stopping power statistics
- Thread starter SPUSCG
- Start date
David Armstrong
Moderator
It's not that they are a load of crap, it is that many folks misuse them and more folks don't understand them. And there are many differnt versions from different folks. What would you consider to be "realistic data?" What are you wanting to look at/for?
Oh, sure ... just throw a can of gasoline and a lighted match into the forum, whydontcha??! 
Guess I'd better do the moderator-ish thing here and note right up front that this particular topic tends to be ... incendiary. It's always an interesting discussion, though, and I'll be grateful if everyone plays nice.
pax,
pax
Guess I'd better do the moderator-ish thing here and note right up front that this particular topic tends to be ... incendiary. It's always an interesting discussion, though, and I'll be grateful if everyone plays nice.
pax,
pax
fbrown333@suddenlink
New member
steveno
+1
+1
I assume you're referring to the Marshall/Sanow figures. As Pax noted these studies are widely debated with some taking them as gospel and others claiming that Marshall and Sanow "cooked the books" and discounting them altogether (these people typically subscribe to the work of Martin Fackler). The best approach is, as usual, somewhere in between. It is true that there are statistical errors than can skew the results, they are typically most evident and significant when looking at calibers or loadings that have a very small amount of data (examples would include calibers such as 7.62x25 Tokarev or loadings like Glasers) as well as factors such as shot placement and psychological effect that aren't taken into account. When looking at comon calibers with popular loads, we can probably draw some generalizations. For example, a .357 Magnum loaded with Federal 357B (125grn semi-jacketed hollowpoint at 1450fps) rates a 96% one-shot-stop. Does this literally mean that that particular loading will stop 96 out of 100 attackers with one shot? Absolutely not as there are too many other factors that play into the equation. However, it's probably safe to say that a revolver loaded with this ammunition is very good as far as handguns go as this was a very popular loading among police and thusly there was a great amount of data to base this percentage on. In general, I look at any common caliber and popular loading rated above 75% by Marshall/Sanow as "good" and leave the debate about effectiveness among them to other factors.
+1pax!
ANY round can be a stopper and ANY round can be ineffectual. It depends so much on so many things, such as the weapon used, bullet weight and design, powder load, clothing worn by the shootee, angle at which the shot hits, where the shot hits, whether it's cloudy or sunny; and I can go on and on.
Suffice to say, if you're considering different calibers for a carry piece, think on this...
Any modern JHP in most common calibers will do the job. As Mas Ayoob says, "It's not the last shot that counts, it's the first." Shot placement is EVERYTHING.
When you find a gun that fits your hand like a glove, is accurate with your skill, is reliable, and is concealable - THAT'S the gun you want to carry, whether it's a .32 ACP Mousegun or a fire-breathing .454 Casull.
ANY round can be a stopper and ANY round can be ineffectual. It depends so much on so many things, such as the weapon used, bullet weight and design, powder load, clothing worn by the shootee, angle at which the shot hits, where the shot hits, whether it's cloudy or sunny; and I can go on and on.
Suffice to say, if you're considering different calibers for a carry piece, think on this...
Any modern JHP in most common calibers will do the job. As Mas Ayoob says, "It's not the last shot that counts, it's the first." Shot placement is EVERYTHING.
When you find a gun that fits your hand like a glove, is accurate with your skill, is reliable, and is concealable - THAT'S the gun you want to carry, whether it's a .32 ACP Mousegun or a fire-breathing .454 Casull.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
And with reference to the Marsall/Sanow study, it's my understanding that it's pretty much the only one based on analysis of actual shootings. So some calibers probably aren't going to be represented because no (or very few) example of real world use were available. And as Webleymkv points out, there are a lot of variables.
In any case, shot placement is most important.
In any case, shot placement is most important.
A great many of the loads listed in the Stopping Power books no longer exist or have been re-designed.
No one is collecting the results of shootings these days. At least they're not publishing them.
That's not nearly as important as it was in the 80s and 90s. All the major ammo companies have done their R&D work. There are no loads as bad as some of the crap JHP loads with heavy jackets, small hollow points and other "features" that made them ineffective.
\Any premium JHP load in any of the major calibers will do a fine job if placed correctly. Even WWB from WalMart is a good load.
No one is collecting the results of shootings these days. At least they're not publishing them.
That's not nearly as important as it was in the 80s and 90s. All the major ammo companies have done their R&D work. There are no loads as bad as some of the crap JHP loads with heavy jackets, small hollow points and other "features" that made them ineffective.
\Any premium JHP load in any of the major calibers will do a fine job if placed correctly. Even WWB from WalMart is a good load.
There are no 'magic' bullets
Good posts Japle I agree ammo manufactures have come along way and most all of the premium service( 9 mm-.45 ACP) ammo is very good.
You are also quite correct about the WWB Personal Protection ammo, it does not offer quite the level of performance as the Ranger-T for example, but it is good nonetheless.
