Some Thoughts on 'Stopping Power' and Consequences

[HairyEyeball]

I started this comment on the 'stopping power of the 9mm' thread, but it grew beyond that. Leading lights from Jeff Cooper to Townsend Whelan to Bill Jordan have opined on the matter, but it's never been 'settled'. The 'object' is, of course, to curtail any threat in the most expedient manner, with 'enough gun' - but what combination of diameter, velocity, and expansion constitutes 'enough gun'? What other factors, such as bullet placement, factor in?

It's obvious that everyone here has given the question serious thought, and just as obvious that their conclusions have been parallel. What I have noticed, though, is that while most thought here has been relevant, it has also been limited to the immediate encounter, disregarding the aftermath.

A little history, if I may: A century ago, the military adopted the .45 - because the .38cal/9mm round was ineffective against the drugged, 'emotionally charged' muslims we were at war with. After almost eight decades, a political decision was made to go back to 9mm/.38cal (look up 'Pershing missiles in Italy). Another century, another war with 'emotionally charged' muslims, and the handgun of choice for those military operators requiring handguns calls the .45 out of retirement - because under the circumstances it is effective, and the mousephart nine is not.

That said, a return to the topic: You may not make a habit of encountering drug-crazed individuals bent on your elimination on a daily basis, but such event may occur. When and if it does, do you want to 'stop' the threat, or eliminate it as a threat? Given the current political climate, do you really doubt the propensity for the State to question your use of 'killer bullets' or the number of rounds you expend to neutralize the threat? Or that there is a good chance that you will be persecuted by being prosecuted? - after all, no prosecutorial reputations can be made prosecuting a corpse.

I contend that discussions on 'stopping power' of a given 'tool' or it's 'accessories' are fine discussion for an after-shoot discussion at the range, or for killing time at the gun shop, but have only slightly more validity than the anti's blaming an inanimate object for crime, and sidetrack the more relevant points. The most important factor in 'stopping power' is (believe it or not) 'gun control': The combination of confidence in your equipment and marksmanship, ability to function under the stress of an armed encounter, and the ability to place rounds downrange precisely where you intend them to go under any circumstances.

A smart man learns from his mistakes - a wise man learns from the mistakes of others. Using a firearm that's 'wrong' for you because of it's supposed 'stopping power', or using 'too much gun' for its supposed 'stopping power' is not only bad thinking, it can have disastrous consequences.

There are good minds with carefully considered opinions on this forum, some with 'practical' experience some with only theoretical, and I'd venture none in possession of 'The Ultimate Truth'. This could be a thread we might all learn something from, or at least have some questions answered on - or raise more. Anyone care to weigh in?

[VegasGeorge]

OK, I'll take a swing at it.

Everything HairyEyeball said seems right to me. The way I've come to see it is that shot placement is the most important element in stopping power.
That is to say, you first have to hit your target (usually center mass or head) before you can expect to stop the attacker. From that point, it becomes a question of how much energy is transfered from the bullet to the attacker, and what vital organs are damaged. There are a lot of statistics out there on both of those issues. We have ammunition available in all different configurations, small fast bullets, large slow bullets, small slow, large fast, jacketed, hollow point, frangible, etc., etc. It can be very confusing. In fact, I've given up on trying to reach any conclusion as to what's best.

I've fallen back to the concept of shot placement, and using the largest caliber handgun that you can shoot comfortably and accurately. I carried FMJ loads every day until recently. I've switched to JHP simply because I think there is less chance of a through and through penetration. I want my bullet to stay in the bad guy, and not go seeking other targets on its own. I know that there are arguments about hollow points expanding and being more likely to cause damage to vital organs. But, that wasn't the persuading factor for me.

[Bill of Rights]

My wife is a big fan of Antonio Banderas. Needless to say, this means she loves the Zorro movie he came out with a few years ago. In that, Anthony Hopkins, who was supposed to have been the original Zorro, took Banderas' character under his wing to teach him about being Zorro. Why am I saying all this? When asked what he knew about swordplay, his reply was, "Joo put the pointy end in the other guy." with a look that plainly said "DUH!"

Much of what we discuss regarding bullet size, bullet speed, jacketing, mushrooming, terminal ballistics, etc., is the finesse, the carving of the "Z" on various places, to include the back end of a soldier or two. All of that is "flash"-and of lesser importance. Shot placement is clearly the be-all and end-all of what we train for, and how we "put the pointy end in the other guy". The saying is that you cannot miss fast enough to win a gunfight, and this is equally true of peripheral or otherwise non-vital hits. A COM shot that doesn't hit either a major organ or a great vessel is almost impossible. To hit COM twice and not hit one of those structures with either shot approaches a miracle-for the BG!

With all that said, I want my rounds to deliver the maximum punch possible, and that will not happen if I create an exit wound.

