The Nine Still Beats Em All!

[JohnKSa]

How about this?

Handgun stops are made up of one of the following:

1. Central Nervous System Hits. (Brain, Spinal Cord)
2. Psychological Response of Shooting Victim. (I'm shot, I must be dying!)
3. Damage to Locomotion System (Broken Legs, Pelvis).

I'm discounting hydrostatic shock since handguns don't really have the oomph to generate much hydrostatic shock in a human sized target.

All of these are pretty much a matter of probability for the average shooter who's not likely to be making head shots, etc.. Therefore, shooting more times increases the probability of stopping your opponent as long as your chosen cartridge is capable of penetrating to the spine (#1) or breaking bones (#1, #3). #2 is virtually independent of caliber.

So, the ideal pistol is one (of reasonable caliber--see above) that you can shoot very rapidly while being reasonably accurate. If you handicap yourself with a gun that recoils heavily, the increased recoil recovery time means you can't shoot your opponent as many times as he can shoot you in a given time interval--that gives him the edge. Heavier recoil may also reduce your accuracy--missing him means that you wasted a chance to stop him. Capacity is also a major plus since if he runs dry and you can keep shooting, you increase your chances of stopping while his empty gun is not giving him any more chances to stop you.

So, maybe caliber has much less to do with stopping power than how rapidly and accurately and frequently you can shoot?

This makes sense from another perspective as well. Lots of small or medium holes are just as (or more) damaging as a few big ones. After all, that's what combat shotguns are all about.

 

[Badger Arms]

How can a 115 grain bullet outperform a 125 grain bullet travelling faster if both bullets are of similar design? When they are tested by people with an AGENDA.

 

[Mike Irwin]

John,

You forgot one class of stops...

Vital system damage causing hemhorraging.

 

[Lord Grey Boots]

OK, some points.

1) While the ARD and AP numbers are impressive for the 9mm vs the others, to jump to it "outperforms" the others is not a valid statement. It makes an assumption that deep penetration and broader diameter is better. We don't "know" that. We think so, but the important bit is whether the attacker is stopped, not what the bullet looks like when its done. (But there is a pretty strong relationship...)

2) Marshall & Sanow's research is self funded. Any claims of conflict of interest die due to lack of any evidence.

3)In cases of multiple shots, where the follow up shots occured some time after the first COM hit, then it would be a failure, if the attacker was able to flee 10 feet (I think thats the number) or continue the attack after the first hit. Then this would count as a failure. What is not counted are double taps etc, or other cases where the attacker is hit very quickly with multiple hits.

In any case, it wouldn't matter, since the same rule is applied in all cases the same, you have a consistent rule for comparitive purposes.

4) M&S's data is confidential police material. You aren't allowed to see it. Is it really valid to say that since you don't to pore over confidential records then they must therefore not exist? In any case, every data claim must be backed up by suitable police reports, coroner reports, photos etc.

5) Its a field observation study, not a scientific experiment. Those are two different types of research that operate under different rules. Applying the rules of scientific experimentation to field observation studies is not a valid argument.

6) M&S's data is just that data, not a "theory".

If its all nonsense what does it mean? If its nonsense, then hardball is a better stopper than hollow points, and slow hollowpoints are better than faster hollow points?
I don't think so.

7) Being a field observation study, its full of randomizers. All the things that could randomly effect a particular case will occur. Thats why you only look at the long term results, and only in the coarsest terms, and only as a past indication of results, not a prediction of the future.
Realistically, the difference of 3-5% in results doesn't mean much. But the difference of 20% would be significant.


The real value is in comparing one round to another, not in the OSS % itself. Call the % stopping power points instead, then compare point values for various rounds.

 

[Bowser]

If I am ever attacked by goats, I will value M&S's data.

B.

 

[WESHOOT2]

My turn.......


After 30 years of careful study I've concluded that formulas don't mean ****.
Velocity don't mean ****.
Caliber don't mean ****.
Shot placement don't mean ****, either.