The 115 grain 9 mm WWB PP for example is the same bullet as the 115 grain Silver-Tip without the silver coating the 230 grain WWB PP .45 ACP load performs very well. From tests I've seen and my own informal testing, I would not be afraid to use or carry either one of those. I have also read from reliable sources that the WWB Personal Protection 147 grain 9 mm was a good bullet, but I've never tested it.
Good posts Japle I agree ammo manufactures have come along way and most all of the premium service( 9 mm-.45 ACP) ammo is very good.
You are also quite correct about the WWB Personal Protection ammo, it does not offer quite the level of performance as the Ranger-T for example, but it is good nonetheless.
The 115 grain 9 mm WWB PP for example is the same bullet as the 115 grain Silver-Tip without the silver coating the 230 grain WWB PP .45 ACP load performs very well. From tests I've seen and my own informal testing, I would not be afraid to use or carry either one of those. I have also read from reliable sources that the WWB Personal Protection 147 grain 9 mm was a good bullet, but I've never tested it.
Ahab,
You'd do well to look at the source data if you're really interested in that question (ummm, not meaning to imply you haven't, no offense intended or implied...). It's interesting stuff.
As Marshall has said many times over the years, the "one shot stop" was simply the standard of comparison they hit upon, one that could be applied across a wide spectrum of data to provide a single common denominator. It wasn't intended to suggest how people should conduct a gunfight, or anything of the sort. It was simply a way to at least slightly narrow down one aspect of a huge array of variables into something less unwieldy. They had to pick a number, and "one" was the easiest and most available number, in part because in multiple-shot incidents, there was often some confusion as to how many shots were actually fired. So "one" was chosen as the number that limited the variables the best for their purposes.
Stepping out of the thread now; not here to defend anyone's work and I'm not a scientist. Just interested in accuracy for the little bits I do vaguely know.
pax
You'd do well to look at the source data if you're really interested in that question (ummm, not meaning to imply you haven't, no offense intended or implied...). It's interesting stuff.
As Marshall has said many times over the years, the "one shot stop" was simply the standard of comparison they hit upon, one that could be applied across a wide spectrum of data to provide a single common denominator. It wasn't intended to suggest how people should conduct a gunfight, or anything of the sort. It was simply a way to at least slightly narrow down one aspect of a huge array of variables into something less unwieldy. They had to pick a number, and "one" was the easiest and most available number, in part because in multiple-shot incidents, there was often some confusion as to how many shots were actually fired. So "one" was chosen as the number that limited the variables the best for their purposes.
Stepping out of the thread now; not here to defend anyone's work and I'm not a scientist. Just interested in accuracy for the little bits I do vaguely know.
pax
Frank Ettin
Administrator
I've heard of formulas and endless theories, but what's the point? If load Y under some reasoned theory calculates out to be a superior stopper under certain conditions, it doesn't necessarily mean it will work that well under different conditions or in real life when you actually need it to work.
AFAIK, all of the various attempts to quantify stopping power can do little else but offer some very generalized guidance. And also, AFAIK, they all come up with fairly similar, broad conclusions: e. g., you'll probably have better luck with a 9mm +P JHP than a .38 Sp, 158 grain LRN; in a given caliber, a JHP will usually give more consistently better results than an FMJ; etc. But if you try to get more specific or detailed, the different studies start to contradict each other.
AFAIK, all of the various attempts to quantify stopping power can do little else but offer some very generalized guidance. And also, AFAIK, they all come up with fairly similar, broad conclusions: e. g., you'll probably have better luck with a 9mm +P JHP than a .38 Sp, 158 grain LRN; in a given caliber, a JHP will usually give more consistently better results than an FMJ; etc. But if you try to get more specific or detailed, the different studies start to contradict each other.
Interesting that, based on his own testing, Marshall now carries DPX in every caliber he can get it in.
Except maybe for 9mm, there wasn't (and still isn't) much disagreement over the bullets he recommended. Evan was never a fan of the 147 gr. 9mm, but now acknowledges that the HST 147g. is a good carry round. Times change.
Except maybe for 9mm, there wasn't (and still isn't) much disagreement over the bullets he recommended. Evan was never a fan of the 147 gr. 9mm, but now acknowledges that the HST 147g. is a good carry round. Times change.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
And there's no magic bullet.T. O'Heir said:
What stops attackers?
The way the human body stops trying to hurt you is a very well known fact.
And as we are talking bullets here, any bullet that will reach the vital to movement body parts, brain stem, top few inches of the spine, only sure stopping power. So nothing changes there, placement (and luck!)
The bullet design, velocity, that will cause the most bleeding, not one stop, but when the vessel has lost enough blood to quit. Time you might not have.
The way the human body stops trying to hurt you is a very well known fact.
And as we are talking bullets here, any bullet that will reach the vital to movement body parts, brain stem, top few inches of the spine, only sure stopping power. So nothing changes there, placement (and luck!)
The bullet design, velocity, that will cause the most bleeding, not one stop, but when the vessel has lost enough blood to quit. Time you might not have.