ONE SHOT STOP (just the facts, NOT a can of worms)

[Brian Pfleuger]

Yes, another variable beyond their control. Unfortunate, from a fact-finding standpoint, but simply eliminating those shootings from consideration and only considering incidents where a single shot made contact will EVENTUALLY flatten the affect of every other uncontrollable variable.

I'm no statistician, so I have no idea how many samples are neccesary to reasonably eliminate the affect of large numbers of unquantifiable variable but certainly those rounds with many hundreds of incidents must be close. At least to the point where "normal", if not strictly scientific, conclusion can be inferred.

 

[tipoc]

Just a bit on 10 % ballistic gelatin.

Fackler and others developed the tests that have become industry standard for the manufacture, evaluation and testing of ammo. They figured that 10% ballistic gelatin most closely approximated the density of muscle tissue in mammals. If the gelatin is calibrated (a bb of a set size is shot into the gelatin and by measuring depth of penetration a standard can be set and met) then it can serve as a reliable standard test medium that can measure depth of penetration, rate of expansion, size of cavity, etc., etc.

This meant that for the first time anyone in the world could manufacture and test ammo in the same medium and results could be compared and ammo could be manufactured that met specific criteria. By placing barriers around it, in it, etc. ammo could be tailored to certain needs. This was a significant step forward for the industry and a boon to shooters everywhere.

It is also the most significant thing about ballistic gelatin. The tests done were not meant to show what a round would do in human beings or how it would act. There were and are too many variables to reliably do that. Fackler and others did not claim that they would. What the tests do show is how a bullet performs under certain conditions and how it is likely, or possible to perform in real world shooting.

When folks look to gelatin tests to show how their bullet will perform in the real world they are kinda missing the point I think.

tipoc

 

[fastbolt]

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.

This is pretty much along the same lines as what I've heard from a long time friend of mine who was a CHP officer since the late 70's (we're talking a badge number in the mid 9K range). He also served as a weapons officer (training) for a respectable number of those years.

At one time or another he carried agency approved/issued Magnum or .38 Spl +P+ ammunition in some different approved revolvers, including the 125gr Magnum loads. He also carried an issued 4006 for many years. (His off-duty choices varied a bit, but sometimes included an older S&W model 60 and an original 4013, both carried with issued ammunition.)

When we were discussing our experiences as both working cops and firearms trainers during our careers, he said that the 180gr .40 S&W had demonstrated itself to be a 'better' cartridge/service load than either the .357 Magnum or .38 Spl +P+ choices of earlier years. Simply put, it had 'worked better' than the previous revolver loads. Naturally, shooter skill and shot placement were still some critical influences.

Also, I feel that tipoc's comments about the nature and usefulness of calibrated 10% gel blocks is a timely reminder. Last time I checked, there weren't any guarantees regarding what any specific bullet would do, fired from any specific handgun used in any specific circumstances.

 

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
Originally Posted by peetzakilla
1000 is certainly getting to the point where conclusions are much more reasonable.

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.

Are there statistical errors and/or mathematical mistakes in the M&S study? Sure there probably are because neither of the authors were statisticians or mathematicians. However, like uncontrolled variables, the degree to which a statistical/mathematical error will effect the end result shrinks as the sample size increases. Because of this, M&S data on loadings with lots of shootings is going to give us a more reliable and realistic picture than that based on loadings with fewer shootings.

Marshall and Sanow's critics say that they've contacted sad departments and they'd never been contacted by Marshall or Sanow. However, M&S critics could make such accusations up just as easily as M&S could fabricate data. The whole thing has turned into a he-said, she-said situation that generates more heat than light. Until M&S's critics can come up with more substantial evidence of dishonesty than "such and such told me so," I'll give M&S the benefit of the doubt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
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.

How many years has it been since major LE agencies quit using the .357?

Most of those shootings happened in the 1980's

So what? Human anatomy and physiology hasn't changed since then so I see no reason to believe that these loadings would be any more or less effective than they were 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...

