One-shot stop data

[Double Naught Spy]

Right. OSS data are ONLY important when on paper. Actually, they provide a really interesting and frightening set of considerations for real life. The OSS is based on percentages. There is the assumption that the percentages are predictive in some manner. But as statisticians note, you can have a bad run where you get several instances where the expected result is not attained and such a problem can actually happen randomly (as far as the numbers and order of occurence are concerned). A lightbulb maker may have a 99.9% successful working bulb rate, but that won't mean that the maker will have 1 bulb in 1000 that doesn't work. He could have a run of 50000 that work fine and then have a complete bad batch of 50 in a row that fail.

If we are talking OSS percentages, you have no way of knowing if you will be in the 50,000 that work fine, or in the batch of 50.

Of course, the other problem of OSS data is that there are no real controls over other parameters other than the bullet make and model and whether or not the person was "stopped" with just one shot. Without other controls, you have no real way of predicting bullet performance for your particular situation since you don't know if the parameters of your situation correspond to those where OSS were successful or not. A couple of the repeated parameters for which there is no control in the statistics are shot placement and condition of the shootee.

No doubt a huge bias in the supposed statistics is that better shooting will produce better results more often. When the shooter is a poor shot, then several shots may be required to effect the stop and so those stats are not considered. In other words, OSS is most likely to happen when you manage to perform well as the shooter. From this, what is important to not that shooter performance is going to be just as relevant or more relevant than bullet performance.

At the other end of the scale, OSS have been reported in many cases where the shooter doesn't even manage to hit the opposition. In one case, an old lady heard a man breaking in at her front door and so she got her .25 auto and when the guy came in to her home, she shot at him and got the desired stop with one shot. The only problem is, she didn't hit him. She hit the door frame. She intended to hit him, but missed. And along those lines, OSSs have been attained with warning shots. In both these examples, it isn't the bullet or shooter performance that produced the stop. It was the report that generated fear of potentially being shot that produced the stop.

 

[Webleywielder]

Very cogent posting Double Naught Spy!

You know your stuff! Thanks!


"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun."

 

[CastleBravo]

Battlecruisers look just like Battleships, in other words size does not determine effectiveness.

Your statement makes no sense and is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The correct analogy would be to compare a 5" destroyer gun to a 16" battleship gun. M&S claim that the 5" gun (.40 S&W) is essentially equivalent to a 16" battleship gun (12ga slug). This is extremely silly on the face of it.

We are taking a projectile almost triple the mass, almost double the diameter, and over twice the velocity of the .40 S&W projectile, and claiming it no better than the .40 S&W in actual use. Then we are claiming that even though the study can't detect the COLOSSAL difference between the effects that these two projecitles cause, it can detect the small difference in performance between different .40 S&W JHP loads.

 

[David Armstrong]

M&S claim that the 5" gun (.40 S&W) is essentially equivalent to a 16" battleship gun (12ga slug).

I don't support M&S much, but that is not what they say. There is not a consideration of equivalence in performance between the calibers, the issue is equivalence in outcome. If you get (hypothetical numbers used here!) a 99% stopping rate for the shotgun, and a 100% stopping rate with a 5" gun, the stopping rate is nearly identical. That does not in any way address the idea of equivalence between the shotgun and the 5" gun, only equivalence in outcome.

 

[OBIWAN]

One Shot Stops should be considered nothing more than happy chance

Plan on shooting several times...even with good placement and sufficent caliber.

 

[buzz_knox]

The correct analogy would be to compare a 5" destroyer gun to a 16" battleship gun. M&S claim that the 5" gun (.40 S&W) is essentially equivalent to a 16" battleship gun (12ga slug). This is extremely silly on the face of it.

As stated above, that's not the argument they make. The proper comparison would be if the target reacted equally to rounds from both, then the effects were equivalent. And yes, there are cases where battleship rounds had comparable effects as destroyer rounds, because the target was insufficiently dense to set off the battleship round.

 

[xnavy]

If a 5 inch round did as much damage as a 16 inch round, the navy sure could have saved themselves a whole lot of money.

 

[Webleywielder]

Enough with the 5" and 16" nonsense.

No target capable of being destroyed by a 5" shell was ever more destroyed by a 16" shell. Destroyed means injured beyond repair or renewal. It does not matter how little is left of the target, we are not discussing obliteration (to remove all traces). Likewise, a human being is either incapacitated or not. You cannot be half incapacitated and you cannot be more incapacitated. We are not talking about disablement when we use the phrase "stopping power" we are talking about incapacitation. Since the power curve of what is necessary to incapacitate human beings is a bell curve, it is understandable that two projectiles of dissimilar size, weight and energy would be at the same location on the incapacitation (stopping power) bell curve.

By the way 5" naval guns can be more powerful than 16" naval guns. Anyone out there know what makes this a true statement?

