ONE SHOT STOP (just the facts, NOT a can of worms)
- Thread starter Biff Tannen
- Start date
I'm a bit hesitant to post in this thread because this is such a contentious subject which all too often devolves into a proverbial shouting match. At the heart of the issue, there are two opposing viewpoints. On the one side, you have proponents of Marshall and Sanow who are only interested in "street results" and want to dismiss the works of Fackler, the FBI, and similar endeavors because they're based primarily on laboratory study. On the other side, you have proponents of Fakcler, FBI, and similar who are interested only in that which can be observed and measured under controlled circumstances and have no use for M&S or their kind because they're "unscientific". Unfortunately, there is a lot of mud-slinging between the two and it is often lost that both sets of works have merit and faults.
The Fackler et. al. side does have a valid argument in that the M&S study does leave a lot of uncontrolled variables unaccounted for. Such variables include precise shot placement, state of mind/intoxication of the person shot, distinction between a "stop" caused by physiological vs. psychological means, and size/body type of the person shot. The work of M&S is, at its most basic form, a case study and the biggest drawback to a case study is the presence of uncontrolled variables. I think that Fackler and his like are correct that, when talking about handgun bullets, penetration, shot placement, and permanent crush cavity are the most reliable means of causing incapacitation, though even Fackler himself noted that other factors such as fragmentation and temporary cavitation can be significant under the right circumstances.
The M&S crowd, on the other hand, does have valid criticism when they point out that the majority of Fackler and his associates' work is based on ballistic gelatin, cadavers, and post-event observation of gunshot wounds and that such study may not always reveal what happens at the moment someone is shot. While controlled laboratory testing does have the advantage of consistent, repeatable results, the street is not controlled and results there are rarely consistent or repeatable. It is true that ballistic gelatin and cadavers do not react the same way to gunshots as living, breathing people do so, by themselves, they are a poor predictor of a particular loading's effectiveness. I think that proponents of M&S have a valid argument that the effectiveness of a certain loading cannot be predicted with any degree of accuracy without some observation of its performance in the real world.
The answer, I think, lies somewhere in between. I do think that Dr. Fackler and his associates are correct in that you cannot simply rely on kinetic energy transfer and that at least a certain amount of penetration is required for a bullet to do its work reliably. What I think the proponents of Dr. Fackler have wrong, however, is that they want to discount the effects of kinetic energy entirely. Just because something does not have an effect 100% of the time, that does not mean it has no effect at all. Proponents of Fackler seem to be interested only in penetration and permanent cavity and seem wont to dismiss loading with large amounts of kinetic energy because they have more recoil or slightly less penetration.
Proponents of M&S are correct, I think, in that they feel penetration and crush cavity are not the only pieces of the puzzle and that kinetic energy must be taken into account. What I think M&S followers have wrong, however, is that because the depth of penetration Fackler cites as minimum acceptable is rarely needed in real life, there is no reason to be concerned about it. Fackler's figures on penetration are meant to be a worst-case scenario for a large individual, one behind intermediate barriers, or one shot at an oblique angle. Loadings with less-than-optimal penetration depths often do well in M&S figures because a lesser degree of penetration is often still sufficient. However, in cases where a bullet does have too little penetration, the failure observed is often quite spectacular.
It is worthy of note, I think, that while the two sides come to very different conclusions, there are a great number of loadings which rate highly under both sets of criteria. For example, I've never seen anyone who could give any sort of objective complaint about the Remington or Federal 125gr .357 Magnum SJHP loadings other than heavy recoil. Likewise, middleweight 9mm loadings like Speer 124gr Gold Dot and Winchester 127gr Ranger T-Series are well regarded by both Fackler and M&S. This brings me to the conclusion that the most effective loading for a given cartridge is the one which transfers the highest amount of kinetic energy to the target without sacrificing adequate penetration through excessive fragmentation or overly aggressive expansion or proper placement through excessive recoil.
