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

There is no one-shot-stop, when you're talking about center-of-mass hits (or even head shots).

2007, outside Kemmerer Wyoming:
My little brother, and I, are 650 yards from a herd of antelope. We have an elevated position, and the animals are not spooked. I state that I am going to hold to a promise I made during the morning's drive out to the hunting grounds, and only try to shoot the animal in the left eye. My little brother states that he's sticking with the standard chest shot.

He had a single-shot .30-06 rifle, while I had a .270 Win bolt action. So, I let him shoot first (gives him more time for a reload, in case a follow-up shot is needed). We each fired only 1 shot.

One antelope dropped in its tracks. Another separated from the herd, to lay down in a small gully (with no chance for a follow-up shot).

When we reach the one in the gully, it jumped up, and started to run. A bullet to the back of its head stopped it in its tracks. It turned out I had put the first bullet exactly where I wanted it: In old girl's left eye. It was a solid head shot, and the animal was still going strong. A solid head shot failed. Her skull had pieces clunking around as she tried to run away... but she was still with it (and had very little bleeding).

When we reached the other antelope, we were perplexed. It had only been nicked by the .30 caliber bullet, on the very bottom of the brisket. We imagined it would hurt more to sit on a cactus, than to be grazed so slightly. ..but it was dead, none the less. Upon gutting the animal, I discovered the truth:

The bullet had sent a few tiny bone fragments into the heart of the animal. These little fragments were no more than 1/8" long, and maybe 0.030" thick.
Indirect injuries dropped that girl in her tracks.

Head shot... ineffective.
A near-miss that barely grazes the animal... 100% fatal.


I've seen many things while hunting. But, very few single days have presented such odd results.
When it comes to terminal performance, nothing is guaranteed. ;)
 
Last edited:
MLeake said:
PK, the absolute linear difference does not look like much. However, the difference in actual frontal surface area (assuming similar contours, to scale) is over 55%.

Total area is still small, but as a proportion, it is not insignificant.
Click to expand...

True enough, yet we have absolutely no indication that it makes any difference whatsoever, internet lore not withstanding.

The only consistent factors are shot placement and penetration. I know you and I agree on this.

I'd much rather shoot a deadly threat through the heart with an FN 5.7 than in the stomach with a 45acp.
 
Concur, PK... My preference for .45 ACP and .44 Special have more to do with sound and fury. I prefer to get the job done with less flash and bang.

To be effective, the smaller calibers use speed, which typically means higher pressures plus the sonic crack.

A 185gr at 1075fps or a 200gr at 950fps are easier on the ears, and typically less blinding in low light.

Placement (with adequate penetration) is king.
 
I didn't mean to cause a stroke folks, just repeating what a friend of mine who is a LEO told me. Truth is I've never seen a "list". And I've never had to shoot anybody, thank God.
 
"ONE SHOT STOP (just the facts, NOT a can of worms)
I am interested in recomendations of data on the "one stop shot" for handguns in a self defense situation from humans (bad guys).
I am DEFINITELY NOT trying to open up a placement vs round debate.
I am just asking for recommendations for reputable places I might read up on statistics that might lead to insights and education.
Again, respectfully, the qualifier as to what I am looking to study: Statistics."

As you have read the answer for those of us outside certain DoD or police circles is "Not no, but hell no". For individual police departments to release such information might result in police unions demanding changes, maybe more expensive, in duty ammo, or lawsuits when "lesser" duty ammo "failed." To avoid disclosure under Freedom of Information laws this data might not be assembled or kept by the individual PDs. However the names of some of the best police ammo seems to have become public any way.

Marshal and Sanow were part of an important trend when the USA's police and ammunition industry started looking at handgun ammunition effectiveness without the blinders of the Hatcher Report. Their numbers might have ****** some people off; but the discussion was now public and the handgun ammo we non-LEOs can buy over the counter now much exceeds what was available 2 decades ago. Thanks guys.
 
I think the writings of Marshall and Sanow are schizphenic - and that's because there are two guys doing the writing with no editor trying to iron out the contridictions. On one hand they will give credit to Fackler and they will reference test results with ordinance gelatin. On the other hand they'll discredit the opinions of people calling them "jello junkies".

