPE, which is less than HALF what the purportedly weak .223 is delivering.

Velocity: Speed of the bullet. lighter bullets for a given caliber tend to be faster, and at equal weights, faster bullets are more energetic. There is also evidence out there that when dealing with hard barriers, higher velocity projectiles of suitable construction fare better than slower ones in terms of penetration and deflection. Much as with energy, all other things being equal, higher velocity yields more recoil and report, negatively effecting shootability.

Bullet weight: Heavier bullets for caliber tend to penetrate soft tissue better than lighter ones, all other things being equal. Heavier bullets for caliber also tend to be LESS energetic than lighter ones, because at full power loadings, they are slower than lighter bullets, and velocity factors more heavily in energy than mass does. This means that as you increase bullet weight within a common load family, excluding factors like +P velocities, recoil tends to decrease. In defensive handgun calibers, the heaviest common load for a given caliber also tends to be subsonic, or close to subsonic, reducing report as well.

Most people will correctly observe that the above are characteristics of the ammunition selection more than the caliber itself, but we all know that the common defensive calibers have loads that exist pretty much within an overlapping, but caliber specific range on all three values.

Firearms size: Caliber choice directly influences the size of the chosen firearm. What I will call small frame pistols are chambered in mouse gun calibers, up through .380, and .38 special in the revolvers. medium frame pistols cover .357 Mag, .357 Sig, 9 and .40 for the most part. Large frame pistols are for 10mm and .45 ACP, and .44 special or mag if you lump them in a defensive handgun ranking. Sure, there are compact model .45's that are smaller than full size 9mm's, but if you compare apples to apples on the sizes of the handguns, mouse guns and j-frames are always going to be smallest. and a "compact" 9mm will be smaller than a "compact" .45. This comes into play when you're talking about physically matching a firearm to the size of the shooter, and his mode of carry.

Capacity: Smaller calibers get more bullets in the same size gun. Noone in a gunfight ever complains about having more ammo than he needed. The really sticky one is with the largest common defensive handgun calibers, 10mm and .45 ACP, which start to get really bulky when you have double stacked magazines in those calibers. Bulkier than many shooters can handle comfortably.

Economy: Smaller calibers are cheaper than larger ones and common calibers are cheaper than more obscure ones. This is important because most of us, whether we reload or shoot factory, we have finite shooting budgets, and we need to get the most rounds downrange we can, because that single factor, round count in practice and training, is going to effect shooter performance in a DGU more than any other. You can get easily x2 more rounds in 9mm for the same dollar you spend on .45 ACP, and often x3 for more obscure calibers like .357 Sig and 10mm. The common mouse gun calibers defy this mold somewhat, mainly because there really aren't any "cheap" mousegun loads, so you're always buying from the midrange or premium offerings in these calibers, instead of WWB, American Eagle and UMC.

Shootability: A combination of weapons platform, caliber and ammunition selection mainly in the form of recoil, and shooter capabilities. This factor is itself a matrix of 100 factors, but there are some general trends. Smaller calibers will always be easier to shoot in a similarly sized weapon than larger ones, regardless of shooter capabilities. That translates to faster fire, and generally smaller groups. full sized weapons will be easier to shoot than compacts. This is especially true of "mouse guns" which tend to be very light weight and blowback operated which magnifies recoil. Heavier guns tend to be easier to shoot than lighter ones, again mostly because of better recoil damping. And of course there is the big variable of firearms fit to the shooter. If you aren't a good match for the gun, whether you are an 85 pound female trying to effectively manage a G20 or a 350 pounder that wears XXXL gloves trying to make a kel-tec work, the rest of it isn't going to matter much.

I'm sure there are more factors, but that seems like enough to me for now.

So how do these factors come into play in picking a defensive handgun caliber? The first thing I'll state up front is that most "stopping power" and "ammunition performance" criteria are judged through Law Enforcement eyes, and that's not necessarily a good thing. Civilian defensive shooting characteristics are different in many material ways from LEO shoots. First and foremost is that civilians generally aren't going to be shooting through intermediate barriers, into or out of cars through sheetmetal or glass, etc. Second is that civilians generally aren't going to be carrying full size weapons, so the printed and published ballistics are rarely going to be achieved. Finally, a civilian is going to have relatively less need to "shoot someone to the ground" compared to an LEO. If an LEO goes to guns, he's probably in a position where the BG against him already knew he was armed, and has made the decision to kill the LEO or someone else. While that can and certainly does happen to civilians too, far more commonly the civilian encounters a criminal looking for easy prey, and the mere presentation of a firearm will end the criminal encounter without a shot fired.

So lets pretend we're talking about a civilian weapons carrier. Are they carrying openly or concealed? A person who is carrying openly can relatively easily carry a full size weapon. A civilian CCW holder who actually has to conceal a handgun, and who cannot wear a photo vest or un-buttoned hawaiian shirt with a loud pattern will have to select a much smaller weapons platform. Are we talking about a career shooter or competetor who fires hundreds to thousands of rounds a month, and has the experience and practice to shoot a full size caliber well, or are we talking about a shooter who does well to get to the range for 50 rounds every other month? Do we have an young to middle aged, physically capable man with the stature to shoot a large, full size handgun in a potent caliber, or are we dealing with a person of advancing age or a young, smallish female who may not have the physical capabilities to manage a large handgun in a full power caliber? Are you independantly wealthy, and can afford to blow down premium .357 Sig loads by the case without feeling the dent in your wallet, or do you have to plan ahead to buy more than 200 rounds of 9mm in a single purchase? All of this is in play.

Generally speaking I think most defensive shooters choose too large a caliber as opposed to too small. First off, I don't believe that most shooters fire nearly enough rounds in a given time interval to be able to effectively leverage the performance gains of a larger caliber. They cannot shoot the larger calibers as fast, or as accurately. And they cannot afford the one thing that would help them overcome this, round count in practice and training, because the per-round cost of a larger caliber limits their range time and round count. Inexperienced shooters develop flinches from the heavier hitters like .45 ACP much more quickly than they do with 9mm's. The larger calibers come in bigger guns than they can effectively carry or conceal, so instead of having a gun on them in a moment of need, the gun sits in the safe at home within a few short months of beginning to carry.

Notice that I didn't spend much time talking about stopping a XXXL dude wearing leathers who's high on drugs, and inside a car with the windws up, who probably needs multiple hits from a .44 Mag to really guarantee a stop? That's because that's NOT the situation most civilians are going to face. 99 times out of a hundred, the presentation of ANY gun, including a KelTec .32 or a Beretta Tomcat, is going to solve the problem without firing a single shot. Out of the cases where a shot is fired, 3/4 or better are going to be decided by any single hit, not by shooting the BG to the ground. And if you do have to shoot the BG to the ground, and you really do your homework and look at all the statistics, not just some jello results or M&S one shot stop data, or the current BPW theory crap, the single best predictor of achieving a physical stop is the number of hits, not the effect of a single hit, unless that hit is to a vital structure like the brain or spinal column.

Now if you are a shooter that is shooting more than 50 - 100 rounds a week, competing actively, training several times a year, etc, then yes, by all means carry a .45 or a 10mm. You are slinging enough lead that you'll be able to have a chance to make good hits with those larger calibers, and have the specific muscular development in those shooting muscles in the forearms and hands to manage the recoil of a 10mm or a .357 Mag in a 20 ounce pistol. But that is the predicate to recommending those rounds.

And despite that, there is still the BG that soaks up 5 well placed .357 Mags in the chest, and kills a state trooper wearing a vest with a single shot from a .22, or the North Hollywood robbers, who were soaking up anything launched at them from a handgun, until lucky hits were delivered to a gap in their armor, or unarmored peripheral appendages. Luck and the hand of God are factors in play as well.

Choose the right caliber for you, and "stopping power" by whatever arbitrary yard stick you use to measure it is but one of many factors in play. In practical application its fairly far down the list too, behind more important factors like shootability, weapons size and fit to the shooter, and a mode of daily carry he'll actually use, etc.

First, you have to have a gun when you need it.

Second, that gun has to work when you pull the trigger.

Third, you have to make a hit.

Fourth, you have to hit something that counts.

