"One Shot Stop" chart...?

Seeing as human anatomy is sometimes random this is unlikely. A .22 to the heart 100 times is usually 100 times dead.
 
seems to be some bad data there as well... the 38 Special HP load penitrating 28" into geletin ???
Click to expand...

Actually that sounds about right.... If the HP failed to expand.


Anything from Chuck Hawks I would take with a huge gain of salt. He's got a lot of out of date information on his site and much of it is just plain inaccurate.

His views on 147 grain 9mm ammo is laughable at best, and his anti-S&W rant by "Anonymus" is just stupid. If you feel strongly enough about S&W to post a bash-blog in the internet at least have the balls to put your name on it.
 
Looks like Hawks just cobbled together a few sources of data and published it

Spoke to him once about deer hunting Cartridges,, He lost all credability with me. Knowlegble person, but his opinions are no better than mine and yours
 
481 wrote:
There used to be a time when I thought that M&S's "study" should be struck from the 'net for all of its falsity, but now I'd just as soon see it remain as an example for all of exactly what a fraudulent statistical model looks like.
Click to expand...

You don't want to bring up the Jello Junkie vs. Morgue Monster debate again?? :D That horse isn't dead yet....we just saw an ear twitch. :rolleyes:

Marshall, Sanow, et. al.= Morgue Monster

Fackler, van Maanan, et. al. = Jello Junkies. Dr. Fackler is the Original Jello Junkie and also the source for the FBI 12" rule.
 
You don't want to bring up the Jello Junkie vs. Morgue Monster debate again?
Click to expand...
Holy cow, that takes me back to the good old days of rec.guns.

Mete makes a really good point:

Man has the unfortunate attitude that he can put the whole world into neat simple numbers and formulas.
Click to expand...

People get hung up on the numbers and formulas on the box, but they never ask whether or not the load feeds well in a given gun, how much muzzle flash it has, or how consistently it groups. If they spent as much time shooting as they did obsessing over numbers, cartridge selection probably wouldn't matter as much.

Consider part of the M&S data. The best manstoppers out there? .357 Magnum and .45 ACP. Where was most of this data gleaned? From officer-involved shootings.

So, I'll bite: who in law enforcement was still carrying guns in .357 and .45 when the studies were done? Certainly not the average beat cop. I'll lay odds the guys carrying those guns (and involved in those shootings) were serious gunfighters. They put in the time and training, and they took the gun seriously instead of treating it like a heavy burden to lug along.

Had those guys been carrying something in 9mm or .38, they probably would have achieved similar results. It's not all about the hardware.
 
Don't believe in 'stopping power ' ?
My early tests using tough woodchucks as a test showed an important difference between 9mm and 45acp. This was before the fancy JHPs.
A hit with a 9mm that wasn't an immediate kill --the chuck would RUN back to his hole .
Same hit witha 45acp -- the chuck would WALK back to his hole !
 
SRH970: said:
You don't want to bring up the Jello Junkie vs. Morgue Monster debate again?? That horse isn't dead yet....we just saw an ear twitch.
Click to expand...

That's funny.

Wait! Lemme get my whip! :p


SRH970: said:
Marshall, Sanow, et. al.= Morgue Monster

Fackler, van Maanan, et. al. = Jello Junkies. Dr. Fackler is the Original Jello Junkie and also the source for the FBI 12" rule.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I remember reading the gun rags back in the late 80's (when I was a brand-new cop) and laughing at the name-calling that went on.

M&S had just published their first "study" and they would've gotten away with it had they not pushed their luck and published further "studies". (it's hard, but not impossible to do a statistical analysis like those I've cited above without precursors)

I have often wondered how (let alone "if") someone would go about attempting to debunk the Fackler/Roberts/IWBA/FBI construct given that there's a ton of concrete data (gelatin tests) not to mention heavily researched bullet penetration models like those proposed by MacPherson and Schwartz.
 
In my opinion, based upon years of training, is that the one shot stop concept is complete BS, compounded by sheer stupidity.
If your life is in imminent danger, only a fool would rely on one shot to end the threat. If you are forced to resort to deadly force, the only object is to stop the attacker from continuing the action that is a threat to your life. In order to do this, you will be forced to continue to fire until the threat has ended. If you are justified to fire one shot, you are just as justified to fire as many as needed to end the threat.
We were taught to continue firing until the threat has ended. Subject on the ground and unable to continue to threaten your life, or running for the hills. I, for one, would never count on one shot to accomplish this.
Therefore, I think that a "one magazine or cylinder" stop, is much more realistic.
Just my opinion, and you have paid me exactly what it's worth.
 
People get hung up on the numbers and formulas on the box, but they never ask whether or not the load feeds well in a given gun, how much muzzle flash it has, or how consistently it groups. If they spent as much time shooting as they did obsessing over numbers, cartridge selection probably wouldn't matter as much.
Click to expand...


Hey...I know you didn't mean me. Just for the record, I've been shooting and training every week for the past 5 years and shooting since I was 12 at least once every 2 weeks.

Just saying...
 
In my opinion, based upon years of training, is that the one shot stop concept is complete BS, compounded by sheer stupidity.
If your life is in imminent danger, only a fool would rely on one shot to end the threat. If you are forced to resort to deadly force, the only object is to stop the attacker from continuing the action that is a threat to your life. In order to do this, you will be forced to continue to fire until the threat has ended...
Click to expand...