And the point is what exactly? I don't know that anyone said that the .40 S&W was a poorly performing cartridge. Last I knew, CHP issued Remington Golden Saber ammunition which, in the 180gr version rates as an 86% OSS per M&S. Now, that data is based on 78 shootings while the Remington 125gr .357 data is based on 431 shootings and the Federal 125gr .357 is based on 641 shootings. Given the relatively low number of shootings with the .40 Golden Saber, I think that the uncontrolled variables we've discussed earlier put the 10% difference within the "margin of error." I don't think that we can say definitively that the 180gr .40 S&W Remington Golden Saber is significantly better or worse than the Remington and Federal 125gr .357 Magnum loadings, but I do think that because all three of these loadings perform well in the FBI Tests and rate highly in the M&S study that we can safely label all three as effective loadings.

 

[fastbolt]

I don't know that anyone said that the .40 S&W was a poorly performing cartridge. Last I knew, CHP issued Remington Golden Saber ammunition which, in the 180gr version rates as an 86% OSS per M&S. Now, that data is based on 78 shootings while the Remington 125gr .357 data is based on 431 shootings and the Federal 125gr .357 is based on 641 shootings. Given the relatively low number of shootings with the .40 Golden Saber, I think that the uncontrolled variables we've discussed earlier put the 10% difference within the "margin of error." I don't think that we can say definitively that the 180gr .40 S&W Remington Golden Saber is significantly better or worse than the Remington and Federal 125gr .357 Magnum loadings, but I do think that because all three of these loadings perform well in the FBI Tests and rate highly in the M&S study that we can safely label all three as effective loadings.

Some interesting and reasonable comments.

FWIW, the CHP ammunition can vary a bit from one office (area) to another depending on how quickly the existing inventories are exhausted and replenished. For example, the last state contract for ammunition (Start Date Sep 1, 2009 & Expiration Date Aug 31, 2012) was awarded to Winchester. The duty ammunition for .40 caliber on that contract is Winchester RA40TL, 40SW, 180Gr, JHP.

However, there's still probably a fair amount of the previous .40 load, the standard 180gr (non-bonded) Golden Sabre sitting in various field office inventories and being used for monthly shoots. It's not uncommon for some offices to still have inventories of the previous bid load and not see the new bid load for some time.

If I remember correctly, the load they used for the longest time was the original Winchester .40 S&W load, the RA40180HP, which is the original 'old style' 180gr JHP (think USA line).

So, just about the time someone may come up with some statistics for the Rem GS load (versus the older Rem Express or Win Ranger loads), some of the shootings involving the CHP are probably going to have occurred with the Win T-series version.

Rather than look at the different brands and bullet designs that have been used by that state agency since back about '90, maybe it might be more practical and reasonable to consider that while different companies and specific loads have been in-service, the loads have all been 180gr bullet weight... and they've apparently been satisfied with it, at least to date.

I also gave the 125gr Federal JHP and Remington SJHP loads careful consideration for my on & off-duty needs when I carried an issued .357 Magnum service revolver, but that didn't mean that I wasn't using other brands and loads at times. I also liked the 140gr & 145gr hollowpoints, too. Still do. I even have some heavier bullet weight .357 Magnum loads that I keep on hand for different reasons. Great caliber that allows for some great versatility, even when only factory loads are used. (It's been close to 30 years since I've been an avid handloader, myself.)

I've also long since made an effort to avoid becoming embroiled in "debates" about the OSS data and information, and its interpretation, that were gathered and compiled by Marshall & Sanow. They did something that hadn't really been done in quite that manner up until that time, and while they weren't scientists (nor ever claim to be), they had some insights gained from their respective careers and experience. They made many of us start asking questions, or maybe at least better questions, when it came to considering defensive handgun ammunition.

That was then, and this is now ... and tomorrow may well give us even different things to think upon, or new ways to look upon the same things. Dunno. Who does?

It's still just a handgun, too, folks.

 

[Webleymkv]

FWIW, the CHP ammunition can vary a bit from one office (area) to another depending on how quickly the existing inventories are exhausted and replenished. For example, the last state contract for ammunition (Start Date Sep 1, 2009 & Expiration Date Aug 31, 2012) was awarded to Winchester. The duty ammunition for .40 caliber on that contract is Winchester RA40TL, 40SW, 180Gr, JHP.