Fifth, the hit that you make on something that counts has to be devastating enough to do the job and stop the BG.

Don't get confused on that order or prescedence.

English
10-18-2009, 05:03
I do like novellas. That is, I like a logical and coherent presentation of facts, theories and ideas leading to a conclusion. I almost always like and agree with most degoodman novellas, but I have more to disagree with here than with others.

....More energy gives us the ability to do more work, pure and simple, so more energy is generally viewed as a good thing. However more energy comes at the cost of greater recoil and report, which are negatives in terms of shootability. Above a certain point, typically not reached by most defensive handgun calibers, more energy doesn't do much good, because it is impossible to expend all that energy in the target.

There is no escaping the report but you can always get more energy with a lighter bullet at higher velocity without any more recoil. There is a limit to this but it is generally true. Apart from that, all the most energetic cartridges can be had with bullets which do not over penetrate and so expend all of their energy in the shootee. This includes 800 ft.lb plus 10mms and so the only argument that remains is whether that extra energy is effective or not.

The other thing about energy is that we compare the energies of handgun caliber bullets like they span a range from firecracker to nuclear weapons, when in fact from the weakest common defensive handgun calibers to the most powerful, we're talking about a range of less than 500 FPE, which is less than HALF what the purportedly weak .223 is delivering.

This is a very misleading argument because we are comparing pistol and pistol cartridges with other pistol and pistol cartridges and not with rifle and rifle cartridges. They range from .380ACPs at around 200ft.lbs, 9x19mms at around 325ft.lbs and up to 10mms at over 800ft.lbs. Even if we neglect the .380, and we have included mouse guns in the discussion, we are looking at a more than 2:1 ratio. So the real question is whether delivering more than twice as much energy to the shootee per shot has a big enough benefit to make it worth aspiring to the ability needed to shoot a high power 10mm rather than a standard power 9mm. There are obvious training, recoil, report level, muscular strength, hand size and monetary cost issues involved in this as the above novella correctly points out and there is no point shooting anything that you cannot shoot well enough.

And if you do have to shoot the BG to the ground, and you really do your homework and look at all the statistics, not just some jello results or M&S one shot stop data, or the current BPW theory crap, the single best predictor of achieving a physical stop is the number of hits, not the effect of a single hit, unless that hit is to a vital structure like the brain or spinal column.

The single best predictor is indeed the number of shots fired but that too is misleading. The enormous majority of gunfights which involve shooting the BG to the ground involve rounds at the low end of the energy range. Many are 9mm and many of those use 147gn bullets. More are now .40S&W but this is still not a high energy level. Very very few are 357SIG and, though the statistics from these seem to indicate that they take far fewer rounds to shoot the BG to the ground, they are lost in the mass of statistics. To all reasonable consideration, 10mms play no noticeable part in the statistics. The obvious result is that round count on target is the best predictor of a physical stop.

In one sense I am surprised that degoodman derides the BPW theory since it is backed by what is probably the most relevant and large scale set of published experiments on rapid physical stops where direct CNS hits and heart shots are excluded. In fact, there is very little theory to the Courtney's experiments other than the relationship between probability of a rapid stop and the peak pressure produced in the deceleration of a bullet in tissue but if we can't accept physical evidence, on what can we base sound rational judgement?

If we simply accept the physical evidence of the Courtney's experiments, very very few of the 9x19mms, .40S&Ws or .45ACPs fired in shoot them to the ground incidents get into the BPW effect region. To do that in general, you need to shoot the 357SIG, .357 Magnum or 10mm with appropriate bullets and loadings. All of these are difficult to shoot well relative to the 9x19mm but the evidence from the Courtney's experiments shows that there is a substantial benefit if you can do so which the mass of statistics from the wider population of shootings masks completely. This is physical evidence which completely changes the number of rounds that can be expected to shoot someone to the ground with qualifying rounds relative to non qualifying rounds. As such, it makes strategy based on mass averages meaningless except for non qualifying rounds.

For the rest of the novella, I can only agree and I agree with the five hierarchical principles of choice at the end in particular.

English

happyguy
10-18-2009, 05:40
Shot placement isn't the most important thing.

It's the only thing.

Sorry Vince.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

greenlion
10-18-2009, 15:29
That article takes the long way around to get us back where we started.

glock20c10mm
10-18-2009, 16:38
And if you do have to shoot the BG to the ground, and you really do your homework and look at all the statistics, not just some jello results or M&S one shot stop data, or the current BPW theory crap, the single best predictor of achieving a physical stop is the number of hits, not the effect of a single hit, unless that hit is to a vital structure like the brain or spinal column.
I'm with English on this one.

The majority of the article was comprehensive in nature. But then to post what I quoted above just doesn't make sense.

I can't agree in any way whatsoever that; "...the single best predictor of achieving a physical stop is the number of hits...."

That's the same as saying 1 hit anywhere within the confines of the thoratic cavity is equal to another in a different spot within the thoratic cavity, whether one hit a vital organ and the other didn't.

Or that 3 hits to the torso are equal to 3 hits in the leg.

That makes zero sense.

Besides the fact that Dr. Courtney's theory of BPW not only correlates well with other studies done before and after it, and were done using sound science.

To suggest the current BPW theory is crap, is ignorant.

:cheers:
Craig

degoodman
10-18-2009, 17:03
In one sense I am surprised that degoodman derides the BPW theory since it is backed by what is probably the most relevant and large scale set of published experiments on rapid physical stops where direct CNS hits and heart shots are excluded. In fact, there is very little theory to the Courtney's experiments other than the relationship between probability of a rapid stop and the peak pressure produced in the deceleration of a bullet in tissue but if we can't accept physical evidence, on what can we base sound rational judgement?

If we simply accept the physical evidence of the Courtney's experiments, very very few of the 9x19mms, .40S&Ws or .45ACPs fired in shoot them to the ground incidents get into the BPW effect region. To do that in general, you need to shoot the 357SIG, .357 Magnum or 10mm with appropriate bullets and loadings. All of these are difficult to shoot well relative to the 9x19mm but the evidence from the Courtney's experiments shows that there is a substantial benefit if you can do so which the mass of statistics from the wider population of shootings masks completely. This is physical evidence which completely changes the number of rounds that can be expected to shoot someone to the ground with qualifying rounds relative to non qualifying rounds. As such, it makes strategy based on mass averages meaningless except for non qualifying rounds.

For the rest of the novella, I can only agree and I agree with the five hierarchical principles of choice at the end in particular.

English

Its not that I deride BPW theory, its just that I'm very skeptical. I compare the current experimental knowledge base in BPW theory to the Taser Company's experimental base of knowledge to "prove" that the Taser is safe. With regard to the taser, the failure is that they are claiming that the device is medically safe when used on agitated, highly enraged persons of potentially poor overall health who may be under the influence of cardiac sensitizing drugs by testing it on healthy, fit, police officers and officer candidates, who are not under the influence, agitated, or otherwise succeptable to the taser's potential effect.

With regard to BPW theory, you are attempting to extrapolate the results of shoots on creatures that are "relaxed", free of the influence of drugs or alcohol, etc onto a target population of agitated people who may be under the influence, are definitely under the influence of stress hormones, etc. So while the BPW data set is certainly interesting, I don't believe that it has matured enough to difinitively support the conclusions its authors are making today.

The other "problem" I have with the outcomes of BPW theory is that its conclusions direct the shooter to calibers that demonstrably and negatively impact shooter performance. .357 Sig and .357 mag are difficult to control in concealable size handguns for most average shooters. And while there are published ballistics of 800 FPE 10mm loads, 650 - 700 is the more common actual power level achieved in real use from G20 sized pistols, and who can realistically carry a G20 daily? Plus that is using niche loads, not the hot .40 level loads delivered by the larger companies that load the 10mm. So any gains that might be realized by jumping forward into calibers with a "BPW" enhanced effect are neutralized by the reduction in shooter performance without more practice than the average shooter is willing to put in.

And BPW theory, while it attempts to quantify the effect controlling for placement to some extent, every paper I've read on the subject still indicates that shot placement remains a critical factor in achieving a successful stop. If the subject isn't hit right, even short of a hit on a critical structure, the effect is largely negated.

