Survivalist Forum banner

Interesting look at 'stopping power'

10K views 95 replies 36 participants last post by  Peter 
#1 ·
#6 ·
#13 ·
It could have been much better with more data, for example type of ammo used.
9mm FMJ is all over the place. 380 ACP and 32, not so much. Specualting a bit here, its easy to see how those two are fairly popular CCW rounds... carried by a)people that know how to shoot, and will place their shots in the CENTER of the torso b)Load it with premium JHP ammo.
On the other hand the 9mm stat is likely to be polluted by a boatload of 9mm FMJ, gangbangers, drive by shootings, etc.
I dont buy it that, comparing apples to apples 32ACP has a one shot stop ratio of 72% (actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) ) while 9mm has 47% and 357 magnum has 61%.
 
#15 ·
It could have been much better with more data, for example type of ammo used.
Short of testing "everything" to minutia, youre never going to have a perfect answer, not that you ever would anyway, given the subject. Every instance is its own critter, and the results will never be exactly the same.

That said, regardless of the size/depth of the examples, tests, whatever you want to call it, there is that continuing trend, that they all perform very similarly, or at least close enough, that there is really no difference in the performance of the bullet itself.

Knowing that, why wouldnt you choose something that is easier to shoot well with, making the likelihood of good, fast, repetitive hits more of a sure thing?

Smaller "full size" guns, with higher capacity and softer recoil, and normally, cheaper ammo, allowing for more practice. Whats not to like, and why would you choose otherwise?

Unless of course, youre basing your coices on something else.
 
#38 ·
I PERSONALLY investigated over 1000 shootings... not something I read or heard about. IF I had kept an accurate count over the years it could have been as high as 2000.
My hats off to you. I worked in a big city department with a lot of shootings, and I don't know anybody that even came close to that kind of number of cases investigated personally.

Hopefully you're teaching or lecturing on the subject, with that kind of experience.
 
#42 ·
My hats off to you. I worked in a big city department with a lot of shootings, and I don't know anybody that even came close to that kind of number of cases investigated personally.

Hopefully you're teaching or lecturing on the subject, with that kind of experience.
WHEN I moved to the city from the SD I was amazed at the violence. So, I started keeping track because it was just so crazy. I kept track of how many shootings and also how many times I had to draw down on someone. In my first full summer, I responded to 74 shootings.. that is June 1 - Sept. 1. Overall that first year I investigated 124 shootings. We were knee deep in a drug war over heroin distribution and it was like the wild west used to be according to the movies. I was in the ghetto for about 20 years and running around 100+ a year they add up.
and multiples.. it seemed like for a while no one got shot alone. You would have a drive by and find 5 people on the ground, and none of the the intended target. And multiple homicides. Nothing like a triple dead to take care of your day. My biggest was a fourple, drug execution. All vics tied up hog tie style and shot in the head. A very direct message being sent.

That first full summer there were 7 whole days I did not have someone at gunpoint. It was adrenaline rush city. (hey, I was still young at heart and thought it was exciting and a real rush to be out there on point)

I worked mostly 8PM to 4AM, the highest violent crime time and as the eventual senior officer on the shift I responded to all shootings in that time block because we had so many inexperienced new guys.

We had so many violent crimes the prosecutors office had a "no harm no foul policy." ie..John shoots Bob. Bob says he doesn't want to sign a complaint or prosecute. Even though it is the state that controls such things, if nobody died... the prosecutor wasn't going to get upset with a case if the vic wasn't on line, so, the shooter got released and no prosecution for the shooting happened. Some time later on John would be found dead or wounded and so life went on.
 
#19 ·
Keep in mind I am not a .357 fan but here is how I see the numbers working out for only the handguns.

First my methods: What counts in the percentage incapacitated followed by the fewest shots.

Therefore .357 gets first with a 91% rating followed by 9 mm but with far more shots to incapacitate. The rating drops off pretty harshly for .32, .22, .25. The ones in-between seem to be too close to matter given the data.

With only 1,513 people shot spread over 10 categories of handguns I do not think we would be able to tell anything if we knew the ammo. There would be too little data.

IMO the best measure would be gel evaluations of the incapacitating power for guns coupled with individual's accuracy repeatability.

You are better off hitting your target with a .22 than missing the target with a .357. So move up to you largest reliable accurate gun for you.
 