I was not aware that CHP ammunition varied so much. The reason that I chose to comment about the Golden Saber loading is because that is the CHP loading that I found the most recent reference to (circa 2011).

Rather than look at the different brands and bullet designs that have been used by that state agency since back about '90, maybe it might be more practical and reasonable to consider that while different companies and specific loads have been in-service, the loads have all been 180gr bullet weight... and they've apparently been satisfied with it, at least to date.

That agrees with the M&S data because all the .40 S&W loadings are within 10% of each other (78-88%) which, as I noted before, is well within what can be considered the "margin of error" for the study.

I also gave the 125gr Federal JHP and Remington SJHP loads careful consideration for my on & off-duty needs when I carried an issued .357 Magnum service revolver, but that didn't mean that I wasn't using other brands and loads at times. I also liked the 140gr & 145gr hollowpoints, too. Still do. I even have some heavier bullet weight .357 Magnum loads that I keep on hand for different reasons. Great caliber that allows for some great versatility, even when only factory loads are used. (It's been close to 30 years since I've been an avid handloader, myself.)

Agreed. Again, the M&S data agrees with this as it doesn't really show any "bad" .357 Magnum JHP loadings; the percentage range is 82-96%.

 

[fastbolt]

I was not aware that CHP ammunition varied so much. The reason that I chose to comment about the Golden Saber loading is because that is the CHP loading that I found the most recent reference to (circa 2011).

It can vary according to the size of the office and their ammunition inventory. (CHP shoots monthly, but last I was told they only recorded 'scores' every 3 months. Also, any officers assigned to outside enforcement teams with allied agencies may have to meet whatever [if any] qualification requirements may exist for those details/assignments, as well, which means more ammunition needed.)

I remember running a CHP officer assigned to a special enforcement detail through a qual range one time. I noticed he was using the Winchester ammunition off the previous contract and asked him about it. He said that his office was still using the (old) stock of Winchester ammunition and he wasn't even aware that there had been a change. It was more than halfway through the new contract, too, as I recall.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that there are still existing stocks of the GS ammunition being used by at least some field offices.

It occurs to me you might find something interesting, just for the sake of trivia ...

Back when I was last discussing our mutual experiences with that retired CHP friend of mine, he happened to mention that once when he'd changed field offices he saw some different types of ammunition being stocked for off-duty weapons. In one field office they had a couple of the officers who favored 10mm guns for off-duty, and they stocked enough Win 175gr STHP 10mm ammunition for those officers to use for their quals and off-duty carry. That was many years ago, though.

 

[Webleymkv]

It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that there are still existing stocks of the GS ammunition being used by at least some field offices.

Actually, I know for sure that any Golden Sabers still in inventory have been relegated to training ammo. CHP recalled all Golden Saber ammo early this year due to failure-to-fire issues.

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_7c5285e8-463f-5405-9aee-3874c87c672b.html

It occurs to me you might find something interesting, just for the sake of trivia ...

Back when I was last discussing our mutual experiences with that retired CHP friend of mine, he happened to mention that once when he'd changed field offices he saw some different types of ammunition being stocked for off-duty weapons. In one field office they had a couple of the officers who favored 10mm guns for off-duty, and they stocked enough Win 175gr STHP 10mm ammunition for those officers to use for their quals and off-duty carry. That was many years ago, though.

That is quite interesting. Speaking of the 175gr Silvertip 10mm, one of the last major LE agencies to drop that cartridge, the Kentucky State Police, used the 175gr ST as their duty loading. KSP used the S&W 1076 until 2003 or 2004 IIRC.