So I'm not dismissing BPW theory, but I'm also not throwing all my eggs in that basket yet either. What BPW theory is doing, in my opinion, is clarifying the level of energy and velocity that it takes to achieve the effects of "hydrostatic shock", and what the actual mechanism of that effect might be. The current base of evidence seems to indicate that the power floor to achieve that effect may be lower than the oft-cited level of 1000 FPE, but is still above the level of velocity and energy delivered by common service caliber offerings in anything except full size duty pistols, with the hottest calibers commonly available. So while another data point, I don't think BPW theory dramatically alters the landscape fo caliber choice for the average CCW holder, and given the level of training and proficiency of most LEO's I'm not sure its dramatically more applicable there.

I'm willing to give BPW theory time to develop and mature. And I will keep watching it. But I don't think that its the definitive answer to our prayers with regard to our defensive handgun caliber selection debate either.

JohnKSa
10-18-2009, 18:04
I can't agree in any way whatsoever that; "...the single best predictor of achieving a physical stop is the number of hits...."

That's the same as saying 1 hit anywhere within the confines of the thoratic cavity is equal to another in a different spot within the thoratic cavity, whether one hit a vital organ and the other didn't.

Or that 3 hits to the torso are equal to 3 hits in the leg.No, it's not saying any of those things.

The key is the clause "single best predictor".

It's simply saying that if you're trying to figure out what wins gunfights you will find that the best way to tell who's going to win (if you have to choose only a single factor/parameter/predictor to base your analysis on) is to see who made the most hits on his opponent.

It's not a matter of saying that peripheral hits are equal to torso hits, it's simply saying that if you have a number of real world shootings and you wanted to try to pick the winners for each gunfight based on a single parameter of the gunfight (single predictor) without knowing who won ahead of time you'll be most accurate in picking the winners if you always pick the person who made the most hits on his opponent.

If you were allowed to factor in other parameters/predictors instead of just picking a SINGLE one then you would be able to more accurately predict the winner. But if you only get to pick a SINGLE predictor the single best predictor is to simply pick the person who hit his opponent more than his opponent hit him.

degoodman
10-18-2009, 18:30
I'm with English on this one.

The majority of the article was comprehensive in nature. But then to post what I quoted above just doesn't make sense.

I can't agree in any way whatsoever that; "...the single best predictor of achieving a physical stop is the number of hits...."

That's the same as saying 1 hit anywhere within the confines of the thoratic cavity is equal to another in a different spot within the thoratic cavity, whether one hit a vital organ and the other didn't.

Or that 3 hits to the torso are equal to 3 hits in the leg.

That makes zero sense.

Besides the fact that Dr. Courtney's theory of BPW not only correlates well with other studies done before and after it, and were done using sound science.

To suggest the current BPW theory is crap, is ignorant.

:cheers:
Craig

Quit cherry picking what I said, and quit saying that I said BPW theory is crap. I haven't said anything like that.

Go out and read some scholarly work in trauma surgery journals and sources like that, not the LE or firearms communities to broaden your base in terms of wound ballistics. One of the things that emerges is that the number of total wound tracks correlates directly with the rapidity of incapicitation, and also the likelyhood of fatal injury, even if none of the individual wound tracks would likely be fatal on its own.

And yes, I am precisely saying that for statistical purposes, one hit in the cardiothorassic cavity is equal to one hit elsewhere in the torso. And that 3 hits in the extremities count the same as three hits in the torso. I'm not attempting to control for the quality of the hits when breaking down these stats. A 3 extremity hit dude that goes down in 35 seconds is just as valid a data point as a dude that takes 3 in the cardiothorassic triangle that goes down in a second and a half. If you look at other studies on the subject, particularly marshall and sanow for example, one of the heaviest criticisms of their work was that their data selection criteria was too controlled and rigerous, essentially excluding any data that was contrary to their conclusion. You can't do that and still have a shred of validity in your work.

What you're doing is conducting a straw man argument, by choosing outlying events that are not characteristic of the broader sample as a whole. Yes, it is possible that in a multi-hit BG, all of the hits will be in a single leg, or an arm, or all through a spot 1" above his left nipple. The far more likely event is that the shots will be distributed widely over the BG, some hitting his torso, some hitting his extremities, and anywhere in between. When you look at a whole bunch of shoots, single hits, multiple hits, good hits, hits in the extremities, and all the possible variations thereof, the people who go down the fastest and most reliably are those that are hit more than once. The more hits, the more likely they are to stop in a hurry.

That's all that says. Don't devalue the effect of a single hit, or the benefit of a quality hit over a poor one, because those factors have their own correlation with stopping a BG, completely seperate from each other. But if you put in the work, and read a broad base of sources, the people that are most incapicitated, and subsequently most likely to die, even in the presence of advanced life support and trauma treatment facilities, are those with multiple, distinct wound tracks inflicting increasing levels of shock trauma on the body.

That's all I said. You're making the rest up. Stop that.

glock20c10mm
10-18-2009, 18:32
No, it's not saying any of those things.

The key is the clause "single best predictor".

It's simply saying that if you're trying to figure out what wins gunfights you will find that the best way to tell who's going to win (if you have to choose only a single factor/parameter/predictor to base your analysis on) is to see who made the most hits on his opponent.

It's not a matter of saying that peripheral hits are equal to torso hits, it's simply saying that if you have a number of real world shootings and you wanted to try to pick the winners for each gunfight based on a single parameter of the gunfight (single predictor) without knowing who won ahead of time you'll be most accurate in picking the winners if you always pick the person who made the most hits on his opponent.

If you were allowed to factor in other parameters/predictors instead of just picking a SINGLE one then you would be able to more accurately predict the winner. But if you only get to pick a SINGLE predictor the single best predictor is to simply pick the person who hit his opponent more than his opponent hit him.
That makes sense when you explain it that way. I misinterpeted the statement(s).

Still, I don't see how that gives us any valuable results. Obviously shot placement is as critical to achieve as anything, no matter what round/load is being used.

Beyond that, to judge by how many hits, doesn't make much sense. Different people will react to being shot differently, reguardless of psychlogical factors. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

I do realize you're making the point of if we had to go with a SINGLE factor. But even so, I don't see that giving us any real world answers towards what may or may not be more effective at incapacitating BGs. There is still too much pertinent info left out in the cold for that SINGLE factor to be meaningful of anything.

Not to mention that you can't control how many times someone is willing to shoot their adversary.

Otherwise, thanks for staightening me out!

:cheers:
Craig

glock20c10mm
10-18-2009, 18:37
Quit cherry picking what I said, and quit saying that I said BPW theory is crap. I haven't said anything like that...

...That's all I said. You're making the rest up. Stop that.
You said; "...the current BPW theory crap...", and in context was even worse.

I did NOT make it up, nor did I take it out of context. I can only go by what you say, not by what you meant to say.

Craig

glock20c10mm
10-18-2009, 18:40
The current base of evidence seems to indicate that the power floor to achieve that effect may be lower than the oft-cited level of 1000 FPE...
Any idea where that ever originated from? I see no relevance to it, and have mostly seen it labeled in reguards to hunting. I'm not sure there was ever intelligent reasoning behind it.

Thoughts?


Craig:dunno:

JohnKSa
10-18-2009, 20:09
I don't see that giving us any real world answers towards what may or may not be more effective at incapacitating BGs.First of all, incapacitating your opponent is rarely required to achieve a physical stop.

Second, it's as simple as it sounds. To win a gunfight in the real world the single most important factor is making more hits on him than he does on you.

Even if you want to talk about incapacitation, reality is that hitting one of the structures that will rapidly incapacitate comes down to primarily a matter probability in a real-world scenario. It's a very rare person who can achieve the pinpoint precision necessary to take a CNS shot during an actual shooting. If you make a CNS hit it's probably because you're pretty good AND you got lucky. The better you are and the more hits you make the better chance you have of getting lucky.

So shot placement is a factor (getting hits) but probability is also a huge factor (getting enough hits to get lucky and damage something very important).

degoodman
10-18-2009, 20:10
You said; "...the current BPW theory crap...", and in context was even worse.

I did NOT make it up, nor did I take it out of context. I can only go by what you say, not by what you meant to say.