Side by side battlecruisers look just like battleships to the untrained eye and would appear to be just as powerful because they have the same weapons. Unfortuanately the size of your guns does not determine you power. Power is the ability to do or act. All other factors being even other than design means Battlecruisers don't have the power of Battleships because the are destroyed sooner due to their lack of armor. I was attempting to metaphorically explain the inherent flaws of a side by side comparison using size only.

Here is a side by side comparison of two types of shot gun loads.
Slug = one hole in BG, one .72 caliber hole and wound channel, one ounce of lead striking the target.
Buckshot = multiple holes in the BG, more surface area penetrated and wound volume, more than one ounce striking the target.
Obviously based on a side by side comparison of the two loads the buckshot should be the most effective loading and yet slugs are actually more effective.

Anyone who thinks 12ga shotguns are vastly more effective incapacitating human beings than pistols and that one-shot stops are common should read Jim Cirillo's "Guns, Bullets, and Gunfights" For those of you unfamiliar with Jim, he has been involved in more urban gun fights than just about any living human.


"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun."

 

[LAK]

Para Bellum

Multiple hits - fast, that's what 9x19mm and .40s are made for. And that's what counts imo

Yes; I think this is particularly true of the 9x19 which in regular service pistols excels in this regard.

A roe deer (capreolus capreolus, 60#):dropped one second after being hit with a .22lr (to the heart). Placement. You can shoot one leg off with a 12ga and the BG can still return fire. Put a .22 into his brain stem and - relax.

Very true.

 

[CastleBravo]

Anyone who thinks 12ga shotguns are vastly more effective incapacitating human beings than pistols and that one-shot stops are common should read Jim Cirillo's "Guns, Bullets, and Gunfights" For those of you unfamiliar with Jim, he has been involved in more urban gun fights than just about any living human.

Don't need to read anything to know that 12ga shotguns are much more effective than handgun bullets. I'm just in touch with objective reality.

Funny thing is, though, that you've contradicted yourself. If one shot stops are not common (and I don't think they are for handguns), then M&S are wrong, since they claim 90%+ one-shot stops with many loads.

Oopsie!

And yes, there are cases where battleship rounds had comparable effects as destroyer rounds, because the target was insufficiently dense to set off the battleship round.

Sure, but human beings don't differ in weight from each other by 20,000 tons like warships can.

I was attempting to metaphorically explain the inherent flaws of a side by side comparison using size only.

Of course, I wasn't comparing size only, was I? I was comparing size, weight, muzzle velocity... but why read, when you can use bad naval analogies instead?

 

[Ben Swenson]

My problems with M&S are manifold and varied.


One of my biggest complaints is that Marshall and Sanow throw out most failures.

Let's take a sample set of shootings for a given catridge:

1. Perp is shot once in the chest, gets drilled through the spine and falls immediately. - One Shot Success!
2. Perp is shot once in the chest, keeps coming and is shot four times more in the chest with the same cartridge and runs away. - One Shot Failure!
3. Perp is shot once in the chest, ignores it and keeps coming and is shot in the head by a SWAT sniper and dies. - One Shot Failure!
4. Perp is shot once in the chest, beats the everliving hell out of the shooter and is then shot three more times by his partner and killed. - One Shot Failure!
5. Perp is shot once in the chest and doesn't even notice he's hit but is then approached by a police officer carrying a shotgun and surrenders. - One Shot Failure!

Okay, if M&S were analyzing these events, they'd chalk #1 and #5 up as successes and throw out the failures in #2, #3 and #4 leading to a 100% stopping power rating. Even considering the two situations they wouldn't throw out, the cartridge really was only 50% effective. In reality, the cartridge would have only succeeded in One Shot Stopping 20% of the time, but their figures ignore all that. I'd say that shows pretty clearly that their methodology could use work.

They won't show anyone their actual data (indeed, considering the depth and breadth of the data M&S claim to have collected, many doubt that they could even have collected it in the given time period).

The data they've published doesn't add up over given time periods. If you trust the folks over at FirearmsTactical they've got a chart showing the problems.

Also ... "I shot a deer with [x] and it [died immediately/ran three hundred yards before ambushing me], so I know it's a [good/bad] cartridge for self defense!" - Consider the physiological and psychological differences between a deer and a human before using "it [worked/didn't work] on a [deer/gopher/rhino/womprat]!" as an argument.

And you folks that think that a single round of good 9mm or .40S&W is going to perform as well as a single 12 gauge slug, .223 or .308 rifle like M&S do, you're just not making sense.

 

[Webleywielder]

CastleBravo you misquote me.

I can see we are getting no where here. You misquote me, unjustifiably accuse me of hypocracy, and for whatever reason cannot acknowledge the logic of what I have written. How about we just drop it since we will never see eye to eye on the subject?


"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun".