 

[nate45]

And the point is what exactly? I don't know that anyone said that the .40 S&W was a poorly performing cartridge. Last I knew, CHP issued Remington Golden Saber ammunition which, in the 180gr version rates as an 86% OSS per M&S. Now, that data is based on 78 shootings while the Remington 125gr .357 data is based on 431 shootings and the Federal 125gr .357 is based on 641 shootings. Given the relatively low number of shootings with the .40 Golden Saber, I think that the uncontrolled variables we've discussed earlier put the 10% difference within the "margin of error." I don't think that we can say definitively that the 180gr .40 S&W Remington Golden Saber is significantly better or worse than the Remington and Federal 125gr .357 Magnum loadings, but I do think that because all three of these loadings perform well in the FBI Tests and rate highly in the M&S study that we can safely label all three as effective loadings.

You just made my point for me.

I asserted that there are 2200+ shootings avalible for one round the .40 S&W, plus the statements of CHP officers that, in their opinion, it outperformed the 125 grain .357. My point here is obvious, that it didn't quite jive with OSS percentages. You must have realized this, since you retorted by informing me that, it was 'in the margin of error' to which you assigned a value of 10%.

Now we come to the crux of the matter and where you help make my case.
If there is 10% margin of error inherent in OSS percentages, then for example a 124 grain 9mm +P with a 85% OSS rating might in actuality have a 95% OSS success rate.

You say this doesn't matter, because either way it tells us the 124 grain +P 9mm is a good defense round and that correlates with the FBI data. All well and good, but what it doesn't tell us is that the Federal 125 grain .357 is significantly better than the Speer 124 grain Gold Dot +P. The reason being that according to your 10% margin of error, there is no statistical difference between the 88% OSS Gold Dot rating and the 96% OSS 125 grain Federal rating.

Now thats very important, at least to me. The reason being that for 25+ years I've been hearing nimrods tout the 125 grain .357 as 'King of the Street' the best 'one shot stopper', etc. All based on M&S's arbitrary, unscientific rating system.

I realize you don't do that and your opinions are well informed and considered. However, how many times do we see someone recommend the 125 grain .357 and proclaim it the 'best'? When in reality its only one of many acceptable choices.

PS: M&S give the .45 ACP 230 grain Hydra-shok a 96% rating so...

 

[Webleymkv]

Now we come to the crux of the matter and where you help make my case.
If there is 10% margin of error inherent in OSS percentages, then for example a 124 grain 9mm +P with a 85% OSS rating might in actuality have a 95% OSS success rate.

You say this doesn't matter, because either way it tells us the 124 grain +P 9mm is a good defense round and that correlates with the FBI data. All well and good, but what it doesn't tell us is that the Federal 125 grain .357 is significantly better than the Speer 124 grain Gold Dot +P. The reason being that according to your 10% margin of error, there is no statistical difference between the 88% OSS Gold Dot rating and the 96% OSS 125 grain Federal rating.

Now thats very important, at least to me. The reason being that for 25+ years I've been hearing nimrods tout the 125 grain .357 as 'King of the Street' the best 'one shot stopper', etc. All based on M&S's arbitrary, unscientific rating system.

I realize you don't do that and your opinions are well informed and considered. However, how many times do we see someone recommend the 125 grain .357 and proclaim it the 'best'? When in reality its only one of many acceptable choices.

Based solely on the M&S data, you're right. Just a couple of points, however: I wouldn't consider the margin of error to be the same for all loadings tested. The way I see it, the more shootings recorded with a particular loading the less impact uncontrolled variables, miscalculations, etc. will have on the ultimate OSS and therefore the smaller the margin of error will be. For the purpose of the discussion though, I'd guesstimate that the margin of error for the 124gr Speer Gold Dot (I assume that's the 9mm you're referring to) and the 180gr Remington Golden Saber is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 10%. The other exception is that I do indeed think that there are several .357 Magnum loadings that are indeed superior to most 9mm loadings, but I do not base that opinion on the M&S data so it's really another discussion entirely.

Where I do find the M&S data useful is that loadings with very large spreads in there percentage do allow us to draw some fairly broad conclusions. For example, .45 ACP 230gr FMJ from a barrel over 4" rates a consistent 62% regardless of brand. By contrast, the Winchester 127gr +P+ Black Talon (essentially the same as the current-production Ranger T-Series) rates as a 90% from a barrel over 4". Given a spread that large, I do think that we can conclusively say that the 9mm 127gr +P+ JHP loading is superior to the .45 ACP FMJ.