Craig

Actually, in context, I indicated a great disdain for all of the current bodies of study on the factors of terminal perfromance of handguns, because I think ALL of them are over controlled attempts to deliver a magic bullet based on some criteria or another. They ALL attempt to control out factors like the placement of the hits, the number of hits, and other factors that dominate the hell out of minutae like ballistic pressure, expansion, etc, that are themselves implicitly dependant on the placement of the hit in the first place.

All that scholarly work attempts to assign a single dominant factor to the performance of a handgun round, and its the wrong one! Sure, they attempt to cover for this by saying in some blanket statement in the intro to their research that shot placement remains a factor in the outcome of a shoot. In reality I consider it the dominant factor, when considering handgun wounding.

Consider the popular "failure to stop" shootings we know about. The Trooper Coates shooting where he places 5 out of 6 shots center chest on a BG and not only did the BG not stop in time to prevent him firing a single shot from a .22 revolver and killing the officer, he lived to get life in prison for his crime. And those were .357 magnums. The other one that comes to mind is the Miami FBI shootout, and the infamous 9mm STHP that stopped an inch short of Platt's heart. We characterize that bullet as a failure to stop, even though it destroyed his right lung, and filled his chest cavity with a liter and a half of blood, yet he still kept fighting for 4 minutes before dying. But those two incidents are the only ones I can come up with where the bg was demonstrably "properly hit" kept going. Every other bullet "failure" I'm aware of has the more critical failure in play of "bullets failed to intersect vital structure".

I really do think we spend entirely too much time attempting to optomize the performance of handgun ammunition, and not nearly enough time working on things that would improve the ability of the shooter to deliver that round to a good spot on the target. If BPW, or Fackler, or M&S were the answer, why aren't we all carrying .44 magnum revolvers with full power loads, in either 240 grain or 180 grain loadings? Or 10mm's with buffalo bore or DT ammo? Because there are other factors in play that neutralize the potential of those rounds in actual use.

degoodman
10-18-2009, 20:53
Any idea where that ever originated from? I see no relevance to it, and have mostly seen it labeled in reguards to hunting. I'm not sure there was ever intelligent reasoning behind it.

Thoughts?


Craig:dunno:

Hard to say. The theory probably originated in the hunting field, but probably only because the hunting bullet designers were a couple decades ahead of the "tactical" ballisticians in terms of taking a gander at thing that made something quit moving faster. Because that's what we're really talking about here. we want our BG's and our game to drop instantaneously, regardless of the quality of our hit.

The first thing that people hit on was expanding bullets. if the best way to destroy tissue is the physical passage of the bullet, lets make the bullet get bigger once it hits so it destroys more. But you get to physical limits with that pretty quick, so you need to look somewhere else.

The next obvious place to look is to find something that makes a wound without being physically disrupted by the passage of the bullet. That's when you started seeing things like energy dump, hydrostatic shock, temporary stretch cavity, and more recently BPW enter into the discussion. We knew that some game animals and some BG's dropped like stones without taking a wound that should have done that. So if we can quantify the qualities of the bullet that made that happen, we design ammo to produce that effect all the time. That way, even with single marginal hits, we still make the BG or game animal quit. Or so goes the theory.

We got to the 1000 FPE mark, probably at least as much because that's was the energy level delivered by varmint rounds, and anyone that's ever liquified the innards of a groundhog could see with their own eyes that at that level of energy something is happening other than a .22 caliber hole disrupting tissue. So we knew something happened at that level of energy, and below that, until much more recently, you had pistols in 9mm, .45, .38 special and .357 mag, which are all running 400-600 FPE lower than that, and they didn't exhibit the effect. And now you have a number that sticks.

As to the relevance, basically the same relevance as BPW, or any other form of energy based wounding. We continue to look for something that is going to make BG's stop faster than by the destruction of vital structures of their anatomy by intersection with a bullet. Some of us are looking for this to give us an extra margin of safety in a lethal force encounter. I think alot more of us are looking to this as a solution that we can buy in a box, because that's easier than training on how to put a bullet where it needs to go under stress.

j-glock22
03-10-2010, 19:55
To sum the article up, use what you have that you can comfortably shoot, fire as many times as it takes to put down the threat. Rifle, shottie, pistol. End of story.

fastbolt
03-10-2010, 21:11
Some of us are looking for this to give us an extra margin of safety in a lethal force encounter. I think a lot more of us are looking to this as a solution that we can buy in a box, because that's easier than training on how to put a bullet where it needs to go under stress.

Succinctly stated. As with a number of your comments, they seem reasonable and are worth considering.

Easier to buy a rabbit's foot than to make your own 'luck'. (Do they even still sell those as lucky charms anymore, or did they go away with the 'Five & Dime' stores?)

I remember when I carried a .44 Magnum as an off-duty weapon. I was quite a bit younger, in both age and experience. I had finally decided to carry it as an approved on-duty weapon and had almost placed an order for a Buscalero, when I learned we were going to transition from revolvers to semiauto pistols for service weapons and stop the optional/approved duty-weapon program. :shocked:

After 'backwoods' testing my favored load was a 180gr JHP, although that eventually 'dwindled' to a 210gr STHP and later a 200gr STHP .44 Special.

Oddly enough, as my experience and knowledge increased ... and my dedication to training with the much less powerful 9mm duty caliber intensified ... I realized the sky wasn't going to fall and the world would continue to spin in the normal fashion.

Using a handgun as a defensive weapon is a compromise.

Compromising things any further by remaining unnecessarily distracted by the sheer 'power' of the commonly utilized defensive calibers, instead of emphasis on training and understanding how the body & mind can react under the stress of critical, life-threatening situations, seems to be something of a potential disservice to myself.

I don't begrudge anyone the opportunity to choose to carry a 10mm pistol as a lawfully carried defensive pistol. Not at all. I've just seen a few people carry them as CCW weapons and have seen how those folks have either shot them noticeably more slowly than folks shooting other caliber pistols, or saw how they exhibited better speed and accuracy when shooting another caliber pistol of one of the other commonly used defensive calibers afterward.

They're the ones (or their families) who have to experience the consequences of their actions when it comes to their chosen weapon/caliber combination if ever used in an actual situation.

With the freedom to make a choice comes the risk to suffer any adverse consequences.

Just like in the rest of life.

Personally, I always thought a 10mm loaded with suitable ammunition would probably make a nice backwoods defensive weapon where larger dangerous animals might be a predictable hazard, but then I'd be more inclined to choose to carry either a .357 Magnum, .41 Magnum or a .44 Magnum revolver, instead.

Why? Because I started shooting them decades ago, I can shoot them fairly well and I happen to like them.

If I ever found a 10mm pistols I liked as well as a nicely balanced revolver, and the major ammo companies finally decided to devote some attention to the 10mm as they've done when it comes to ammunition produced for the other calibers, I might still pick up a 10mm some day. (I don't handload anymore and 'm not really anxious to adopt a caliber which is only really supported by some smaller ammo makers ... and at premium prices.)

Mindset, skillset, training, practice & experience ... AND knowledge regarding the applicable laws involving the use of deadly force, as well as the common sense to determine when it's appropriate (and not just lawful).

Caliber, cartridge, "Magic Bullet" & "Stopping Power"?

Not something I worry about, so much.

I still take one or another of my .44's out to the range, every once in a while, to show the young folks that they can actually be used with full power loads to run the qual courses-of-fire virtually as quickly as most of the regular shooters can do them with a less recoiling handgun, and usually more accurately. I've invested a lot of years in them, though.

I still usually choose to carry either a 5-shot .38 or a 9mm for most of my retirement CCW needs, though. ;)

Eagle22
03-11-2010, 05:53
Whatever. I shoot .40 as that is what I have. and I practice sever times a month in different situations.

I use 180 FMJs as that is what I have and can easily get.
and 180g HSTs for carry, again that is what I have.

Ordered some Gold DOT 180g as that is what I could get.

uz2bUSMC
03-11-2010, 06:19
Didn't like the article.... and I see there was many an article here to follow. All the long winded boys are in this thread.:faint:

English
03-11-2010, 11:54
To sum the article up, use what you have that you can comfortably shoot, fire as many times as it takes to put down the threat. Rifle, shottie, pistol. End of story.