#24 ·
DON'T KNOW how many folks remember this but right after Gutenberg invented the printing press, G&A had an article that came out about the .455 Webley and the British theory on bullet damage.

The Brits used the term TRANSMISSION DWELL, and the theory that the LONGER a projectile stays within the human target(and make no doubt they were talking about shooting people, not jello) the more time it has to transmit bullet energy into the recipient and making the round more effective. Thus the reason for that 265 gr lead bullet to be traveling at approx 650fps.

IT was felt that if the bullet exited the body, there was energy wasted.
 
#26 ·
Of my hand guns the range favorites are 22 ruger and S&W 5906 9mm. 22 cheap and fun and accurate. Smith is boat anchor heavy but that is a plus in comfort. Carry guns are Diamondback DB9 9mm or Bauer 25 mouse gun. DB9 conceals real nice but the 25 can ALWAYS be carried regardless of wardrobe. That is important for my work.

For me, mature and staying in safe places, odds are having to brandish a gun are long. Statistics also say brandishing can stop the situation most times. MOST people do not want to be shot at even with a mouse. If shots have to be fired yeah I would prefer to have a 9mm or better but folks that do not believe a small gun can be lethal are delusional. Bigger is better but not necessarily overwhelmingly so. Boston study stated only 1 in 6 shootings are lethal regardless of caliber.
 
#33 ·
had a guy shot 3 times with a .25 auto while wearing one of those silk wife beaters so popular back then. The shirt was sucked into the wound channels. When they went to take the shirt off of him, the bullets popped out. The silk had caught them and when the ER doc went to remove the shirt the 3 little pills hit the floor.

Bullets do weird things.
Supposedly medieval soldiers used silk for the same purpose against archers.
 
#73 ·
had a guy shot 3 times with a .25 auto while wearing one of those silk wife beaters so popular back then. The shirt was sucked into the wound channels. When they went to take the shirt off of him, the bullets popped out. The silk had caught them and when the ER doc went to remove the shirt the 3 little pills hit the floor.

Bullets do weird things.
Supposedly medieval soldiers used silk for the same purpose against archers.
American gangsters in the early 19th century famously wore silk vests for this reason.
 
#56 ·
I tend to take the stopping power debate with a grain of salt. All commonly used self defense handguns/calibers have the necessary power to stop.


The genuine measure of stopping power is nowhere to be found in handgun/caliber debates, stats or anecdotal comparisons. True stopping power is directly related (in proportion) to the skill and ability of the person wielding the handgun.


If you want to possess true stopping power, then push yourself away from the keyboard go to the range and work on your skills and abilities.
 
#58 ·
I tend to take the stopping power debate with a grain of salt. All commonly used self defense handguns/calibers have the necessary power to stop.

The genuine measure of stopping power is nowhere to be found in handgun/caliber debates, stats or anecdotal comparisons. True stopping power is directly related (in proportion) to the skill and ability of the person wielding the handgun.

If you want to possess true stopping power, then push yourself away from the keyboard go to the range and work on your skills and abilities.
I agree. I have always argued against bigger is better for every gun owner.

If ability and execution are equal what else makes a difference? That I thought was the purpose of the discussion.

This was the post that started the argument:
No.

A handgun projectile doesn't cause more damage if it doesn't exit. "Energy" is a meaningless term in that respect.

Handgun bullets don't radiate death and destruction as they pass through. They poke a hole. That's it.
My argument was damage is a function of “mass” meaning size of the round. As one goes from .22 up the mass of the bullet increases. The other item damage is a function of is “velocity”.

We all know the ammo velocity for a given ammo is a function of barrel length. No one argued differently. Rifles have more velocity for a given ammo than a handgun. No on argued differently. Shorter handgun barrels result in less velocity than longer ones given the same ammo. No one argued differently.

The article says, “Kinetic energy does not wound.” That is a lie! “Kinetic energy does not wound.” If not what does?

“Penetration less than 12 inches is too little…” How does a bullet get any penetration or 12 inches of penetration without “kinetic energy”? “Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet.” What two factors are necessary for a sizeable bullet to penetrate far enough? Kinetic energy, which is one half the “bullet size”, times “the velocity of that bullet squared.” That is the scientific formula for kinetic energy.