The Fackler et. al. side does have a valid argument in that the M&S study does leave a lot of uncontrolled variables unaccounted for. Such variables include precise shot placement, state of mind/intoxication of the person shot, distinction between a "stop" caused by physiological vs. psychological means, and size/body type of the person shot. The work of M&S is, at its most basic form, a case study and the biggest drawback to a case study is the presence of uncontrolled variables. I think that Fackler and his like are correct that, when talking about handgun bullets, penetration, shot placement, and permanent crush cavity are the most reliable means of causing incapacitation, though even Fackler himself noted that other factors such as fragmentation and temporary cavitation can be significant under the right circumstances.
The M&S crowd, on the other hand, does have valid criticism when they point out that the majority of Fackler and his associates' work is based on ballistic gelatin, cadavers, and post-event observation of gunshot wounds and that such study may not always reveal what happens at the moment someone is shot. While controlled laboratory testing does have the advantage of consistent, repeatable results, the street is not controlled and results there are rarely consistent or repeatable. It is true that ballistic gelatin and cadavers do not react the same way to gunshots as living, breathing people do so, by themselves, they are a poor predictor of a particular loading's effectiveness. I think that proponents of M&S have a valid argument that the effectiveness of a certain loading cannot be predicted with any degree of accuracy without some observation of its performance in the real world.
The answer, I think, lies somewhere in between. I do think that Dr. Fackler and his associates are correct in that you cannot simply rely on kinetic energy transfer and that at least a certain amount of penetration is required for a bullet to do its work reliably. What I think the proponents of Dr. Fackler have wrong, however, is that they want to discount the effects of kinetic energy entirely. Just because something does not have an effect 100% of the time, that does not mean it has no effect at all. Proponents of Fackler seem to be interested only in penetration and permanent cavity and seem wont to dismiss loading with large amounts of kinetic energy because they have more recoil or slightly less penetration.
Proponents of M&S are correct, I think, in that they feel penetration and crush cavity are not the only pieces of the puzzle and that kinetic energy must be taken into account. What I think M&S followers have wrong, however, is that because the depth of penetration Fackler cites as minimum acceptable is rarely needed in real life, there is no reason to be concerned about it. Fackler's figures on penetration are meant to be a worst-case scenario for a large individual, one behind intermediate barriers, or one shot at an oblique angle. Loadings with less-than-optimal penetration depths often do well in M&S figures because a lesser degree of penetration is often still sufficient. However, in cases where a bullet does have too little penetration, the failure observed is often quite spectacular.
It is worthy of note, I think, that while the two sides come to very different conclusions, there are a great number of loadings which rate highly under both sets of criteria. For example, I've never seen anyone who could give any sort of objective complaint about the Remington or Federal 125gr .357 Magnum SJHP loadings other than heavy recoil. Likewise, middleweight 9mm loadings like Speer 124gr Gold Dot and Winchester 127gr Ranger T-Series are well regarded by both Fackler and M&S. This brings me to the conclusion that the most effective loading for a given cartridge is the one which transfers the highest amount of kinetic energy to the target without sacrificing adequate penetration through excessive fragmentation or overly aggressive expansion or proper placement through excessive recoil.
Woo Hoo !!!
The stopping power calculator!
I'm giddy as a school girl in spring !
http://www.abaris.net/info/ballistics/rsp.aspx
.
The stopping power calculator!
I'm giddy as a school girl in spring !
http://www.abaris.net/info/ballistics/rsp.aspx
.
Walklightly
Moderator
I'm starting to believe this should be a one stop shot thread.
Last edited:
Chesster said:WebleyMKV, good analysis.
Now all he has to do is prove the energy transfer from low velocity handguns is meaningful. Or even exists at all.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. I don't feel any massive energy transfer to the palm of my hand when I fire a handgun.
I shot a 2.5 foot long piece of split oak log that was standing on its end last week, with full power 300 grain .454 Casull loads. It didn't penetrate it, so it absorbed the full energy of a 300 grain bullet that started at 1500+ fps, all it did was rock back and forth, it didn't even knock it over. It probably didn't weigh 15 pounds. Where was all that massive energy transfer?
Not sure but to be safe I would have shot the oak log again!!!!!!!
However, a tiny bloodclot in the right place can drop a human body in less than 5 seconds with very little energy transfer. The introduction of a fast traveling piece of lead in the same place should have a similar outcome.
Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, so the energy of a handgun bullet that impacts a target must be transferred somewhere. Kinetic energy can be defined as mass multiplied by velocity squared, and an expanding handgun bullet is going to lose some mass, velocity, or both when it impacts a target. The kinetic energy of the bullet is transferred into several different forms such as heat energy and back into potential energy of the bullet. However, much of the energy of the bullet is transferred into the tissue and displaces it.
The displacement of tissue is fairly easily observable through the phenomenon of temporary stretch cavitation. While the degree to which temporary cavity is significant depends highly on the degree of stretching and the tissue which is subjected to it, it cannot be completely ignored as a wounding factor even if it is not as reliable as permanent crush cavity.
Temporary cavity is often a much more significant factor in rifle cartridges because they have much more energy than handgun bullets do and are thus able to stretch more different types of tissues beyond their elastic limit. That is not to say, however, that a handgun bullet can never cause a large enough temporary cavity to stretch any tissue beyond its elastic limit. Dr. Fackler himself noted that certain tissues are much less elastic than others and can be permanently damaged by the temporary stretch cavities that are created by common handgun bullets.
Also, the effect of temporary cavitation are much more pronounced when it occurs inside a relatively small space with reasonably rigid walls such as a heart chamber or the inside of a skull. In such an instance, whatever tissue is being displaced, such as blood or brain matter, will be forced through the path of least resistance such as backflow through a closed mitral valve (tearing the valve and chordae tendineae in the process) or the foramen magnum (hemorrhaging the medulla obligation in the process).
Dr. Fackler also wrote fairly extensively about the effects of fragmentation in that it can increase temporary cavitation well beyond what would normally be expected for a given energy level, penetration depth, and degree of expansion. The performance of rifle bullets such as the M855 5.56 NATO loading which fragment yet still penetrate to 12" or more was considered quite favorable by Dr. Fackler. Unfortunately, there are only a handful of handgun cartridges and loadings, such as the Federal 357B 125gr .357 Magnum loading and its Remington counterpart, that are able to both fragment significantly and penetrate adequately. The majority of handgun bullets seem to either penetrate well but fragment little to none or conversely fragment violently but display lackluster penetration. For this reason, outside of a few very specific exceptions, fragmentation is usually an undesirable trait in a handgun bullet.
That is because the recoil energy is absorbed over a much larger area including the recoil arc of the gun (both back and up), the grip of the gun, the palm of your hand, and the movement of your arm. The energy of the bullet, however, is distributed over a very small area.
Think for a moment about how body armor works. A kevlar vest works by rapidly dissipating the energy of the bullet over a large area to prevent it from penetrating. People who've been shot while wearing a kevlar vest, however, frequently have large bruises in the area that the bullet impacted. A bruise is caused by the rupture of blood vessels under the surface of the skin, so someone shot while wearing body armor does still suffer tissue damage (albeit superficial) even though there was no penetration and no crush cavity whatsoever.
Now, a nasty bruise on your torso isn't going to be any more problematic for most people than causing pain. However, if the same amount of energy that can cause tissue damage without any penetrating trauma at all is focused into a very small area (less than 1/2" in diameter) and applied through penetrating trauma to the more delicate organs that lie deeper into the body, much more serious injury than bruising is likely to result.
As to the log you shot, the energy of the bullet was distributed throughout it. The log was not moved much because it had much more inertia than the bullet did due to its much greater mass. Likewise, a person shot with your .454 Casull will not be knocked over from the force even if the bullet does not completely penetrate them because a person as a whole has much more inertia than a bullet does. However, an oak log and human tissues are two very different things and the other ways in which they react to being shot are very, very different.
Last edited:
Webleymkv said:
I think you mean the M193 and it can't be counted on to yaw, break apart at the cannelure and fragment. More often than not it will punch straight through doing not much more damage than a solid .22 LR.
The Federal 357B is steam age stuff compared to modern bullets. It penetrates okay, but only expands to about .50 or so. A 125 grain Gold Dot or even an XTP will perform much better.
Back in the day, it was okay it expanded better than most. However it certainly isn't the death ray the M&S faithful make it out to be.
We just did this last year .357 Federal Personal Defense 125gr so...