I'll admit that one of the effects of the writing of M&S was to have people start looking at and talking more about penetration and expansion, nut the FBI tests had that effect also. Another effect of the writing of M&S was to have people start looking at and talking more about permanent wound channel and temporary cavity,

I think the Internet and YouTube has done as much for the advancement of the body of knowledge in this area as anything else. We now have sites like Brass Fetcher, Ballistics by The Inch, Ballistics 101 and YouTube where people like tnoutdoors9 do tests and publish data.
 
arch308 said:
I didn't mean to cause a stroke folks, just repeating what a friend of mine who is a LEO told me. Truth is I've never seen a "list". And I've never had to shoot anybody, thank God.
Click to expand...

Sorry, if you thought I was deriding your post. I actually thought it was interesting and informative. I just used it as a vehicle to launch my satirical Boulevard Blasters®™ parody.

Lets examine the shooting you reported, a man was shot and the bullet penetrated deep enough to reach his heart, expanding along the way, it damaged his heart and he died. I don't doubt it, I just contend that there are an array of handgun bullets that would have caused the same result.
 
PK, the absolute linear difference does not look like much. However, the difference in actual frontal surface area (assuming similar contours, to scale) is over 55%.

Total area is still small, but as a proportion, it is not insignificant.
Click to expand...

Frontal surface area doesn't give the whole story. If you want to get an idea of how much tissue is destroyed, you've really got to look at the total volume of the wound.

For example, if we look at gelatin tests from Winchester, we see that their 124gr +P Ranger Bonded 9mm expands to .68" and penetrates 12.6" in bare gelatin while the 230gr Ranger Bonded .45 ACP expands to .845" and penetrates 12.1" in bare gelatin. Running a quick calculation for volume, we see that, assuming both bullets expand to full diameter very early in their penetration, the 9mm loading will destroy approximately 4.6 cubic inches of tissue while the .45 will destroy approximately 6.8 cubic inches, a difference of 51-66% depending on which way you run the calculation.

http://winchesterle.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/pdf/Handgun%20Bullet%20Barrier%20Testing%20Protocol.pdf

The issue with the above calculation, however, is that you have to look at not only expanded diameter, but also the rate of expansion. This is something that, unfortunately, is often overlooked. All else held equal, the higher the velocity of a bullet, the more rapidly it will expand and, for a given amount of penetration, the more tissue is will destroy.

So, the only case in which diameter, and thus frontal area, by itself could be construed to be the deciding factor is with a comparison between two non-expanding bullets with equal penetration (likely through and through). With expanding bullets, total penetration depth and rate of expansion are equally, if not more, significant as diameter/frontal surface area.
 
Webleymkv, any idea how the rate of expansion compares between 115gr 9mm and 185gr .45 DPX? (The 185gr moves at 1075fps, not exactly slow, but quite a bit slower than the 9mm.)
 
Webleymkv, any idea how the rate of expansion compares between 115gr 9mm and 185gr .45 DPX? (The 185gr moves at 1075fps, not exactly slow, but quite a bit slower than the 9mm.)
Click to expand...

I found the following data on the Barnes XPB bullet (the one used by Cor-Bon for their DPX ammo).

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Ballistic_Gel_Experiments/BARNES/Barnes_9mm_115gr_TAC-XP.pdf

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Ballistic_Gel_Experiments/BARNES/Barnes_.45ACP_185gr_TAC-XP.pdf

The 185gr .45 slug at 1057fps penetrated 14.5" and expanded to an average of approximately 1.73 times original diameter in bare gel while the 115gr 9mm at 1194fps penetrated 12.7" and expanded to an average of 1.83 times original diameter in bare gel. Based on that, I'd say that the 9mm is probably expanding sooner than the .45 is. Now, the velocities in the above links are less than what Cor-Bon advertises and added velocity with the same bullet almost always makes expansion more rapid. I doubt you'd see a big difference with the .45 load because the test in my links is only 18fps slower than Cor-Bon's advertised velocity, but the 9mm loading is 56fps slower so the Barnes bullet, as loaded by Cor-Bon, may expand substantially more rapidly in the 9mm than the links show.

Bear in mind, however, that the extra penetration combined with the larger expanded diameter (.778" vs. .650") of the .45 could easily offset the more rapid expansion of the 9mm in total wound volume. Unfortunately, I've been unable to find any test on the DPX in any caliber which indicates exactly how deep it penetrates before reaching full expansion. While I'm fairly certain that the 9mm DPX does expand sooner than the .45 DPX, I don't know how much sooner and that information would be necessary to calculate which bullet creates the larger total wound volume.
 