What matters is what happens TO YOU, when YOU shoot somebody.

That would be after what happens to the human being you've shot.

Ignore evidence, science, anecdote, studies, opinion. Carry whatever makes you "feel" good.



------------------------------------------

"all my opinion is wacked-out factory opinion"




ps is this a mobius topic?

 

[RazorsEdge]

Dear Elmo,

My aftershave is fine, I use Hoppe's No. 9.

The problem may be that I always ask up front whether she carries 9mm or .45ACP.

Maybe I should wait till third date?

 

[Elmo]

LOL

 

[Oleg Volk]

Razor's Edge,

Ask her is her *backup* is 9mm or .45 If she says 9, ask if it is 9x23 or that whimpy German round

The primary ought to be a matched pair of 44mags at least!

 

[Charmedlyfe]

You mean there are people out there who only shoot ONCE??? Surely you jest!

 

[krept]

I was wondering - what happened to the people that were only shot once, but didn't go down? If they were shot twice, it wouldn't be counted, no? Or is counted as a non-OSS (a failure to stop) and the cop just kept shooting?


I've got to hand it out to Marshall, he is so mellow about the whole thing. He just presents numbers and moves on... seems like people who are truly worried about their caliber choice border on the fanatical side .


-----------------------------
.45 at home,
.40 for concealed...
7.62 x 39 for SHTF.

Thai when standing,
Jiu-jitsu on the ground...

 

[Shawn Dodson]

2) Marshall & Sanow's research is self funded. Any claims of conflict of interest die due to lack of any evidence.

The relationship between them and Triton Ammo (“Triton’s Head’s-Up Ammo Demo: A no-holds-barred look at bullet performance”, Handguns March 1998) isn’t a conflict of interest, eh?

3)In cases of multiple shots, where the follow up shots occured some time after the first COM hit, then it would be a failure, if the attacker was able to flee 10 feet (I think thats the number) or continue the attack after the first hit. Then this would count as a failure. What is not counted are double taps etc, or other cases where the attacker is hit very quickly with multiple hits.

Either you’re misinterpreting Marshall’s methodology, I’m misinterpreting Marshall’s methodology or Marshall is misrepresenting his methodology. From what I understand, ANY shooting in which more than one hit to the torso was achieved is excluded.

4) M&S's data is confidential police material. You aren't allowed to see it. Is it really valid to say that since you don't to pore over confidential records then they must therefore not exist? In any case, every data claim must be backed up by suitable police reports, coroner reports, photos etc.

This argument is immaterial. If the methodology is flawed then there’s no need to examine Marshall’s records.

Marshall could, however, provide public record information so interested persons can investigate and validate his conclusions. He doesn’t have to provide any of the documentation he says he collects. All he has to do is list the date, location/jurisdiction, victim name, shooter name and whether the shooting was a one-shot stop or not. A qualified researcher who wants to investigate has the necessary information. Disclosure of public record information will not put any of his confidential sources in jeopardy. All Marshall has to do is identify the shootings and simply let others do all the legwork.

But again, Marshall’s methodology is invalid to begin with. There’s no need to see his data to know his findings are faulty.

5) Its a field observation study, not a scientific experiment. Those are two different types of research that operate under different rules. Applying the rules of scientific experimentation to field observation studies is not a valid argument.

This argument is totally irrelevant. Marshall’s data collection methodology is based on inferential statistics, which uses samples of populations to predict the future. Simply put, there’s a right way and a wrong way to do something. Marshall’s way is the wrong way. He’s been told his methodology is incorrect (by people who know the correct way of doing what he’s trying to do). Marshall’s response? “My critics have an ego problem”.

6) M&S's data is just that data, not a "theory".

Yeah, whatever!

If its all nonsense what does it mean? If its nonsense, then hardball is a better stopper than hollow points, and slow hollowpoints are better than faster hollow points?
I don't think so.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand the mechanics of wound ballistics. A bullet that doesn’t expand and retain its aerodynamic profile is going to destroy less tissue and transfer less energy than one that does.

