One Shot Stops Database

The Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery by Massad Ayoob

"A .25 is a nice thing to have when you don't have a gun."
Click to expand...
post 60 above


If you check page 36 you will see that Mr. Ayoob is actually quoting someone else, and the wording is a little different. (As is the context. Read it for yourself; the story about the small boy killing his mother's attacker with a .25 ...)

As the streetwise martial artist Bill Aguiar put it, "A .25 auto is something you carry when you're not carrying a gun."
Click to expand...
- this is the actual quote from the section titled "Micro Handguns" on page 36
 
Last edited:
JohnSKA:

In looking at Hogdon's reloading stuff on .357, in particular with the 115-125 grain bullets, I was impressed with velocity that the average SD load from the big three comes no where close to.

I know Lee Jurras did some stuff with light fast, tarring to hold the bullet in place, extreme crimping, to allow himself to get 185 JHP's moving at 1900 fps, out of a 4-6" barrel.

Despite your comments, I don't see ANY ammo from the big 3 that approaches Jurras, Buffalobore, or Double Taps. Since the data is fairly old in S&M's stuff,
I was suggesting a possible explanation was the big 3 loaded stock ammo faster in those days. I was looking for SOME rational way to explain the effectiveness attributed to some of these rounds...
 
I was the guy that posted the link that is the subject of this thread, a few days ago.
Click to expand...

If you are going to mention that you provided the information for this thread, and then use other people's quotes in this thread and other threads to make points of your own, I would think that the least you could do is to quote someone correctly, it would tend to strengthen the credibility of your argument.
 
AZAK,

I did not quote you. Besides the quote above is from Mr. Ayoob's book In The Gravest Extreme" Chapter 14.

Please quit stalking me around the forums trying to pick a fight. It is juvenile.
 
Let us take this one step at a time.
AZAK,

I did not quote you.
Click to expand...

I was the guy that posted the link that is the subject of this thread, a few days ago. Although I think arguing over what round is better, is a waste of time, I thought it was a good illustration that deserved a post in a thread that was first comparing the .22LR with the .25auto, and then the .38/9mm size rounds.

Boy.. was I was wasting my time!

The .25auto guy came back with something like this:

"Since the .25auto had more total stops than the .38spl, that proves it is a better self-defense round than the .38spl."
Click to expand...
#53 of this thread Emphasis by AZAK

These were actually two different threads that you are referencing. One a poll concerning the .25 acp round and if one would feel safe carrying it. The other was asking for preference between two caliber hand guns, the .25 ACP or .22 Mag.

Some of the material/evidence that you provided as "quoted" in these threads, including your Ayoob reference are identical to one found on someone's personal blog from 2007. (Which included the anecdotal stories of Cooper and Ayoob in the same order and wording.)

My quote from Ayoob comes directly from the source, the author's book.

As to In The Gravest Extremes I personally do not have this Ayoob book, I will be checking into it.

When providing evidence to support any argument, whether in the form of statistics or quotes, I am going to go to the source. I am also going to be questioning of "evidence" that comes second, third hand or appears to be having an agenda of its own.
 
Isn't it odd that the .223 was only used in 39 some odd shootings? That is a red flag to me that this isn't a very comprehensive database.

I count over a thousand shootings with .223/5.56 NATO. Perhaps you were only looking at a certain bullet weight.
 
Despite your comments, I don't see ANY ammo from the big 3 that approaches Jurras, Buffalobore, or Double Taps.
Click to expand...
I agree with that, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. What I was arguing against was the idea that ammo was loaded a lot hotter in the "old days". For the most part the older velocity numbers from the major ammunition companies were inflated by the testing method--something that became impossible with the advent of cheap chronographs.
Since the data is fairly old in S&M's stuff, I was suggesting a possible explanation was the big 3 loaded stock ammo faster in those days. I was looking for SOME rational way to explain the effectiveness attributed to some of these rounds...
Click to expand...
There are several possible explanations. Here are some, I'm sure there are others.

The rounds in question were effective then and are effective now. In other words, there's no need to look for a reason why the numbers say they're effective, the numbers say they're effective because they were and are effective.

OR

Blast & flash are pretty impressive in the .357. It seems to be fairly well accepted that rapid "incapacitation" is often a voluntary phenomenon. In other words people fall down when they get shot because that's what they think happens to people who get shot. More blast & flash may very well contribute to this phenomenon.

OR

The numbers are just plain wrong. One shouldn't try to explain why they're correct because they're not correct.

OR

Some handgun rounds have historically been primarily used by "gunny" folks. Folks who are likely to practice enough to gain proficiency with their firearm. If a particular round in question fits that description then it may seem to be very effective because the people who chose to use that caliber were typically more proficient than average.
 
You've made some excellent points. My first shooting experience, around 30 years ago my friend took me out with M1A's, AR-15's, Macs, A Colt Python, 44 mag colt, 45 ACP Gold Cup, and a 22 or so. He loaded his Python with 125's, as fast as he could, and, he liked that load since it had little recoil, a ton of bang and flash, and was very flat shooting.