So, basically we have 5 pages in which we've discovered that most mainstream cartridges will do the job, and that each wounding occurrence is unlike any other before it, encompassing several different wounding effects, each relevant to a different degree under differing circumstances, with different cartridges, and with different bullet construction.
So in a nutshell... we don't know.
Just pick a mainstream cartridge and practice with it. And remember... two shots are better than one regardless of caliber.
So in a nutshell... we don't know.
Just pick a mainstream cartridge and practice with it. And remember... two shots are better than one regardless of caliber.
Daekar said:So, basically we have 5 pages in which we've discovered that most mainstream cartridges will do the job, and that each wounding occurrence is unlike any other before it, encompassing several different wounding effects, each relevant to a different degree under differing circumstances, with different cartridges, and with different bullet construction.
So in a nutshell... we don't know.
Just pick a mainstream cartridge and practice with it. And remember... two shots are better than one regardless of caliber.
Exactly correct.
Actually we do know, at least most people who have actually put bullets into meat before do.
You don't see these types of silly arguments in the hunting forum.
According to the following article by Fackler, he observed very little difference between the wounds caused by the M193, M855, and SS109 when fired from barrels with a 1:12 twist rate at relatively close range (200m or less).
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/wounding_patterns_military_rifles.pdf
I wasn't trying to suggest that the Federal 357B was better or worse than any other .357 Magnum loading. The only reason that I brought it up was as an example of one of the very few handgun loadings which is capable of both fragmentation and adequate penetration.
I never said it was. One of the biggest problems, I think, with the M&S data is that the OSS percentages are taken too literally. The extent to which I use the M&S data is this: Between the Remington and Federal 125gr .357 Magnum loadings, there were over 1,000 shootings included in the study. Of those 1,000 shootings, the vast majority of them were one-shot-stops. From this information, as well as the fact that these loadings expand reliably and meet the FBI penetration standards, I think it's safe to conclude that the Remington and Federal .357 Magnum loadings are very effective.
Where I stop short of many others is that I don't take the numbers too literally. For example, in .45 ACP the Remington 185gr Golden Saber rated as a 96% OSS with 83 shootings while the Federal 185gr Hydra-Shok rated as an 88% OSS with 78 shootings. Given the uncontrolled variables in the M&S study, these two loadings are too close to say that one is definitively better than the other based on the M&S data alone.
^ uncontrolled variables is right.
Example: A guy gets shot twice, the first bullet barely hits him on his left side, the bullet travels along the ribcage and comes to rest beneath the skin on his back, (no major harm), the second bullet hits him in the "chest" and drops him. Does M&S count that as a one shot stop? I don't know, and neither does anyone else because when they tried to engage M&S in those discussions Sanow got surley, and hyper-defensive, and in general M&S won't engage in an open discussion about those things. They prefer to defend their "work" with articles or web pieces. They want to launch volleys via their magazine articles or from the web... ok whatever. The scientific community doesn't work that way. M&S has their community and their hardcore defenders, and little else because most major LEAs do turn to the scientific community and qualified accredited experts in trauma and wounding and they don't put stock in M&S OSS numbers.
I certainly would like some qualified people to do the kind of work that M&S claimed to have done. Maybe there is a way to get good data and do good analysis of it to give people solid conclusions about bullet effectiveness.
But I've said before - it would take a lot of money - it would have to be done on a national level by some very big agency, like FBI, or Homeland Security, something like that. And I believe that when most ballistic experts at the FBI think about that they probably think "why spend all that money doing autopsies and recording data when you can just shoot bullets into ordinance gelatin and the results will give you a good correlation as to whether it will be an effective round or not?"
Example: A guy gets shot twice, the first bullet barely hits him on his left side, the bullet travels along the ribcage and comes to rest beneath the skin on his back, (no major harm), the second bullet hits him in the "chest" and drops him. Does M&S count that as a one shot stop? I don't know, and neither does anyone else because when they tried to engage M&S in those discussions Sanow got surley, and hyper-defensive, and in general M&S won't engage in an open discussion about those things. They prefer to defend their "work" with articles or web pieces. They want to launch volleys via their magazine articles or from the web... ok whatever. The scientific community doesn't work that way. M&S has their community and their hardcore defenders, and little else because most major LEAs do turn to the scientific community and qualified accredited experts in trauma and wounding and they don't put stock in M&S OSS numbers.