The difference in “effectiveness” between JHPs 9mm/.357” in diameter and larger is negligible, regardless of whether the bullet is light-weight, middle-weight or heavy-weight.

7) Being a field observation study, its full of randomizers. All the things that could randomly effect a particular case will occur. Thats why you only look at the long term results, and only in the coarsest terms, and only as a past indication of results, not a prediction of the future.
Realistically, the difference of 3-5% in results doesn't mean much. But the difference of 20% would be significant.

The real value is in comparing one round to another, not in the OSS % itself. Call the % stopping power points instead, then compare point values for various rounds.

With a margin of error that probably exceeds +/- 25 percent a difference of 20 percent is insignificant.

 

[Don S]

OK, some points.

1) While the ARD and AP numbers are impressive for the 9mm vs the others, to jump to it
"outperforms" the others is not a valid statement. It makes an assumption that deep
penetration and broader diameter is better. We don't "know" that. We think so, but the
important bit is whether the attacker is stopped, not what the bullet looks like when its
done. (But there is a pretty strong relationship...)

This is false. The primary issues in how fast an attacker is "stopped" after being hit by handgun bullets are 1) the path of the bullet and 2) the mental state of the attcker. An excellent bullet may fail badly under some field conditions, while a poor bullet may succeed.

A larger diameter bullet will cause more tissue damage. More penetration is sometimes needed, sometimes irrelevent. That said, sufficient is the most important parameter of bullet effectiveness.

2) Marshall & Sanow's research is self funded. Any claims of conflict of interest die due to
lack of any evidence.

No doubt, they fund it by selling articles and books.

3)In cases of multiple shots, where the follow up shots occured some time after the first
COM hit, then it would be a failure, if the attacker was able to flee 10 feet (I think thats the
number) or continue the attack after the first hit. Then this would count as a failure. What
is not counted are double taps etc, or other cases where the attacker is hit very quickly
with multiple hits.

In any case, it wouldn't matter, since the same rule is applied in all cases the same, you
have a consistent rule for comparitive purposes.

Let's say that, for example, LAPD SWAT use .45s while regular LAPD officiers carry 9s (as was the case until recently). The guys with the .45s are better trained then the guys with the 9s, and are more likely to fire double taps while obtaining hits. More of the .45 data will be thrown out.

4) M&S's data is confidential police material. You aren't allowed to see it. Is it really valid to
say that since you don't to pore over confidential records then they must therefore not
exist? In any case, every data claim must be backed up by suitable police reports, coroner
reports, photos etc.

Indeed, some of the "data" seems to be fake. It appears that M&S provided fake "data" they claimed to have obtained from either the San Diego PD or Sheriffs department (I don't remember which, off of the top of my head). This was documented years ago.

Most of the confidential material should be part of the public record. However, we have no reason to trust the results of data we cannot review.

5) Its a field observation study, not a scientific experiment. Those are two different types of
research that operate under different rules. Applying the rules of scientific experimentation
to field observation studies is not a valid argument.

I've worked on field and labratory experiments. In both cases, the scientific method applies.

6) M&S's data is just that data, not a "theory".

Data is always just data.

If its all nonsense what does it mean? If its nonsense, then hardball is a better stopper than
hollow points, and slow hollowpoints are better than faster hollow points?
I don't think so.

Just because a study is junk doesn't mean that all of its conclusions need to be reversed. However, I'd rather have ball ammo that penetraite over 12 inches than hollow points that only penetraite 6. A blanket statement that HPs are better than ball is no more true than a blanket statement that ball is better than HPs.

7) Being a field observation study, its full of randomizers.

The biggest ones being the path of the bullet, and the state of mind of the attacker.

All the things that could randomly
effect a particular case will occur. Thats why you only look at the long term results, and
only in the coarsest terms, and only as a past indication of results, not a prediction of the
future.
Realistically, the difference of 3-5% in results doesn't mean much. But the difference of 20%
would be significant.