This concept, though widely accepted, has a serious flaw. Unless you have some significant advantage your opponent will be shooting you as you shoot at him. This is known as mutual suicide where one party might be lucky enough to get to the emergency room in time to survive and then spend many painful months to achieve partial recovery. The people who keep repeating it say it as though it is simple and as though they are not getting shot as it happens.

In reality, unless you have an incompetent opponent, you have to be good enough to evade his bullets till you make you first hit and then that and each successive hit you make has to stop him shooting you for long enough for you to shoot him again. If and only if you can do that and if you have enough rounds in your magazine, you will eventually shoot him to the ground without being shot yourself.

This depends on the time you can stop him shooting at you and the speed with which you can make your hits. Any miss by you will give him twice as much time, or more if you make misses in succession, in which he will have a chance to hit you and turn the tables so that you are then unable to shoot him. The time you can stop him shooting at you depends partly on where you hit him and also on the power of your shot. A .32 will not and cannot buy you as much time as a 10mm with the same certainty from the same placement! Neither will a 9mm! I don't think anyone knows what time we are talking about here but some bullets are just more magical than others.

This is not something that can just be bought over the counter. It depends on skill and training. You have to be able to make the hits without misses and if you can't do that with a 10mm you need something less difficult until you can. If you can't carry a 10mm because of concealment difficulty, you have to allow for the lesser effect. Any gun is better than no gun in the kind of situations we are talking about.

On top of that, as others have pointed out, for civilians, situations where you need to shoot someone are very rare and situations where you need to shoot someone to the ground are extremely rare. Many potentially violent criminal actions will be stopped by the presence of any gun at all. Most criminals have innumerable victims to choose from and the risk of being shot is enough to send them elsewhere. On those extremely rare occasions where you need to shoot someone to the ground, you need all the help you can get from training, practice, magazine capacity and as powerful a cartridge and pistol as you can handle. In agreement with deogoodman, I am sure most people over reach their skill on the choice of power and by doing so they greatly hinder their development of skill.

English

PS Sorry uz2bUSMC! Another long winded one.

BleedNOrange
03-11-2010, 12:17
Didn't like the article.... and I see there was many an article here to follow. All the long winded boys are in this thread.:faint:
Of course you didn't like it. It was a common sense article. It didnt mention brains squirting out of ears and eyeballs popping out when shot in the stomach with the most powerful handgun round in the world.....the 10mm:rofl:

fastbolt
03-11-2010, 12:46
I had the opportunity to attend some training for a week after this thread was started. One of the days involved an interesting lecture by a clinical psychologist who has spent over a couple of decades working with a a couple of police agencies, one of whom is LAPD. He invited 3 survivors of LE shootings to discuss their incidents with the lecture attendees. All 3 had been seriously wounded, and those wounds occurred before they had a chance to even get their weapons into action.

One of them involved a situation which had been recorded on an open line, involving 3 cops and 1 armed suspect during a robbery. As I remember, a total of 31 rounds were fired within just 10 seconds by the time the shooting was over. The cop who ended the incident had received several serious gunshot wounds, as had the suspect. He said when he was laying on the ground seriously injured he finally took the time to aim at the suspect's head and fired until the suspect stopped shooting. I think I remember that it was determined he had been able to 3 rapid and accurately placed head shots to end the fight (I'd have to check my notes). He was shooting a 9mm.

Another cop took us through his shooting incident in which he exchanged shots with an armed suspect from relatively close range (5 feet) to as far as 100 feet, if I remember right (I'd have to again check my notes). He said that it wasn't until he realized that he was on his last magazine, was seriously wounded and the suspect was still shooting at him, that he said he realized he had to stop shooting 'instinctively' and settle down to use his sights. He fired 2 rounds (shots 22 & 23, I seem to recall) which hit the suspect and stopped the fight long enough for help to arrive. The cop was shooting a .40 S&W.

Another cop took a hit through the lower part of the heart from a .357 Magnum revolver at close range (several feet), but managed to fire 4 rounds from an issued 9mm and stop the attacker (killing him), before succumbing to the life-threatening injury which required extensive surgery and recovery time. The cop credits being able to effectively use the shooting skills received in training and which she had practiced a lot.

I remember watching a tape during a lecture where a cop known as a fine marksman during training was only able to make 1 hit on an armed attacker during a shooting incident resulting from a vehicle stop. Stress can have adverse affects, especially when it's the product of hormonally induced (fear) and not only the result of physical exertion.

I've spoken to a number of other cops who have been involved in shooting situations, a number of whom I've worked with on the range.

I can only remember a couple of them mentioning any preference for caliber.

One of them was involved in an off-duty shooting with an unknown (fled) suspect who had apparently been armed with a 9mm pistol, while the off-duty gentleman had only been armed with a .25 ACP. The distance involved in the shooting was farther than that typically reported, described as across a city street. The off-duty cop wasn't wounded and it was unknown if the suspect who fled had been wounded, but the cop immediately got himself a larger off-duty weapon. He seemed to take his sessions at the range a bit more seriously, too.

While calibers, ammunition, guns and situations have varied among the cops and civilians I've known who have used handguns to defend themselves, a couple of things which seem to have remained consistent is that handgun wounds which have hit and penetrated into critical parts of the anatomy have seemingly been more effective than rounds which hit less critical anatomical structures, organs and tissues.

Skillset is important. Mindset is important. Proper, realistic training can help with both. Sufficiently frequent practice is important. Shooting is a perishable skill.

I'd much rather have a 9mm or .38 Spl than a .25 or a .32 ACP ... and I've trained hard to be able to use harder recoiling calibers and handguns, as well.

I've watched a number of folks who have chosen handguns which are harder for them to control, relative to their skills and abilities, than some other handguns. Something I've noticed is that a number of these folks seem to miss with their first round even under the reduced stress of qualification.

Maybe they're expecting the felt recoil which they know on some level is going to tax their abilities more than they'd wish.

Maybe their overall skill level isn't up to the task of making a reasonably quick and accurate primary shot under even the minimal stress of being observed and timed during a qualification, let alone with a heavier recoiling gun.

Maybe they just aren't well practiced enough to have control of their tendency to experience an anticipatory flinch for the first couple of shots.

Maybe a tendency to an anticipatory flinch isn't going to be a good thing when the first round or two fired result in the shooter experiencing more felt recoil than they are really comfortable handling even in normal conditions.

Whole lotta' maybe's ...

Maybe they might be better served by using a lesser recoiling caliber chosen from among the commonly used major defensive calibers, though, and getting some additional training & practice.

Fast misses serve no practical purpose and are an inherent danger down range.

I've always thought the 10mm would have made for a fine handgun caliber for military PDW usage with a 200gr truncated cone FMJ load. I notice no military service has claimed to have selected it, though. I suspect the handgun manufacturers who enjoy gov weapon contracts would climb over each other to make pistols for such a proposal. (Look at the HK MP design which was chambered in 10mm upon request.) Little doubt but that the ammo companies would follow suit even faster (and more easily).

I don't look for it to happen, though. ;)

Choose wisely. Train well. Practice frequently and properly. Cultivate and develop mindset.

Be careful placing an unrealistic amount of emphasis on either caliber or a specific bullet design.

I generally dislike getting involved in recommending specific calibers to people looking at buying off-duty or CCW weapons. I don't like making such decisions for other folks. I think they should carefully consider their own needs and research this subject for themselves. I'd hope that most folks wouldn't mistakenly overlook the importance of mindset, training, skillset and sufficiently frequent practice to maintain skills under stressful conditions, in favor of placing what might turn out to be an unfortunately misplaced amount of confidence in any particular caliber or weapon capacity.

Just my thoughts, as usual ...

uz2bUSMC
03-11-2010, 13:54
Of course you didn't like it. It was a common sense article. It didnt mention brains squirting out of ears and eyeballs popping out when shot in the stomach with the most powerful handgun round in the world.....the 10mm:rofl:

I see you still haven't found that third grade teacher... reading on your own without supervion is bad.:shame:

Who graduated you from general glocking anyway?

uz2bUSMC
03-11-2010, 13:56
PS Sorry uz2bUSMC! Another long winded one.