 

[CastleBravo]

I can see we are getting no where here. You misquote me, unjustifiably accuse me of hypocracy, and for whatever reason cannot acknowledge the logic of what I have written.

Saying I misquoted you is an outright lie. And not a very smart one, incidentally.

mis·quote (ms-kwt)
tr.v. mis·quot·ed, mis·quot·ing, mis·quotes
To quote incorrectly.

Cut and paste from your post:

Anyone who thinks 12ga shotguns are vastly more effective incapacitating human beings than pistols and that one-shot stops are common should read Jim Cirillo's "Guns, Bullets, and Gunfights" For those of you unfamiliar with Jim, he has been involved in more urban gun fights than just about any living human.

What I posted in my reply, quoting you:

Anyone who thinks 12ga shotguns are vastly more effective incapacitating human beings than pistols and that one-shot stops are common should read Jim Cirillo's "Guns, Bullets, and Gunfights" For those of you unfamiliar with Jim, he has been involved in more urban gun fights than just about any living human.

Astute readers will note that they are IDENTICAL. So how did I misquote you again?

 

[buzz_knox]

Sure, but human beings don't differ in weight from each other by 20,000 tons like warships can.

Irrelevant, but I think you already know that.

 

[shield20]

From what I understand, M&S are NOT concerned (specifically) with incapacitation as Webley writes - they are keeping score of 1-shot STOPS. If I shoot you with 1 round of .40 and you stop what ever evil you were doing, or I shoot you with 1 shot gun slug and you stop whatever evil you are doing - it is the same - does not matter why you stopped, or where you got hit (other then COM).

 

[OF]

And how does that data help us select defensive ammunition, exactly?

- Gabe

 

[CastleBravo]

Irrelevant, but I think you already know that.

Just like your analogy was!

 

[shield20]

Gabe,

Don't know - but it seems to sell a lot of books and magazines!

 

[Webleywielder]

Castlebravo, I must really be getting under your thin skin!

How fortunate for you I am such an easy going guy when accused of telling a lie. Some people would cut your liver out and eat it.

Ever think maybe something you wrote may have been misunderstood in the context it was written? Please tell me you know it is not a good idea to shoot first and ask questions latter?

In your posting previous to the one accusing me of being a liar you had a quote box that contained the following:

"And yes there are cases where battleship rounds had comparable effects as destroyer rounds, because the target was insufficiently dense to set off the battleship round"

It appeared to me you were attributing that quote to me. After reading your post accusing me of being a liar I reviewed your previous postings and discovered the quote was actually yours. I made a mistake, but I think you are partly to blame for how you presented the quote. I retract my statement regarding your accusing me of hypocracy.

In regard to the above confusingly contexted quote - really? You can provide evidence of "cases" due to "the target was insufficiently dense" I have doubts you can. Would your failure to provide data of such cases make you a liar? I don't think so, but possibly your are someone who impulsively postulated the existance of such an occurance. I think we have all been guilty of this at sometime in our lives. It is human to do this.

Since no one provided the answer to my question, here it is.

How is it possible that a 5" naval shell be more effective than a 16" naval shell? Because technology changes. An 16" black powder filled shell or solid ball fired form a low velocity black power naval gun is not as effective as a modern 5" High Velocity Rifled Naval Gun using high explosive armor piercing ammunition. The reason for this is due to penetrating power and explosive effect upon penetration. Think about this: if at Hampton Roads the Monitor had not been armed with 11" smooth bores firing solid shot and instead been armed with one Modern 5" rifle that fired far fewer times, the Virginia would have been destroyed. I hope we can now stop further discussion of my analogy to explain the concept of why modern pistol bullets are effective.

I believe that some modern high velocity pistol bullets of proper design are comparable in effectiveness to a soft-lead homogeneous 12ga. slug when striking humans within the distance most self-defense shootings occur. Effectiveness is not the same as amount of damage inflicted. CastleBravo you are not going to change my opinion and I am not going to change yours. How about we end this now? I am beginning to think you don't like me. Can't we play without name calling?

I sure do find TFL entertaining!!

"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun".

 

[OF]

CastleBravo you are not going to change my opinion and I am not going to change yours.

Nothing says 'friendly debate' like an open mind.

What's the point of even posting if you're not flexible enough to change your opinion in the face of a convincing argument? You may say you haven't heard it here, and that's certainly your perrogative, but to flat out reject the possibility seems a little...stubborn.

I've a suggestion for you, if I may - I know you have 40 years of terminal ballistics research under your belt, but here goes anyway: before you say 'never' go spend some time reading the 'terminal performance' section at tacticalforums.com. Especially seek out the thread(s?) where Evan Marshall stopped in to try and defend this nonsense.

It's quite the read.

If you've studied everyone you say you have, I'm sure a couple people there will be familiar to you. After a few days perusing the threads I think it will beome clear who's doing the real science and who is playing in a field they have no business in.

At least it was obvious to me.

- Gabe