Handgun Stopping power article

[Cpt Caveman]

Pretty interesting.

An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power

 

[Aaronhome27]

 

[hookedonjeep]

Excellent post!

 

[Jubba]

Still good the 3rd time around!

 

[Mordred]

This was a very good article. I think his conclusion is spot on. The military ran lots of similar test and had the same conclusions. Which is mostly...get more rounds on target if you want to win the fight. Hence why they switched to a faster shooting/higher capacity weapon like the M9a1. Also watch Hitcock45 videos on youtube. He shoots just about every handgun under the sun. Watch the 9mm Glock 19 video and it becomes very evident that this gun was made for a gun fight.
I have a friend whos a surgeon at the ER in Anderson. I once asked him what kind of shots are most people killed by. His response was definitive... shot guns and small gun. People just dont see the small guns coming and it was just a matter of getting the drop on someone and shooting them several times. Didnt matter that it was just a .22.

 

[GoDawgs]

I always found this article interesting. It seemed to confirm the idea that when it comes to real life, most handgun rounds function pretty similarly. Nobody can dispute data that some rounds can make larger holes in paper or go faster, or penetrate more ballistics gel in a lab environment, but I think this tries to answer the question "does a bigger or faster bullet actually increase the chance of stopping an opponent proportionately to the increase in size/speed?" and his conclusion is that most calibers function pretty much the same regardless of those factors.

Obviously, this is one guy's study and the trending doesn't appear 100% logical (why is .32acp's 'incapacitated by one shot' value so relatively high while its '% hits that were fatal' so relatively low?) but it does go out and try to shed some light on how things work in the real world.

 

[kingnereli]

This is a repost of a very sorry article about a very flawed study.

 

[NIFT]

This is a repost of a very sorry article about a very flawed study.

True, even though I believe the author was well-intentioned.
"Stopping power" is an unquantified myth, along with "one-shot stops." Both flunk science 101.

For those truly interested in the science of terminal ballistics and pathophysiology of penetrating trauma, go here and read, carefully, among the first 25 "sticky" threads:

Terminal Ballistic Information - M4Carbine.net Forums

 

[paperboy]

This is a repost of a very sorry article about a very flawed study.

What he said.....12 gauge one shot stop only 58%? From what distance 100 yrds? Sorry but I would venture to say that 00 buck shot at 7 yards would equal a "One Shot Stop"

 

[BarryJaxon]

If you put enough holes in`em,they can`t plug`em all!

 

[PriestEG]

great read but i think the debate of stopping power between persons who carry different calibers will never end

 

[NIFT]

great read but i think the debate of stopping power between persons who carry different calibers will never end

Would you please help me--what is "stopping power?" Would you define it and quantify it, please? How is "stopping power" measured? How do gunshots "stop" people?

I have never seen a good definition or quantification or measurement of "stopping power' and would love to know.

 

[eldirector]

Would you please help me--what is "stopping power?" Would you define it and quantify it, please? How is "stopping power" measured? How do gunshots "stop" people?

I have never seen a good definition or quantification or measurement of "stopping power' and would love to know.

For the purposes of this article, the author defined "stopping power" as:

On average, how many rounds did it take for the person to stop his violent action or be incapacitated? For this number, I included hits anywhere on the body. To be considered an immediate incapacitation, I used criteria similar to Marshall's. If the attacker was striking or shooting the victim, the round needed to immediately stop the attack without another blow being thrown or shot being fired. If the person shot was in the act of running (either towards or away from the shooter), he must have fallen to the ground within five feet.

I don't believe there is a general consensus as to the definition, though. That's why this debate is so lively!

 

[NIFT]

For the purposes of this article, the author defined "stopping power" as:

On average, how many rounds did it take for the person to stop his violent action or be incapacitated? For this number, I included hits anywhere on the body. To be considered an immediate incapacitation, I used criteria similar to Marshall's. If the attacker was striking or shooting the victim, the round needed to immediately stop the attack without another blow being thrown or shot being fired. If the person shot was in the act of running (either towards or away from the shooter), he must have fallen to the ground within five feet.

I don't believe there is a general consensus as to the definition, though. That's why this debate is so lively!

Thanks!
I saw that and still have seen no convincing definition, quantificaiton, or measurement. According to the above definition, a person slightly wounded by a .25 acp who stops his attack has been "stopped" by that shot. A person shot multiple times with a 12 gauge shotgun who continues his attack has not been stopped. Conclusion: the .25 acp has more "stopping power" than a 12 gauge. I find such methodology unconvincing and relegated to junk science.

 

[eldirector]

While you may not agree with the conclusion, the facts still stand. I know if *I* was attacked, the author's definition of "stopped" would work fine for me. I really don't care if the attacker drops right there or runs away.

I guess there are different measurements we are all trying to wrap our heads around:
- Stopping power as it relates to the size of the wound. In other words, could the attacker physically continue if they wanted to. This may be important in instances where the attacker cannot feel pain (adrenalin, drugs, etc...).
- Stopping power as it relates to ending the attack. This includes both physically (as above) or psychologically (the attacker decides he has had enough and gives up or flees).

There is no debate that rounds with more energy tend to cause more damage. We know also know that causing massive damage is not the only factor, or even a major factor, in ending an attack. Handgun rounds larger than .22 ALL performed statistically similar.

What you do with this information is totally up to you!

 

[Mordred]

@kingnereli
Its no different than any other study. His technique of his research is called empirical study of ballistics....meaning he just wrote a report based on observations. It is what it is as long as the facts are there.

 

[lrahm]

Did your homework, looks good.

 

[crispy]

This is a repost of a very sorry article about a very flawed study.

In the real world there is an appropriate process for disputing a study.

If it is flawed, let's see your research, LET'S SEE YOUR STUDY?

 

[sgreen3]

What he said.....12 gauge one shot stop only 58%? From what distance 100 yrds? Sorry but I would venture to say that 00 buck shot at 7 yards would equal a "One Shot Stop"

This was the same thing I thought of when I read it

 

[crispy]

Thanks!
I saw that and still have seen no convincing definition, quantificaiton, or measurement. According to the above definition, a person slightly wounded by a .25 acp who stops his attack has been "stopped" by that shot. A person shot multiple times with a 12 gauge shotgun who continues his attack has not been stopped. Conclusion: the .25 acp has more "stopping power" than a 12 gauge. I find such methodology unconvincing and relegated to junk science.

Except that the study said just the opposite.

One shot stops with a .25 - 30%
One shot stops with a shotgun - 58%

Where did he take one incident of each and come to a conclusion?