No prob brotha, I like reading what you have to say... even if it takes a couple of days.:supergrin:

ETA - The mantra you quoted above is nearly the same as "using your handgun to fight your way back to a long gun" mantra.

BleedNOrange
03-11-2010, 14:02
I see you still haven't found that third grade teacher... reading on your own without supervion is bad.:shame:

Who graduated you from general glocking anyway?
Pretty lame come back. Even with my 3rd grade education I could have come up with one better than that. I will give you some credit though. At least you didn't immediately start in with the name calling. Thats progress, I guess.

uz2bUSMC
03-11-2010, 14:07
Fastbolt,

What were the officers shot with? Caliber/type/and location... excluding the female officer, I know she was hit with, the 110grn load.

uz2bUSMC
03-11-2010, 14:08
Pretty lame come back. Even with my 3rd grade education I could have come up with one better than that. I will give you some credit though. At least you didn't immediately start in with the name calling. Thats progress, I guess.

You suck. That work?:dunno:

uz2bUSMC
03-11-2010, 14:11
I've always thought the 10mm would have made for a fine handgun caliber for military PDW usage with a 200gr truncated cone FMJ load. I notice no military service has claimed to have selected it, though. I suspect the handgun manufacturers who enjoy gov weapon contracts would climb over each other to make pistols for such a proposal. (Look at the HK MP design which was chambered in 10mm upon request.) Little doubt but that the ammo companies would follow suit even faster (and more easily).

They probably won't make the change simply because they have massive ammo stores of .45 left. This is more important to the government than chosing the best ammo for their troops.

Beware Owner
03-11-2010, 14:16
My magic bullet theory is that my magic bullet is the last one of my last mag.

lbckid19
03-11-2010, 14:23
9mm gold dots, nuff said

fastbolt
03-11-2010, 15:25
Fastbolt,

What were the officers shot with? Caliber/type/and location... excluding the female officer, I know she was hit with, the 110grn load.

Referring to some of my notes ...

The LAPD officer was hit with one shot of 6 fired by the suspect. She said the distance was as close as 5 feet at the start (when she was shot). She fired 4 shots from her Beretta and hit the suspect with all 4 shots, putting him down at the back of her veh. Good thing, too, since she said she later learned that her Beretta had experienced a double feed when she had fired her 4th shot. I don't recall call her going into detail of the wounds suffered by the suspect, other than they were fatal, or else I just didn't bother to make the notes. Remember that this was essentially a mindset seminar and not a guns & gear seminar.

The LAPD cop did mention that prior to the incident that she had made it a point to practice with her issued Beretta weekly and had been very motivated to practice the skills she had been taught in their firearms training. She also described the gun shot injury as feeling like a red hot javelin had been shoved through her chest, and said she later learned she had suffered a tennis ball sized hole in her back (exit wound). She described the exchange of gunfire as having lasted what she estimated to be 3-5 seconds (with a total of 10 shots fired between them).

Listening to her describe the details of her injury and recovery was remarkable and sobering, especially considering that she was able to return fire, advancing upon the suspect and confirming he was down and no longer a threat, and then check the area for any other shooters before crossing to the sidewalk, where she finally collapsed onto her back (which apparently helped save her life by essentially sealing the wound in her back, as she explains it) ... after suffering a gunshot wound that punched a hole in the base of her heart, as well as inflicting a secondary vessel injury later discovered which required a second surgery.

The robbery incident involved 3 cops armed w/Sig 9mm's. The suspect had a Glock 9mm (G17?). The cop discussing the incident was 1 of 2 cops who were hit and went down during the brief and furious exchange of gunfire. He said he suffered 6 hits before he finally was able to get his front sight on the suspect's head and fire the 3 head shots which ended the fight. He said he remembered the suspect sustained either 3 or 4 torso/extremity hits that were later considered to be 'survivable hits' before suffering the 3 head shots.

Some of the comments I noted made about the robbery incident include "smoke filled room" (small store front business); "No peripheral vision"; "Didn't hear gunshots"; & one of the duty Sig 9mm's experienced a dbl feed (didn't note which officer's gun).

The suspicious veh incident involved a cop (CHP) armed with a .40 S&W and the suspect had a 9mm of some sort. Both the cop and suspect survived the incident. I didn't note the number of hits sustained by the cop (2?), but I remember him saying he was losing control of his upper body/shoulder at one point. The cop appeared hale and hearty when I spoke with him during the seminar, but he said the suspect was somewhat disabled from the gunshot injuries (and is serving his prison term). The cop recovered and returned to work for several years (and is shortly going to retire, as I recall).

I should probably again point out that this seminar was not oriented on guns & gear, but on the mindset of cops and understanding how the body reacts under stress, and especially fear & pain. The last time I attended this particular lecture (called, "I'M SHOT" by the lecturer) another working LE speaker was present who had suffered a couple of shoulder/neck 9mm wounds which put him down and caused him a long and painful recovery and return to duty.

Some of the instances are mentioned in the doctor's book, "Force Under Pressure, How Cops Live and Why They Die", Dr Lawrence N. Blum, (ISBN: 1-930051-12-3), which contains many more examples, although he generally doesn't list names or become technical when it comes to guns, calibers, etc. He does, however, discuss techniques and tools useful to condition an officer's decision-making ability and concentration during conditions of crisis & emergency, developing the internal controls necessary to develop and maintain the will to survive. It's a worthwhile read ... and an excellent lecture to attend if you're in the Safety field and can find one of his lectures. I've attended twice and have learned (or at least heard and recognized) new things each time. I'll likely go again sometime. It's only an 8-hr class, but it's packed with info.

If guns and ammunition were themselves going to get involved in shooting situations without being in the hands of humans, I'd give more attention to the purely mechanical designs and inherent ballistic properties of the equipment and ammunition involved ... but they've got to be used by people, and that introduces the whole knowledge, training, tactics, physical conditioning and mental mindset influences of the equipment-user to be considered, as well.

Guess which set of factors I've been spending increasingly more time studying as my experience as a firearms instructor and trainer has evolved? ;)

Of course, I'm not in the business of selling gear, guns or ammunition, either.

fastbolt
03-11-2010, 15:41
They probably won't make the change simply because they have massive ammo stores of .45 left. This is more important to the government than chosing the best ammo for their troops.

That, and likely for at least a couple of other reasons. Sidearms/PDW's aren't really that high on the list when it comes to choosing 'effective' ammunition, anyway. Look how long the 130gr .38 ball loads were used.

I did find it interesting that the Air Force was apparently expressing some interest in the .40 S&W cartridge for a bit (and remember their involvement in our accepting the 9mm NATO service cartridge). Nothing serious, though, and the money isn't going to be there for changing service pistol calibers, anyway. I'd think any attention and funding would be more likely to be invested in considering candidates for a new battle rifle and/or cartridge for the next 50 years. ;)

uz2bUSMC
03-18-2010, 08:26
That, and likely for at least a couple of other reasons. Sidearms/PDW's aren't really that high on the list when it comes to choosing 'effective' ammunition, anyway. Look how long the 130gr .38 ball loads were used.

I did find it interesting that the Air Force was apparently expressing some interest in the .40 S&W cartridge for a bit (and remember their involvement in our accepting the 9mm NATO service cartridge). Nothing serious, though, and the money isn't going to be there for changing service pistol calibers, anyway. I'd think any attention and funding would be more likely to be invested in considering candidates for a new battle rifle and/or cartridge for the next 50 years. ;)



Thanx for all the info, Fastbolt.

And it looks like the battle rifle thing is correct, the Marine Corps is looking at an upgrade. Money, of course, is the big issue. Takes alot of it to completely field a force with a new primary weapon.

fastbolt
03-18-2010, 11:02
De nada

SgtSam
03-19-2010, 20:41
Hi Guys,:)

New guy here!

I've been facinated by this particular thread. And, I've learned quite a bit from it. I've also had to disagree with some of it. However, what I like or dislike is actually irrelevent and I won't spend any time putting it forth.