While I don't think that you would suggest such, I still frequently encounter people who quote cliche's like "they all fall to hardball" and quote things like the Thompson-LaGarde tests (talk about unscientific) while asserting that a .45 ACP, even with FMJ, is vastly superior to anything a 9mm (or any other "lesser" caliber for that matter) has to offer. Even given the issues with it, I think that the M&S study is still reliable enough to debunk the aforementioned misconceptions.

 

[C0untZer0]

It's meaningless to try to assign a margin of error to M&S.

It would be like if you were doing a random sampling of people in the mall asking them to choose Coke or Pepsi, but the researchers decided that they wouldn't ask people who were wearing red to participate in the survey.

The sampling becomes non-random and the survey now is invalid. There is no margin of error - the survey is junk, end of story.

The same with M&S... except instead of one problem with their sampling they had multiple problems. There is no applying a margin of error to it. It can't be done, the basic problems are too severe, their so-called study is invalid.

 

[Chesster]

I asserted that there are 2200+ shootings avalible for one round the .40 S&W, plus the statements of CHP officers that, in their opinion, it outperformed the 125 grain .357. My point here is obvious, that it didn't quite jive with OSS percentages. You must have realized this, since you retorted by informing me that, it was 'in the margin of error' to which you assigned a value of 10%.

At the end of the day, when all war stories, studies, theories, data, stats, etc.... are reviewed (or ignored), everyone will form their own opinion and the past six pages will be moot; yet, the post mortem abuse of this equine will continue.

 

[BlueTrain]

There have been several threads here over the years and undoubtedly numbers on other forums as well about the M&S studies. Yet no one who objects to the results as published has suggested that any given caliber or any given load has a different rating based on anything they've done themselves. I realize some have mentioned statistics from large agencies and so on but mostly the emphasis has been on disagreeing with their results.

Has anyone in any other country ever done anything similiar or is this just an American thing?

 

[fastbolt]

Has anyone in any other country ever done anything similiar or is this just an American thing?

When I attended a couple of wound ballistics classes some years ago (taught by a former gov employee) we were told that the DoD and the RCMP also collected data from shootings, but this info generally wasn't shared outside of some LE circles. It's not like it's something that's done with an eye toward disseminating it outside gov agencies, and not all that widely within them.

Maybe so.

 

[tipoc]

It's useful to remind ourselves of what M&S's criteria for a one shot stop is. In order to be counted as a OSS an incident had to meet certain criteria. These were and are:

The bullet had to strike the person in the torso in the area below the shoulders and above the waist. The shot could be from any angle or direction. No shots to the head, neck, groin or any other area were counted. It did not matter what area of the torso was hit, only that the shot was in the torso area.

Multiple hits were discounted.

The person shot could travel up to 10 feet after being shot but no further.

The shot counted as a OSS if in the opinion of the shooter or other witnesses the person shot was physically incapable of continuing aggressive action after being hit.

In order to be counted M&S had to review either police reports, evidence tech reports, statements by the person shot if possible, homicide reports, autopsy results, and photos. Wherever possible they also spoke to emergency room techs or doctors. (It is unclear what combination of evidence they accepted for their figures and what they asked folks in particular who they spoke with as they have not released this information for review by other parties.)

Wherever possible they examined the bullets used in the shootings or photos of the same.

A minimum of 5 shootings were required to make their statistical profile and be included in OSS information.

These were the criteria used by M&S in their development of the OSS statistics.

M&S did not allow for a "margin of error" in their work as I recall. Their figures are their figures.

No one else or any other agency has used this criteria or adopted it in the U.S. or elsewhere that I have heard or read of.

If you take a look at this and do some thinking you can see why there are skeptics.

tipoc

 

[Daekar]

I'm still amazed this discussion is proceeding.

There are so many other factors involved in a self-defense shooting that a few percentage points either way, by almost any measure, are negligible, particularly when bullet construction varies.