I certainly would like some qualified people to do the kind of work that M&S claimed to have done. Maybe there is a way to get good data and do good analysis of it to give people solid conclusions about bullet effectiveness.
But I've said before - it would take a lot of money - it would have to be done on a national level by some very big agency, like FBI, or Homeland Security, something like that. And I believe that when most ballistic experts at the FBI think about that they probably think "why spend all that money doing autopsies and recording data when you can just shoot bullets into ordinance gelatin and the results will give you a good correlation as to whether it will be an effective round or not?"
One thing I gather from reading threads like this is that there aren't many other people who have done anything like Marshall and Sanow or Fackler. Yet the information offered in these studies, as well as studies with gelatin, only concerns one aspect of shooting, namely the performance of individual bullets of different calibers and bullet design. There's certainly a lot more involved that that and sometimes I think that for a lot of people, many problems and other issues are just assumed away.
As far as I understand it, no that would not be counted as a one-shot-stop.
Even then, you'd still have a lot of uncontrolled variables such as mental state, size/body shape, presence/level of intoxication, and difficulty distinguishing between a psychological and physiological stop. As I said before, M&S was basically a case study and the number one problem with that type of research is the inability to eliminate uncontrolled variables.
What it really boils down to is that there is no single perfect way to predict the effectiveness of a bullet. Laboratory experiments do not show the reaction of living, breathing people to being shot and case study of real-world shootings leave too many uncontrolled variables to be consistent or repeatable. The way I see it, both methods are necessary in order to see the whole picture.
Last edited:
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Maybe they don't want to answer questions about whether or not someone who got shot TWICE counts as a ONE shot stop because they figure the answer is too obvious to warrant a response?
Anyway, the M&S numbers are the best field data we have regarding defensive gun use. Whether it be great, good, mediocre, poor or awful, there's nothing better. Take it for what it is.
The only way to control for virtually infinite uncontrollable variables is with high sample counts. A whole lot of their data does not have remotely high enough sample counts to be terribly useful. There are far too many variables to draw conclusions from even 75 or 100 shootings. 1000 is certainly getting to the point where conclusions are much more reasonable.
Anyway, the M&S numbers are the best field data we have regarding defensive gun use. Whether it be great, good, mediocre, poor or awful, there's nothing better. Take it for what it is.
The only way to control for virtually infinite uncontrollable variables is with high sample counts. A whole lot of their data does not have remotely high enough sample counts to be terribly useful. There are far too many variables to draw conclusions from even 75 or 100 shootings. 1000 is certainly getting to the point where conclusions are much more reasonable.
peetzakilla said:
If its accurate information in the first place.
Seeing as how some agencies that M&S claim to have gotten data from, say they didn't provide them with any and M&S will not let any outside party review their data.
Webleymkv said:
How many years has it been since major LE agencies quit using the .357?
Most of those shootings happened in the 1980's
The CHP(California Highway Patrol) adopted the Smith & Wesson Model 4006 .40 S&W in 1990. They've used it and the 180 grain JHP ever since. They average two shootings per week. Simple math tells us thats 2200+ shootings.
Before they adopted the .40, the CHP used a variety of .357 Mag loads, depending upon what was available via the state contract. According to the published CHP test data, the .357 Magnum load used immediately prior to the CHP transition to .40 S&W was the Remington 125 gr JHP with an ave. MV of 1450 f/s from their duty revolvers. CHP has continued to report greater success with their .40 S&W 180 gr JHP than with the .357 Magnum 125 gr JHP they previously issued.
Twenty two years, 2200+ shootings, continued reports of greater success with the 180 grain .40 than the 125 grain .357. I think if it was a failure, CHP would have switched by now.
Of course if we broke it down and applied OSS criteria to it...
PK, the problem there is that shooters who were trained to shoot to stop, and who are skilled, may very well attain multiple hits before they recognize the target is neutralized. It is possible that any one of those hits might have been a stopper, but per M&S those would have been failures to OSS.