Uh, I don't think the point of any "one shot stop" discussion was to shoot once, then stop. I've never ever heard that idea expressed in any way. I believe the idea of the concept was trying to figure out what was most likely to work fastest, and with fewest shots required to get the job done. A 22 with solids may indeed stop an attack if fired enough times, but it may not do it quickly enough to satisfy most of us.

From shooting game, I have a hard time putting much faith in any of the "tests" if any RN solid bullet is anywhere near close to a functioning hollow point or flat point (Keith type) bullet in effectiveness.

Regarding the comment above about shooting critters with 9's and 45 autos, that about reflects my experience. RN full jacket loads are pretty pathetic when trying to kill game, or keep them from wandering off after shooting them. After using 45 auto ball ammo on various small game, I had to conclude people were much less tough than the avarage jack rabbit or coyote. I shot one pack rat 3 or 4 times with 9mm ball before it slowly sucumbed. A single 22 HP would have been pretty much instantly fatal, as they generally are with jacks, and marmots. Large flat points, and hollow points that work make wicked wounds in game, and anchor them much faster than any type of round nose bullet. Larger animals behave differently than smaller ones when shot, but shoot enough game with different things, and you start to look at things a bit differently than most seem to.
 
So, I'll bite: who in law enforcement was still carrying guns in .357 and .45 when the studies were done? Certainly not the average beat cop. I'll lay odds the guys carrying those guns (and involved in those shootings) were serious gunfighters. They put in the time and training, and they took the gun seriously instead of treating it like a heavy burden to lug along.
Click to expand...


I carried a 45 from 1979 to 1982 and a 357 Magnum on duty until 1996 and off duty until 2003. Now I carry a 357 Sig.

In my opinion, based upon years of training, is that the one shot stop concept is complete BS, compounded by sheer stupidity.
If your life is in imminent danger, only a fool would rely on one shot to end the threat. If you are forced to resort to deadly force, the only object is to stop the attacker from continuing the action that is a threat to your life. In order to do this, you will be forced to continue to fire until the threat has ended.
Click to expand...

The one stop shot was only meant as a metric of measurement. I do not recall anyone ever saying to just shoot once.

I will carry the most powerful gun I can shoot well and conceal. Handguns are enough of a compromise all by themselves.

Come on.... Can't we beat that dead horse......:D
 
"I will carry the most powerful gun I can shoot well and conceal. Handguns are enough of a compromise all by themselves."

Well said.

That's a wrap, folks.
 
RBid said:
"I will carry the most powerful gun I can shoot well and conceal. Handguns are enough of a compromise all by themselves."

Well said.

That's a wrap, folks.
Click to expand...

+1


Bring the lock and chain!

SIG 1911 XO / SA 1911 custom / Colt Gold Cup / Colt 70 Series / SIG P226 e2 / Browning High-power / Walther PPQ / G34 / G19 / G21 / G22 / S&W M-19 / Hk USP 40 / Rem 870 / Rock R. AR-15

sent from my Samsung Galaxy SII
 
Snort said:
I've always found this interesting:

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866

Guy just analyzed every shooting case he could find, and compiled the data. Helped me let go of the notion that I "needed" to carry a .45....
Click to expand...
That's an interesting study, but you might want to re-think putting aside your .45.

The following data from that study is in my view the most interesting:
Ellifritz_Failure_to_Incap.png

The assailants not incapacitated are the ones who can still hurt you.

And as Ellifritz says (emphasis added):
Greg Ellifritz said:
...Take a look at two numbers: the percentage of people who did not stop (no matter how many rounds were fired into them) and the one-shot-stop percentage. The lower caliber rounds (.22, .25, .32) had a failure rate that was roughly double that of the higher caliber rounds. The one-shot-stop percentage (where I considered all hits, anywhere on the body) trended generally higher as the round gets more powerful. This tells us a couple of things...

In a certain (fairly high) percentage of shootings, people stop their aggressive actions after being hit with one round regardless of caliber or shot placement. These people are likely NOT physically incapacitated by the bullet. They just don't want to be shot anymore and give up! Call it a psychological stop if you will. Any bullet or caliber combination will likely yield similar results in those cases. And fortunately for us, there are a lot of these "psychological stops" occurring. The problem we have is when we don't get a psychological stop. If our attacker fights through the pain and continues to victimize us, we might want a round that causes the most damage possible. In essence, we are relying on a "physical stop" rather than a "psychological" one. In order to physically force someone to stop their violent actions we need to either hit him in the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine) or cause enough bleeding that he becomes unconscious. The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this....
Click to expand...

We know that many, perhaps even most, aggressors stop when shot because they choose to. They effectively give up. The real question is what will force the person physiologically to stop if he doesn't give up. And that will usually be one of the more potent cartridges.
 
The real question is what will force the person physiologically to stop if he doesn't give up. And that will usually be one of the more potent cartridges.
Click to expand...


Which would be 9mm, 357SIG, .380ACP, .38special, .357magnum, .40S&W, 10mm, .45ACP...and others along those lines. Correct? Of course with modern hollow points.
 
boy this thread takes me back some twenty-two years. I still have some of the old issues from the late eighties and early nineties. This debate was in full bloom back then. Back then I believed in the One Shot Stop findings. I considered them to be gospel. But I was twenty also. Times (and people) change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top