Thanks. All my carry .45s seem to do very well with the DPX185, but I haven't had the opportunity to try any of my own destruction tests (gelatin, pork shoulders, etc).
 
Thanks. All my carry .45s seem to do very well with the DPX185, but I haven't had the opportunity to try any of my own destruction tests (gelatin, pork shoulders, etc).
Click to expand...

I think that they're probably a pretty safe bet. Expansion and penetration seems to be pretty consistent through everything but steel and auto glass (and the need to shoot through those materials for a non-LEO is somewhat questionable anyway) and there's certainly enough energy there if that matters to you. Really, the only criticism I can legitimately make about them is the price (anything loaded with Barnes XPB's seems to be expensive), but if you can afford them then more the power to you.
 
My wife recently shot a unalerted whitetail buck standing about 15 yards away with a .50 muzzleloader. The projectile was a 45 cal HP (sabot to make up the diameter difference) backed up by 97 gr. of blackpowder. The bullet tore through both lungs and stopped under the skin on the far side of the deer, fully mushroomed. That buck was still able to run about 40 yards with the oxygen he had in his brain. That 45 cal. bullet packed more energy than any 45 +P shot from a handgun and placement was perfect. That buck didn't weigh any more than I do (~ 200#). I have shot unalert deer with a .243 rifle and they were still able to run 70 yards.

If a deer can run 40-70 yards after a perfect shot that destroys both lungs, it is reasonable to assume that a violent (possibly under influence of drugs) person would be capable of voluntary action for a few seconds after being perfectly shot too. And the muzzleloader / rifle rounds carry much more KE than a handgun.

I'm thinking one should expect to have to possibly make more than one well placed shot if they expect an violent attacker to stop.

Now, would it be better if those shots were a 45 acp 230 HP @ 874 fps / 390# KE, or a 10mm 155 HP @ 1,279 fps / 563# KE :confused: ;)
 
For a carry load, I don't think cost should be a consideration. All you need is enough to fill up all your magazines and enough to confirm that they actually work through your particular pistol. You would practice with something less expensive.

There are complaints here that M&S is not scientific but I suspect the same folks would laugh at shooting gelatin. But shooting bullets into geletin is in fact scientific. The results should be repeatable. You can do the same thing over and over without killing people or goats, although I have no idea what gelatin costs. There is still the issue of whether or not the results mean anything of course and if you don't like the results you're free to say so.

I believe that M&S still went further than others and examined things like the effect of barrel length, which might be of interest to some who have small pistols like a Colt Officer's ACP. That was a particularly nice variation of a .45 automatic but a real handful to shoot.

And speaking of .45s, I think one of the attributes of a .45 ACP is that it does not have the blast and usually not the flash of a .357, not that anyone carries revolvers any more. I noticed that after shooting a lot of my own 9mm handloads, that 9mm factory ammunition had a lot more power than I remembered. So did .38 special, too (not that anyone carries revolvers any more).
 
not that anyone carries revolvers any more
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be so quick to jump to that conclusion. While not as dominant as they used to be, the defensive revolver, particularly small snubs, are still alive and well. Last I knew, J-Frames had been one of the best selling guns that S&W made for a number of years and the Ruger LCR seems to be quite a success.
 
BT, what I carry depends in large part on where I am.

A .44 Mountain Gun with BB 255gr Keith HC makes a nice woodland carry. (Edit: Loaded with DPX 200gr .44 Special, it makes a pretty good nightstand gun, too.)

A .38 442 makes a good pocket gun for those days when concealment garments for a larger gun would stand out too badly.

Normally, though, I prefer a 1911 or M&P auto.
 
I have no real expierence in this, but wouldn't you fire until the attacker stopped. I don't think I would shoot once and see if he stopped. When hunting hogs if they are running at me I fire til they stop!
 
arch308 said:
I have no real expierence in this, but wouldn't you fire until the attacker stopped. I don't think I would shoot once and see if he stopped. When hunting hogs if they are running at me I fire til they stop!
Click to expand...

Exactly, even Evan Marshall says fire until lock back.

That brings up another point, back in the day when M&S gathered their data the big revile to the .357 Magnum revolver in the world of combat hand gunnery was the 1911 and the .45 ACP.

Now to all of you who now anything about the modern technique and the proper defensive operation of a 1911; How many of those who used the 1911 back then and were involved in shootings do you think just fired one shot and stood there waiting for a result? That sure does cut a lot of .45 ACP users out of the statistics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top