Really, the only correct answer is that the best cartridge to select is one that you can shoot quickly and accurately. If you can shoot a cartridge that has a heavier, wider, and/or a faster bullet as well as a weaker one, pick the bigger and faster one - no one is going to argue that more mass, cross-section, or energy will make a bullet less effective if it's on target. Have two that are really similar? Flip a coin or pick the one chambered in the gun you like. Whether or not you stop and assailant has much more to do with you than what cartridge your gun is chambered for.

Honestly, that's all there is to it. Can we argue about something else now?

 

[BlueTrain]

No, na-chet. This is pretty interesting as it is and anyway, there are other arguments going on even as we write.

However, I agree there's a lot more to this business than whether a given cartridge is good enough or if something else is better or even if something is "perfect." Even if you never need a gun for a gunfight, the cartridge is still only one element in the whole package. And hitting the target is going to be hard enough when it won't hold still and might be shooting back. You will be fortuntate, maybe even lucky, to get in one hit. So I suppose that's why one hit wonders are so interesting.

For all the controversy over the numbers, it is an interesting thing that there were so many shootings in which only one hit was made, at least in the body. Of course, there is no mention of misses since that's outside of the scope of the study.

And to think that at one time a .32 Short Colt was considered a fairly good cartridge and Colt themselves claimed the .22 rimfire as "powerful."

 

[markofkane]

What about shells full of buckshot for a pistol?

 

[BlueTrain]

How many buckshot pellets do you think a .45 Colt would hold?

 

[Old Grump]

Well somebody must be doing something right since these numbers haven't changed much since 1979 even with the plethora of new improved calibers, guns and bullets.

THE SOP9 REPORT - AN ANALYSIS OF NYPD Police COMBAT

SHOOTING DISTANCES

From Sept 1854 to Dec 1979, 254 Officers died from wounds received in an armed encounter. The shooting distance in 90% of those cases was less than 15 feet.

Contact to 3 feet ... 34%

3 feet to 6 feet ...... 47%

6 feet to 15 feet ..... 9%

RAPID RELOADING

The average number of shots fired by individual Officers in an armed confrontation was between two and three rounds. The two to three rounds per incident remained constant over the years covered by the report. It also substantiates an earlier study by the L.A.P.D. (1967) which found that 2.6 rounds per encounter were discharged.

http://www.pointshooting.com/1asop9.htm

An example of why I chose what I did for my bedside gun.

Groups with my 9MM and .357 mag using 125 gr bullets at 25 yards shooting offhand unsupported is about the same. 4"-5"

Groups with my 41 magnum, (210 gr), and 44 magnum, (240 gr), same conditions are double the size. 8"-10"

Groups with 45 acp, (230 gr), 38 spcl, (158 gr), and 44 spcl, (240 gr), are nearly half the size of the 9MM and .357 Mag groups. 3" average

I have a lot of 38 spcl and only a few hundred rounds of 44 spcl so my gun of choice for night stand is my .357 loaded with 38 spcl. I acknowledge the fact that the 44 makes a bigger hole and is a better stopper since that is the topic but my 44 is a SA and my .357 is DA so it's a simple choice. I chose the gun and the caliber and the bullet I am most likely to make a good hit with from 3' to 75' as my bump in the night gun. Hit counts more than misses and the bullet is fairly irrelevant as long as it is powerful enough to penetrate and large enough to cause a lot of bleeding. (I use 158 gr LSWC)

Scientific no and why did I use such an old study? I have seen no studies in the FBI data that is much different than this one. Now add in the fact that I am a dinosaur with dinosaur guns, (translation, old = experienced), and I go with what I brung to the party when I learned to shoot. Duty I carried a 45, in the woods I carry a 44 or 41 mag but bump in the night and I have to wake up and react I am going with what I shoot the straightest.

Way to much effort expended on powder burn rates, how soon and how fast does your super bullet expand to .03" more than your buddies inferior bullet. I don't give 3 hoots in a holler whose gun is more accurate or more powerful or whose bullet goes faster and neither does the boogerman. If you hit him his day is ruined no matter what you hit him with. If you hit him twice or 3 times it's unlikely he will be around to complain about it and that is the simple facts.