The randomness will indeed cancel with a large enough data base. Since there are so many variables, and since the performance of the bullet is less important than some of these variables, a very large data set is needed. But this assumes that the variables are indeed random.

The real value is in comparing one round to another, not in the OSS % itself. Call the %
stopping power points instead, then compare point values for various rounds.

Except that there are better ways to choose one round over another. The % stopping data of M&S is more dependent upon factors such as bullet path and attacker state of mind than it is to actual bullet performance.

Choose a round that:

1) feeds reliably

2) provides little muzzle flash

3) penetraites sufficiently

and

4) makes a big hole.

Ignore M&S and their junk data.

 

[viper]

Ya' know, I'm listening to all this stopping power crap, and I just have to say, there are so many variables in any lethal force encounter, that the difference between a top 9mm and a top .45, .40, or .357 Sig, is going to be, HANDS DOWN, the least important factor in the ultimate outcome.

What does matter is--where did you hit the individual? How big are they? How determined are they to get at you and continue fighting? Are they on stimulants or pain suppressants of any kind? How close are they? Do they have a weapon?

I guarantee all of you that the difference betwee a top +p or +p+ 9mm and ANY .40, or .357 Sig will make virtually no difference. The extra recoil, and report from the .40 and .357 are simply not worth the little bit of extra energy. A top .45 may be the only exception from an actual stopping power aspect, since the .45 hits with a combination of both momentum and surface area. But, as I said, it is still going to be the least important factor. The .45 has such a high coefficient of momemtum and surface area that it actually "thumps" you when it hits. There are stories of people actually hearing the impact of their round striking an individual in actual encounters. This is a common phenomenon. This could be a factor, but its unique among the common self defense calibers.

The .45 indeed has a lore about it for a reason. It is not an accident that the LAPD SWAT team(the one group in that department that somewhat knows it's sh#!@), Operational Detachment Delta, Marine Force Recon, and other elite units, all choose this round. All of these groups could just as easily choose the .357 Sig or .40, but they don't. There is indeed something to the .45. Notice, by the way, how I didn't mention the FBI, which also now has gone to the .45 for it's SWAT units while the rest of the agency has gone to the .40, as I do not believe that, half the time, this agency picks firearms and calibers for the right reasons. I think they may, in this case, have just gotten some professional advice and stumbled onto an effective cartridge/platform combination that's been staring them in the face for about 80 years. Remember the Thompson? The FBI used to rely on that gun when things got really bad.

Anyway, I personally carry 9mm with special rounds. I have no additional respect for the .40 or 357 Sig over my 9mm whatsoever. The .45 is the only exception simply due to the physical aspects of the bullets surface area and momentum. It's the only round I "give it up to" so to speak. A professional armed with a .45 1911 that he knows how to use, is the last guy in the world you want to mess with on the street.

I personally carry 15 to 17 rounds of 9mm in my gun, plus one to two spare magazines each with 17 more rounds. But, if I decided I wanted to carry more weight, a 1911 .45 might actually be the better choice from a fight STOPPING perspective. You only get 9 rounds in the gun, plus 10 round magazines, but man, close in, no other self defense caliber tops a .45--not even .357 magnum. The .357 magnum might equal it, but you also get increase blast and report, slower reloads, and less surface area hitting the target.

I don't count 10mm, .44 magnum and others, because very few people carry these rounds, as they are more difficult to control and more difficult to practice with, and are primarily used to hunt game. 10mm as a defense round might indeed change the game a little bit. This round hits very hard, about like a 41 magnum. But the fact remains that most people cannot handle it well.

Responses welcome.

 

[juliet charley]

2) Marshall & Sanow's research is self funded. Any claims of conflict of interest die due to lack of any evidence.

Having read several "infomercials" by Sanow promoting Triton Ammunition, I would have to question the validity of the above statement (regardless of whether they received fund directly from Triton or not).

 

[johnwill]

M&S had nothing to do with the so-called Strassburg tests.