From what I can find out the average 5’9” man has a torso thickness of 9.5”. I am short and over weight 5’7” and my torso thickness is about 14”. So based on this article to do major damage a bullet must penetrate 70 to 100% through a human body. I do not think so. A chest shot is likely to hit part of the following: chest includes the chest wall, ribs, spine, spinal cord, intercostal neurovascular bundles, lungs, bronchi, heart, aorta, major vessels, esophagus, thoracic duct, and diaphragm. An abdominal shot is likely to hit part of the following: “stomach, small bowel, colon, liver, spleen, pancreas, kidneys, spine, diaphragm, descending aorta, and other abdominal vessels and nerves.

Medical experts report “gunshots to the chest can thus cause severe bleeding (hemothorax), respiratory compromise (pneumothorax, hemothorax, pulmonary contusion, tracheobronchial injury), cardiac injury (pericardial tamponade), esophageal injury, and nervous system injury.” “Gunshots to the abdomen can thus cause severe bleeding, release of bowel contents, peritonitis, organ rupture, respiratory compromise, and neurological deficits.”

Yet the article says: “It is essential to bear in mind that the single most critical factor remains penetration. While penetration up to 18 inches is preferable, a handgun bullet MUST reliably penetrate 12 inches of soft body tissue at a minimum, regardless of whether it expands or not. If the bullet does not reliably penetrate to these depths, it is not an effective bullet for law enforcement use.” This is pure BS!

In fact the energy of a bullet is similar to getting hit by a baseball, yet baseballs rarely kill.
I have already proven (see post above) that your statement is a lie.

To make matters worse you are misusing the article. The article states “Goddard amply proves the fallacy of "knock-down power" by calculating the heights (and resultant velocities) from which a one pound weight and a ten pound weight must be dropped to equal the momentum of 9mm and .45ACP projectiles at muzzle velocities, respectively. The results are revealing. In order to equal the impact of a 9mm bullet at its muzzle velocity, a one pound weight must be dropped from a height of 5.96 feet, achieving a velocity of 19.6 fps. To equal the impact of a .45ACP bullet, the one pound weight needs a velocity of 27.1 fps and must be dropped from a height of 11.4 feet. A ten pound weight equals the impact of a 9mm bullet when dropped from a height of 0.72 inches (velocity attained is 1.96 fps), and equals the impact of a .45 when dropped from 1.37 inches (achieving a velocity of 2.71 fps).”

“A bullet simply cannot knock a man down. If it had the energy to do so, then equal energy would be applied against the shooter and he too would be knocked down. This is simple physics, and has been known for hundreds of years.31 The amount of energy deposited in the body by a bullet is approximately equivalent to being hit with a baseball.32 Tissue damage is the only physical link to incapacitation within the desired time frame, i.e., instantaneously.”

I do not think I ever addressed “knock-down power”. Neither example is the equivalent of a 9mm or .45ACP round hitting a human.

Here is the physics: “A light object traveling fast is more damaging than a heavy object with the same momentum traveling slowly because it carries more energy.”

Plus even the kinetic energy of a baseball without penetration can cause internal tissue damage to the torso resulting in death. When I was a boy, I was at a Pony League baseball game. A brother of a boy I was in Little League with was catching. He was hit in the chest, while wearing a proper chest protector, and died. He died right there on the field. That is a fact.

The FBI author of this article was attempting to warn LEO against myths. The result was an article cloaked in ignorance.

Human tissue does have a lot of elasticity. But, kinetic energy increases with mass, which the article admits, increases the damage at and around the path of penetration. Kinetic energy increases with increases in velocity, which increases the length of penetration of the mass.

Yea I read the article and most of it is wrong. A bullet cannot penetrate at all without kinetic energy. For a bullet to lose its kinetic energy it must transfer that energy to either to the air in the form of fraction or in a body in the form of damage. The fact that human body tissue is somewhat elastic does not mean as the kinetic energy of a bullet increases as a result of increases in mass or velocity or both does not increase the wound.

The author is an idiot and the article is a half-truth lie.
 
#61 ·
The author is an idiot and the article is a half-truth lie.
Well, forgive me if I trust an FBI study more than some random guy on the internet.

Now, I can sort of see what you are getting at with your screed about kinetic energy.