You see, all of are most likely in the same predicament that I find myself in. And, to somewhat complicate matters, if you were to pole all of us who've been following this thread, you'd most likely find that we all differ to some degree on what we find as "correct", "eh, so-so", and total BS. But, that's the situation with most subjects like this one, where all of the empirical data is really open to much interpretation due to the enormous number of scenarios to which it can be applied. Scenarios which will shift, twist and distort the emperical data as to it's effective application to one scenario or another.

My observations are not intended to offend anyone, pick on anyone, or detract from the spirited point and counterpoint that has been occurring here. I simply wished to bring out the obvious point that no matter how careful you present your arguments or how logical you try to be with them, with subjects like this one, there is no definitive answer. So, I do sincerely hope that no one gets their shorts in knot, or their noses tweeked by my comments.

Thanks guys, it's been real interesting, most entertaining, and quite educational.

SgtSam:cool:

Eagle22
03-20-2010, 07:03
LAPD Officer was not wearing her vest?

fastbolt
03-20-2010, 14:05
LAPD Officer was not wearing her vest?

On her way home in regular clothing. At one point her personal vehicle was selected and targeted for a criminal act by gang members. The incident occurred in front of her residence after she stopped.

IndyGunFreak
03-20-2010, 16:19
Hi Guys,:)

New guy here!

I've been facinated by this particular thread. And, I've learned quite a bit from it. I've also had to disagree with some of it. However, what I like or dislike is actually irrelevent and I won't spend any time putting it forth.

You see, all of are most likely in the same predicament that I find myself in. And, to somewhat complicate matters, if you were to pole all of us who've been following this thread, you'd most likely find that we all differ to some degree on what we find as "correct", "eh, so-so", and total BS. But, that's the situation with most subjects like this one, where all of the empirical data is really open to much interpretation due to the enormous number of scenarios to which it can be applied. Scenarios which will shift, twist and distort the emperical data as to it's effective application to one scenario or another.

My observations are not intended to offend anyone, pick on anyone, or detract from the spirited point and counterpoint that has been occurring here. I simply wished to bring out the obvious point that no matter how careful you present your arguments or how logical you try to be with them, with subjects like this one, there is no definitive answer. So, I do sincerely hope that no one gets their shorts in knot, or their noses tweeked by my comments.

Thanks guys, it's been real interesting, most entertaining, and quite educational.

SgtSam:cool:

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14877321&postcount=50

The last couple of paragraphs in that article, pretty much sum it up.

IGF

glock2740
03-20-2010, 17:11
Hey, he just described over 75% of the posters in Caliber Corner. :supergrin::rofl::rofl:

Just 75%? :whistling:You have a point.:cool:

.45Super-Man
03-21-2010, 05:34
There are no "magic bullets" and precise shot placement is all but impossible under actual combat conditions. There are some calibers that, with the right load, give an edge in incapacitation. Those whom assume that calmly placing rounds where they want them to go while bullets are being sent back, are not in touch with the mechanics of a gunfight, nor humans. Placing as many center mass rounds as possible at a moving target, at speed, is what you should focus your training on. At extreme close quarters, there is no cover, nor time to take cover and he whom places the first shots center mass and continues to do so.....wins.

English
03-21-2010, 06:10
There are no "magic bullets" and precise shot placement is all but impossible under actual combat conditions. There are some calibers that, with the right load, give an edge in incapacitation. Those whom assume that calmly placing rounds where they want them to go while bullets are being sent back, are not in touch with the mechanics of a gunfight, nor humans. Placing as many center mass rounds as possible at a moving target, at speed, is what you should focus your training on. At extreme close quarters, there is no cover, nor time to take cover and he whom places the first shots center mass and continues to do so.....wins.

An excellent summary of the actuality!

English

unit1069
03-21-2010, 09:48
Rapid sight acquisition is critical. Even trained LEO fall victim to the illusion that because a suspect/perp is in close proximity his/her aim will be true.

Four NYC detectives cornered Amadou Diallo in a doorway. When the suspect reached for his wallet to produce ID the detectives thought he was reaching for a gun.

There were 41 shots fired and the victim was hit 19 times. The detectives were practically standing right over him.

.45Super-Man
03-21-2010, 09:54
The most knowledgable and experienced gunfighters will always admit to there being a certain extent of luck necessary. Read some of the works of Bill Jordan and realize that there's nothing new being said or argued about when it comes to discussions such as these. His favorite handgun for winning gunfights, not target practice, was the S&W M19 "Combat magnum". There's no doubt in my mind that some of todays "professionals" such as "GABBY Saurez" would piss their pants and curl up in the fetal position if they knew they had to square off with the likes of Jordan. You could offer them any handgun ever made......wouldnt make a difference.

English
03-21-2010, 12:12
Rapid sight acquisition is critical. Even trained LEO fall victim to the illusion that because a suspect/perp is in close proximity his/her aim will be true.

Four NYC detectives cornered Amadou Diallo in a doorway. When the suspect reached for his wallet to produce ID the detectives thought he was reaching for a gun.

There were 41 shots fired and the victim was hit 19 times. The detectives were practically standing right over him.

With remarkably little practice at point shooting they would all have been hits and could all have been headshots at that range.

English

Ak.Hiker
03-22-2010, 01:27
Heck Bill Jordan did not even need to shoot to win some of his fights. I read that when in his 80's he pistol whipped a would be mugger and ended the mugging with out firing a shot. Another good point about the old all steel revolver.

Brucev
03-22-2010, 07:13
"Magic bullet versus shot placement—it’s practice that saves the day!" No. Nothing saves the day except hitting until the assailant stops. It does not matter if you are using your fist or a "Yankee Hammer."

"Myth #1: Magic Bullet Unfortunately, the “magic bullet” theory is more or less a waste of time..." Absolutely correct in every regard. Magic bullets are as much the hope of an overactive imagination as the blow hard Dorothy's dog Toto found hiding behind the curtain.

"Myth #2: Shot Placement Hit ‘em in the head or the high upper chest, so the theory goes, and you have a real good chance of stopping your adversary.... The real problem with the shot placement theory is that precise shots are all but impossible in the dynamic, chaotic seconds of a gunfight, and further, often everyone is moving, making shot placement even more difficult. The shot placement theory seems to break down a bit in actual practice." Again correct in every regard. Paper targets and falling metal plates simply don't mimic real life. It's like folks who spend lots of time at the range sighting in their deer rifles and reading drop tables for where to od for shooting at long range yet never learn how to fire effectively from basic field positions much less learning how to shoot a game animal that is not standing still broadside feeding.

"Stopping an Attacker There are only three ways that a bullet can stop an attacker... destroy central nervous system function... cause the blood system to depressurize... cause so much shock to the body that the body shuts down."

"How would you cause a lot of shock to the body? It’s actually pretty simple: put a lot of bullets in a short amount of time into the bad guy. In practice this translates to a multiple shot burst with hits anywhere on the torso." Again absolutely correct. If a deer or hog is standing still and you put a round into them, they may drop like a sack of potatoes. But if they are running and you put a round through their heart/lungs you had better rack the bolt and put another round into them because otherwise they are most likely to just keep going to the next zip code leaving no forwarding address. You got to hit them till they go down and stay down.

"I’d suggest that you shoot faster or with more target focus until you achieve consistent 8-inch groups (on full-profile targets, I’m even fine with groups that consistently stay on an 8×11-inch piece of paper). You still need good marksmanship because you may not have a full-profile target available to you or you may in fact have to make a distance shot. So practice shooting at small targets and at distance with your handgun, too. Just don’t make it your only practice."

"On the street any bullet that hits anywhere on your assailant is a good hit. They all cause... some shock and some incapacitation... it’s only misses that do us no good." Again absolutely correct. It may not satisfy the purist, but only hits count. And waiting for a good profile target presentation will leave you standing staring while you less than perfect target puts one or more rounds into you.

"So do pick a reasonable caliber handgun... pick a high performance bullet to carry in your handgun... take advantage of the studies and shooting results out there... pick one of the top four or five rounds that you feel performs best under the conditions that you will have to fight and then forget about it. Don’t get your knickers all in a knot every time some new opinion surfaces. Re-check your logic and data every couple years to take into account new shooting results and new designs... practice true survival shooting." Very useful and well stated summary of common sense devoid of caliber/weapon hype. Of course it will not satisfy those who are devoted to precision target shooting and it will not satisfy those who salivate at the sound of "nickle taps." But it works in the real world where only fools pin their hopes on the lottery for a secure retirement.