The combination of his shooting skill, the Python 4", and, that round made for a deadly combination. He was likewise as effective with the other rounds as well.

Put in a bad spot, the likelyhood of any of the major caliber weapons, even the 22's really, being near a 95% or better, one shot stop was very good, in his hands, be it .357 or .308".

That's one of the reasons I REALLY don't trust the 'statistics'. Calibers that are generally shooters calibers, 44 special and Mag, and 45 Colt, in particular, are on a par with .380", according to this database.

The 44 magnum is a huge step up in a deer round, and, likewise a shooters cartridge. The highest stopping number is 92%, and the lowest is 76%. I just don't buy that, and, the 'data' indicates consistent penetration of 15-19"??? With bullets being recovered from .44 to .81"
If you look at ballistic gelatin testing of the 44 magnum in 240 grain and uploads, it is completely contrary to the 'data' presented from M&S.
I just don't buy you would ever find a LFN 240 grain 44 magnum bullet, much less have it stop in 21" of human, ON AN AVERAGE...:rolleyes:

The 45 Colt and 44 Special are equally contrary to 100 years of experience, and usage.

While I do understand the major ammomakers ability to download such calibers so that they are equal to .380 in effectiveness and ballistics, I just can't believe that people that actually depend on those calibers for their lives would use such anemic ammunition, or shoot that poorly with 44 SP, or 45 Colt both pretty much have no recoil, considering the anemic ammo they listed in the 'database'.

Same goes for 10MM, 41 magnum, and, the penetration results are particularly weird...
 
I find all of these "stopping statistics databases" to be misleading at best.

Thankfully, (but too bad for us) there really haven't been a statistically significant amount of documented cases involving a particular ammunition.

I still say if you pick a good quality expanding bullet for any major caliber and put enough powder below it to allow optimum performance, then you're doing fine (provided you can place the shot).
 
JohnKSa said:
In other words people fall down when they get shot because that's what they think happens to people who get shot.
Click to expand...

Given the relatively puny nature of handguns thats always seemed like a logical explanation to me. Also it could simply be that they don't want to get shot again.
 
Tied for the #1 spot in handgun loads. (.45ACP 230gr HS)
Click to expand...
Actually I take that back, it's in the #1 position by 1/100 of 1%. (Using nothing but THEIR figures):D Still ranked behind the .357 as M&S probably don't want their pet load overtaken on paper by anything. I also could never understand the 10mm figures as opposed to the .40 figures; that just doesn't cut it.
 
100%, completely and utterly useless and meaningless without them supplying us with p-values to determine if the differences are statistically significant, or a natural result of variation.

A classic example of bad statistics!
Would not be accepted by any journal, heck, even a high school statistics teacher would give it an F and make you redo it!
 
You young guys crack me up. You look at stats, data, bullet weights and powder charges and try to convince everyone that you can determine a guns effectiveness from data. For the last 30 years you have proven that the 9mm is so great that you come up with 2 com and 1 head to help justify its stopping power. IMO a round that needs three shots to stop someone is under-powered. Also a round that needs the "right" bullet weight and design to work is also under-powered. This "data" has been gathered over my lifetime.
If you want to know everything, look at the old guys at the range, I bet most of them have a .357 or .44 that they shoot everytime at the range. We learned in the 70's that a magnum kicks harder, makes more smoke, and makes alot of noise, and therefore it simply must be more powerful. (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.)
Now before all you young hot shots tear me apart, I ask you to try an experiment first. Get your Glocks, Smiths, Rugers etc and go fire your .38spl, 9mm and .380's at the range. Then go borrow a magnum revolver from an older gentleman and fire it- I then believe you will understand what firepower is all about. If you must you can now cut and paste this post and make me look like a fool, but I honestly just posted to remind everyone that 30 years of real life experiences trumps all this "made up" data.
 
Deet, while I agree that all else held equal a magnum revolver is probably better than the majority of popular semi-auto cartridges and non-magnum revolvers, you must remember that all typically is not equal. Many people simply cannot shoot a .357 or .44 Magnum quickly and accurately and are thusly better served with a less powerful cartridge since no amount of power will compensate for poor shot placement. Likewise, it must be remembered that no handgun cartridge is guaranteed to stop someone with a single shot (most rifle cartridges short of a .50 BMG aren't either). Finally, all handguns benifet from good bullets. I'd much rather have a 9mm or .38 Special with good quality JHP than a .357 or .44 Magnum with non-expanding bullets. If you do a search, you'll probably find an old thread comparing 9mm JHP to .45ACP FMJ, the vast majority of those posting said they would choose the 9mm JHP.
 
^^^^Deet:
Just to clarify:
"Firepower" is generally defined as round count. A Glock G-17 has "firepower"; a .357 Mag is a powerful round.

That said, I agree with the rest of your post. :)
 
"Firepower" is generally defined as round count. A Glock G-17 has "firepower"; a .357 Mag is a powerful round.
Click to expand...

So an M1 Abrams with one round has less firepower than a Glock 36?


Just kidding, trying to pick a fight. ;)
No, just kidding again...:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top