A bullet does indeed need kinetic energy to penetrate. Its the engine pushing that bullet through the tissue. But the point of the article is that that energy transfere (at handgun velocities) is simply not great enough to destroy tissue that the bullet does not actually impact because that energy transfer is within the elastic limits of human tissue (with exceptions that where noted)

From what I can find out the average 5’9” man has a torso thickness of 9.5”. I am short and over weight 5’7” and my torso thickness is about 14”. So based on this article to do major damage a bullet must penetrate 70 to 100% through a human body.
You misunderstand....the problem is that humans are much tougher than gel so in order to reliably cause incapacitation a bullet needs to get at least 12" in gel in order to have a chance of reaching vital organs in a real person. It also states that a layer of skin seems to be worth about 4" of penetration in gel.

This is born out by autopsy results from some of the recent police shootings where .40 caliber hollowpoints failed to even penetrate an upraised arm.

Which of course, is logical if you subtract 4" of penetration from the first layer of skin, 4" from the thickness of an arm, and 4" from the backside of the arm.



To make matters worse you are misusing the article.
No, I wasn't. I was misstating a complete different source concerning a different subject, I was talking about momentum, not kinect energy, but failed to make that clear, my mistake.

Here is the physics: “A light object traveling fast is more damaging than a heavy object with the same momentum traveling slowly because it carries more energy.”
No argument, that is indeed physics.

The problem is that the energy transfer is irrelevant unless it is above the threshold of elasticity....something that most handgun calibers are not capable of achieving.

Or in other terms...the light fast bullet causing damage through energy transfer IS valid, but only at higher energy levels than 9-40-45 calibers can achieve. Energy transfer is effectively irrelevant for handgun calibers. Only penetration and bullet diameter matter when it comes to low energy projectiles.

I'ts simple. You don't shoot someone to transfer energy to them. You shoot them to put a hole through important organs. The problem is that all those important organs are placed deep inside the body and usually underneath bone as well. We can talk about shot placement all we want but placing a shot on the surface is irrelevant...shot placement is really about placing that shot inside one or more of those important organs...which means placing it DEEPly inside the body.

Hollowpoints give you a bigger hole...at the expense of a much much shallower hole. Since its proven the extra energy transfer of that hollowpoint is meaningless at handgun velocities its simply a matter of if you believe that decrease in penetration is worth the larger hole.

Personally, I want the penetration. Its not hard to see how its very easy to have a hard time getting deep enough into a human chest in the real world when someone is not standing straight on waiting to take a bullet. Turned sideways, with their arms raises, a typical fighting stance, you could very easily need 18" of real world penetration to reach the heart.


And indeed, in the real world, when people choose bullets to hunt dangerous game where they want the fastest possible incapacitation nobody chooses light fast shallow penetration bullets. They choose heavy, non-expanding, deep penetration bullets. The only reason it's different for self defense is marketing and myth.


If you are inclined to go deeper into the data, here is more suggested reading:

http://www.brassfetcher.com/Wounding Theories/Velocity of Radial Expansion.html

With a peak radial kinetic energy of 0.44 ft-lbf, the .22LR JHP is not capable of creating damage outside of the tissue that it directly crushes.
With a peak radial kinetic energy of 0.49 ft-lbf, the .32ACP JHP is not capable of creating damage outside of the tissue that it directly crushes.
Wwith a peak radial kinetic energy of 0.035 ft-lbf, the .380ACP 95gr FMJ is not capable of creating damage outside of the tissue that it directly crushes.
With a peak radial kinetic energy of 1.96 ft-lbf, the 9x19mm 124gr Remington +P Golden Saber JHP is not capable of creating damage outside of the tissue that it directly crushes.
With a peak radial kinetic energy of 1.28 ft-lbf, the 45ACP 230gr Remington Golden Saber JHP (impacting at 817 ft/sec) is not capable of creating damage outside of the tissue that it directly crushes.

And so on, through rifle calibers and magnum handguns where energy transfer really starts to add up.
 
#62 ·
Gunshot wounds severity is directly related to the bullet’s kinetic energy. This is a function of the bullet’s weight, velocity and gravitational trajectory. These three factors combine to determine how much damage a bullet will cause to vital areas such as head, neck, chest, and abdomen.

On impact the bullet entering the body causes laceration and crushing wounds. It punctures and pushes aside tissue and bone. The cavity can be up to 30 times larger in diameter than the path of the bullet. The bullet path cavity closes in less than a second after the bullet passes. However the cavitation effect can cause damage to adjacent tissue, organs and bones because of the shock waves cause by the bullet.