VPD4327
03-23-2010, 03:18
ditto on the 5 principals...

English
03-23-2010, 05:20
[B]......
"How would you cause a lot of shock to the body? It’s actually pretty simple: put a lot of bullets in a short amount of time into the bad guy. In practice this translates to a multiple shot burst with hits anywhere on the torso." Again absolutely correct. If a deer or hog is standing still and you put a round into them, they may drop like a sack of potatoes. But if they are running and you put a round through their heart/lungs you had better rack the bolt and put another round into them because otherwise they are most likely to just keep going to the next zip code leaving no forwarding address. You got to hit them till they go down and stay down.


Brucev,
I agree with much of what you are saying but can you or anyone else tell us what is meant by, "a lot of shock to the body"? Telling us it is caused by, "a lot of bullets in a short amount of time into the bad guy" is actually as stupid as many other things in the article since it tells us nothing. Since, in the same time, the BG is doing the same to the GG it is actually a description of mutual suicide elevated to a survival tactic.

English

Beware Owner
03-23-2010, 08:22
Brucev,
I agree with much of what you are saying but can you or anyone else tell us what is meant by, "a lot of shock to the body"? Telling us it is caused by, "a lot of bullets in a short amount of time into the bad guy" is actually as stupid as many other things in the article since it tells us nothing. Since, in the same time, the BG is doing the same to the GG it is actually a description of mutual suicide elevated to a survival tactic.

English

It makes sense to me. Since every round that goes into the body causes some kind of shock, the more rounds, the more shock, the closer to incapacitation you are. Of course, this varies from situation to situation.

Brucev
03-23-2010, 09:31
Deleted.

English
03-23-2010, 15:10
Dear Brucev and Beware Owner,

It is obviously sensible that the more rounds, of any kind, that you put into an animal or a human, then the more likely it will be that they will be incapacitated. It is equally sensible that, with allowance for how we define power, that the more powerful those rounds are then the fewer rounds it will take to achieve the same level of incapacitation. It is also sensible that you keep making hits that are as good as possible as fast as possible. The sooner you reach that magic number the sooner the BG will stop shooting at you. More power does not mean magic bullets but just better bullets. It would be nice if we knew what makes a bullet better - velocity, mass, structure and so on - but there can be no doubt that some are better than others even if we can't give a precise ranking or formula.

So far I assume we are all in agreement. Part of my point is that I don't know the meaning of this word "shock" that so many people use. I don't think anyone does know except in a circular definition. As in: Bullets produce shock therefore more bullets produce more shock. Enough shock produces incapacitation, therefore enough bullets will produce incapacitation. All that says is that some undefined characteristic of bullet wounds, which is separate from blood loss and direct damage to the CNS, can produce a cumulative effect or a probabalistic effect (That is, a+b+c+d+e+.... will achieve the necessary level OR any one of a,b,c,d, or e will do so with an X% certainty.) which will produce incapacitation.

What we also know is that this "shock" effect cannot be relied upon. Most people are incapcitated with fewer than 5 bullets of approximately 9mm power but occasional people are still shooting back after 20 such bullets.

It is also clear that people who are talking about this mysterious quality "shock" are implicitly acknowledging that it is not just blood loss. They are seeing the collapse of an shot animal in less time than it could loose enough blood to cause collapse. Brucev's observation is that the collapse process is not the same for a standing animal as for a running animal even though the hit is the same. This suggests, to me, that a running animal is a frightened animal and that its hormonal fright state keeps it running on autopilot. In contrast, a peacefu grazing animal that is shot does not have time to produce hormonal changes that counter the "shock" efect.

I don't doubt for a moment all the body of experience that has seen many animals and people shot and ascribes some of the results to "shock". I just doubt that any of these people has a good scientific definition of what it is and how it works. It is like saying that things burn because they contain phlogiston or saying that light can travel between the stars because it travels through the ether.

There is something else we can deduce about "shock". If it incapacitates before blood loss can do so it must do so via an effect on the CNS. The CNS is the central contol system which reacts to external stinuli and produces appropriate responses. If you can switch it off, even briefly, the animal will collapse. If you can't do that, the animal will keep running away from danger as long as its body allows. Once Brucev has shot a deer in the heart, there is no point shooting it two, three or four times more unless those shots stop it running sooner. The blood supply has already gone so the only extra effect must come from the brain being turned off.

It seems to me that everyone who has extensive naive experience of shooting animals and people will agree with all these things. By "naive", I don't mean that they are stupid or ignorant but just that they come to it with an open mind that has not already been filled with ideas about how it must work.

If I say that "shock" is probably an effect caused by the ballistic pressure waves created by bullets remote from the CNS doing microscopic damage to the brain, many people will treat it as nonsense but it all fits the same pattern observed by countless people. It takes effect more rapidly than blood loss can account for. It happens when the CNS has not been hit. It is unreliable and probabalistic in effect, just like ordinary experience of "shock" from bullet wounds. It happens more often with more powerful bullets.

The most relevant work done on this was experiments shooting deer with a single shot that did not hit the heart or CNS and counting the proportion that collapsed within 5 seconds. One of the things it found was that with ordinary pressure 9mm rounds that would penetrate at least 12" of ballistic gelatin, no deer collapsed within that time. That does not mean that deer or people would not collapse within 5 seconds if they were shot with enough 9mms in the time. That would be a different experiment. Neither did the experiment keep shooting deer with a single 9mm till they got, say, 5 to collapse within 5 seconds and could so get some realistic measure for 9mms. That too would have been a different experiment. Within the limits of that work, it is entirely consistent with common hunting experience and actually gives a meaning to what "shock" most probably is.

English

Brucev
03-23-2010, 15:48
Deleted.

uz2bUSMC
03-23-2010, 19:37
Perhaps when a person is shot, possibly they react in ways that would not seem to follow a predictable expectation simply because in the midst of extreme stress, people show a remarkable ability to think about what is happening and to think about what they are going to do.

That would not account for an individual dropping like a sack 'o laundry without having been struck in the CNS. "To think about what is happening" requires a person to to recieve a stimulus, percieve/interpret what it means, and then choose a course of action... tooo long. People/animals, have all fallen (without a CNS hit) instantly... well before there is time to even understand what is happening, let-alone choosing a response (instinctual or not). What must be discovered is "instantly without explaination".

DEADEYEGUY
03-24-2010, 00:24
I've posted this before but it is my personal experience when I was younger and did private security work. I saw about a half dozen people shot. Two were shot by .380 fmj ball ammo. On in a drive by. The ohther in a gang fight. Both were hit in the large bone in the upper leg (femur I believe it is calle but it's been alot of years since I've had any anatomy classes). Both dropped right there screaming in pain. When that bone was broken it was like someone swept their feet out from under them. Both survived but the little .380 did a good job of putting them down.
Saw two guys hit by .38's. One guy was at a party. One hit in the heart by a 4" .38. DRT. He had a heartbeat for about a minute and that was it.
Another was hit in the throat by 2" .38. It took out his jugular and carotid artery. Dead in seconds. Hit the ground right away. Another friend was being followed by a seedly character. The guy pulled a knife on the guy. He was carring a Walther PPK in .22. Hit the guy in the leg he wehnt down screaming with lots of blood.
Another shot by a 9mm with fmj ammo. Two in the chest (heart) he dropped. Final shot to the head just to be sure. The man I worked for was a retired Detroit Detective Sargent. He was Force Recon in Viet Nam. He always carried a J-frame .38. I asked him if he wouldn't want something bigger. He simply said the J-frame was enough. So it is about hitting the vitals regardless of caliber. And repeat as necessary. Everything from .22 to 9mm did it job the job well. And yes it's easy to miss while under attack. Thats why I I went back to 9mm awhile back. It may take lots of rounds to put somebody down. And speedy follow up shots.
Someone described stopping power as hitting the target where you need to as fast as you can and repeat as necessary.
And yes some loads are better than others. Get the best JHP bullet that is reliable in your gun. Get good training and practice lots. And the better instructors will admit all they can do is increase your chances of survival. Lady luck sometimes works for the other guy.