 

[racegunner]

The written word is a lie!
I used to be glued to every word . . .

"I've been looking for you," I shouted with delight.
"What is this Evening Entertainment? Where is it? When?"
He was already walking on. "Not for everybody," he said dully with a sleepy voice. He had had enough. He was for home, and on he went.
"Stop," I cried, and ran after him. "What have you got there in your box? I want to buy something from you."
[from Steppenwolf]

 

[RazorsEdge]

One reason that the military ninja outfits go with the .45 ACP is that, all other things being equal, they want to stay on the right side of various international accords banning "inhumane" bullets.

(I say shoot me with a JHP and keep that napalm stuff.)

I think that the mythology constantly flip-flops, and everybody just HAS to have the latest toys.

Actually, the real pros do 95 % of their work with shoulder-fired weapons.

 

[The Observer]

I used 9mm's and .45's.

My trust and contentment will always go with my .45 but I like my 9mm and depend on it if I carry it too. I consider both as good cartridges. I am eyeing to switch on .357 revolver be it ruger, S&W or manurhim as my personal sidearm and my pistols will just be my competing guns in the range.

 

[JohnKSa]

I purposely left out bleeding.

Bleeding kills but it doesn't really stop.

Even a heart shot won't bleed a person out fast enough to keep him from emptying his gun. The only exception is possibly the neck arteries--you might get a fast enough blood pressure drop to stop someone pretty fast, but those blood vessels are even smaller targets than the spine--it still comes down to probability.

The bottom line is that the average handgun shooter isn't good enough to consistently hit the targets he needs to hit to get stops. Therefore, the average shooter MUST rely on probability for stops.

So, Mr. Averagehandgunshooter should try to be able to fire more aimed shots in less time than his opponent using a handgun that will penetrate sufficiently and with enough power/energy to break bone. Remember, you have to STOP your opponent, but you lose if you stop him and then die later. It's not enough to trade shots until he is stopped, you may well suffer a fatal wound long before your opponent quits fighting. The ideal situation is being able to shoot your opponent Center-Of-Mass with all your shots before he can shoot you once. Since you can't generally do that, you want to get as close to that as you can. If you think about it, this actually means that heavier recoiling larger caliber handguns decrease your chances of survival.

This is easy to see if you take it to extremes. Give one guy a 100 shot .22LR Calico semiauto pistol and the other guy a .454 Casull Single Action Revolver. Now set them 5 yards apart and let them go. Unless the guy with the .22 is a VERY bad shot or the guy with the .454 is VERY good, the outcome isn't hard to figure out. The revolver guy is going to have a really hard time firing even one or two shots while the Calico shooter empties his 100 shots into him. If the revolver guy scores hits, his few shots will do a lot of damage, but even if he stops/kills his attacker, it's very likely that he's not going to live through being shot multiple times with a .22. That means he loses.

I'm not suggesting that .22s are good self-defense guns, although a lot of dead criminals might disagree with me. I'm merely pointing out that the "bigger must be better" idea doesn't really pan out unless you can shoot the "bigger" just as fast (or faster) and just as accurately as the other guy can shoot his handgun. Then you have to realize that his handgun might be a high capacity .380. A .380 can shoot all the way through the average person and the decent bullets expand very nicely. More to the point, even a relatively inexperienced shooter will find it easy to rapidly and accurately empty a .380 auto. Even experienced shooters can have difficulty firing the "major caliber" pistols rapidly and accurately.

I've run across a few people who have come to this conclusion, but it's not popular for several reasons. Probably the two most important ones are:

1. Shooters don't like the idea that even when they are firing aimed shots at COM, stopping someone is still a matter of chance.

2. Gun nuts don't like the idea that by "upgrading" their equipment to the "most powerful" that they can actually hurt their survival chances in the real world.

(On a different note, one BIG reason that many specialized military/tactical units use the .45 is that you can effectively silence full-power rounds. After the 147 grain subsonic 9mm round fell from grace the groups who needed such capability switched back to .45.)