The amount of damage and type of wound depends on what the bullet encounters along its path. Soft tissue carries shock waves better than bone. Bone absorbs more of the kinetic energy and damage can cause splintering which cause more damage to the body and can alter the track of the bullet. Often these splinters can damage more organs than the bullet itself.

In general bullets that pass through the body create less damage than one that remains in the body. This is because a bullet that remains in the body transfers all of its kinetic energy to body tissue thus doing maximum damage.

There are two types of bullets jacketed and hollow point. Jacketed bullets most often fragment on impact resulting in multiple tissue paths of destruction but dividing their destructive power. (I always thought they were designed to go through the body.) Hollow point bullets flatten causing maximum transfer of its kinetic energy doing maximum damage to tissue.

The chest area will likely shatter bone and insure the bullet will not leave the body and likely will not follow a straight path. Below that area the tissue is softer and other organs are vulnerable. Even the legs and arms are venerable due to arteries. Death from blood loss can happen relatively quickly.

In conclusion kinetic energy is the key so long as that kinetic energy is not enough to cause a through and through wound. Mass is important. The larger the mass with the same kinetic energy the better. So long as there is enough kinetic energy to cause deep penetration without going through and through. Miss your target and none of this matters. I do not care what an FBI agent wrote 30 years ago.
 
#63 ·
However the cavitation effect can cause damage to adjacent tissue, organs and bones because of the shock waves cause by the bullet.
No. Period.

Those shockwaves are not energetic enough to cause damage at typical handgun velocities.

This is scientific fact.

The damage caused is no different than if a metal rod of bullet diameter was pushed into the body to the same depth. It is simple mechanical trauma. Energy does not come into play until you get to higher velocities. Kinect energy of low velocity projectiles only matters in its ability to drive the bullet deeper.

If you think about this for a few moments without your superstitions you will see that this is obvious. If you simply step off a 1 foot platform a couple of times you are subjecting your body to kinetic energy equal to a pistol bullet....yet you suffer no damage because that energy is not delivered fast enough to cause damage. The shockwaves induced in your feet dissipate harmlessly into your body. Energy itself is a useless metric. What matters is how quickly it is delivered...and at normal handgun velocities, it is not delivered fast enough to cause damage. It is only the physical act of the bullet pushing through tissue that causes damage....at those velocities.
 
#65 ·
There is a reason this is the first slide in the little class I teach in EMS on terminal ballistics, the same kind of responses on this thread are actually very typical any time the topic comes up, a combination of 'experience' which unfortunately is almost useless because its not a controlled environment, and 'science' based on theory without data to back it up.

I would prefer it to be otherwise, but luckily so far, everything has backed up the FBI so even though its 30 years old, its still the most relevant summary of handgun wounding factors. Sadly most 'modern' publications on 'stopping power' are based on even older and less researched sources.

The best thing about the FBIHWE is that right from the start it says there is a lot about this we don't know....and that we can't know....and which really in the end, may not even matter much.

 
#66 ·
There are a couple of recent write ups from a joint Army/Navy medical research team, circ 2011. So that is far more recent than the old FBI material, but it essentially echoes the old FBI findings and that is not all that surprising and their material comes from Afghanistan and Iraq.

It starts and ends with that 2Kfps threshold.

You have been doing good work in this thread, but there are a few who want to believe the old war stories or just flat out lie about the concept of Kinetic Shock.

Bottom line when it comes to handgun rounds. You need core hits to the heart or central nervous system if you want STOPPING POWER. Otherwise, it is race to get them to bleed out and that requires big holes or multiple holes.

The other stark reality, unless the bad guy is hopped up on something. A couple of shots on target have proven time and time again to stop the vast majority of attackers. The juice just aint worth the squeeze when the hunted, become the hunters.
 
#67 ·
The only problem I have ever had with the FBI testing, is someone came up with the notion that bullet penetration should not exceed 18".
I guess they somehow can predict what their guys will be shooting, and what clothing and barriers they will be shooting through.

I have shot and killed a wide variety of things. I have no frigging idea what I will face tomorrow. So I choose a cartridge that will fully penetrate every possible threat I have come accross, even threats bigger than humans, or hidding behind body armor and barriers.

If that means my bullet might exit a skinny threat with over half its original energy, I can live with that. But I dont want to get perferrated because I used not enought gun.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top