I don't plan to miss, and I da*n sure don't want to do collateral damage by overpenetration. I'm still responsible for everything my rounds hit, and I take that responsibility very seriously.

Federal Hydra-shocks for my gun, thankyouverymuch.

Cogito, ergo porto.

Blessings,
M

[CA CCWInstructor]

Federal Hydra-shocks for my gun, thankyouverymuch.



Try the replacement round from Federal. It's called "HST"

[ColtM1911A1]

I'm going to try to state this as simple as possible without getting technical..

First, there is NOT enough punch (energy dump or whatever you wish to call it) in handgun calibers -- rifles are different -- to effect the bad guy to any extent (we're talking the major carry calibers here -- 9mm, .357 Sig, 40 S&W, 10mm, 45 ACP). What you feel in recoil to your hands is about what the target will feel to a lesser degree as the bullet enters and expands into his flesh...

We all agree that POI (point-of-impact) from your POA (point-of-aim) is critical -- you have to be able to hit the target and hit it as hard and as often as you can until the threat is ended. To do that we need a bullet that will penetrate to the vitals (and not over penetrate) and expand as large as it can at that 10-15" depth and hope this affects the bad guy both mentally (he gives up) and physically (he begins to bleed out and organs start to fail), and he STOPS what's he's trying to do to us or ours.

The bullets are out there that will do that for you through both hard and soft barriers, and the companies make them in the popular carry calibers -- these bullets are designed around penetration and use enough (not more) velocity (energy) to get the desired results. In other words:

THE AMMUNITION HAS ENOUGH VELOCITY (ENERGY) TO DRIVE THE BULLET WITH GOOD EXPANSION TO A PREDETERMINED DEPTH TO AFFECT VITAL ORGANS AND HOPEFULLY END THE FIGHT...

And, as a side note, it is always better to begin with the largest diameter bullet that can be controlled by the shooter -- the bullet will do the work, but you must be able to make the shot. Starting out bigger gives you a better chance after expansion to hit something vital and do more damage as a permanent wound made by the bullet itself...

Decide what caliber you shoot and hit with best, then buy the platform you are most accurate with, test the handgun for reliability, and buy the best state-of-the-art bullet for self-defense against soft, hard, or both type barriers...

I've said this for a long time now here and at other forums: buy Cor-Bon's DPX and Federal's HST Tactical (bonded) for hard and soft barriers, or Corbon's DPX, Federal's HST, or Winchester's Law Enforcement Ranger T for soft barriers only...

And that's my .02 cents worth...

[pioneer461]

There is absolutely no way that anyone can know exactly the nature of their future self defense situation, but I can almost guarantee it will not be how you envision it. You can not know if it will be one assailant, or six. You can not know if you will have decent cover, or if you will find yourself out in the open. You can not know if he, or she, will be pumped up on drugs and feels no effect from bullet hits. Heck, there isn't any way you can know if you will even be able to get a shot off. Sight alignment, proper stance, bullet grouping and similar concerns become less important when someone is shooting at you, or charging with a knife. If you are taking time to align your sights with a proper stance, that can be handy when shooting at paper targets, but by doing that you become a non-moving target.

One shot stops with pistols are largely a myth. There is no magic bullet that will work well in every situation. We all have our favorite ammo, but there is no assurance that my choice is any better than yours. Most modern, factory self defense ammo will work as well as any other. Pistols are handy tools to carry, and should be used if suddenly attacked, or to fight your way to your long guns.

I recommend against 9mm's in general, because I've seen them fail to solve the problem too many times. Nine millimeter ammo has improved recently and performs well in ballistic gelatin, but I prefer a bigger bullet.

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb294/pioneer461/Flags%20and%20Patriotism/Donttreadimages.jpg

[HairyEyeball]

ColtM1911A1 wrote:

First, there is NOT enough punch (energy dump or whatever you wish to call it) in handgun calibers -- rifles are different -- to effect the bad guy to any extent (we're talking the major carry calibers here -- 9mm, .357 Sig, 40 S&W, 10mm, 45 ACP). What you feel in recoil to your hands is about what the target will feel to a lesser degree as the bullet enters and expands into his flesh...

Ah, no - that would only be true if the projectile had the same weight and velocity as the firearm.

and pioneer461 added:

One shot stops with pistols are largely a myth.

These individuals may have experience that supports those opinions, if so I'd be curious to hear about them. Stated as blanket generalizations, though, my experience and observation render them unacceptable as any more than personal opinion. Based on my own experience, both with .357 semi-jacketed, hollow-point semi-wadcutter rounds from a S&W Model 28-2 and GI Ball from a 1911A1, it has been my observation (and opinion) that a single well-placed round is generally incapacitating, given adequate projectile size and velocity and accurate shot placement, if not immediately fatal...at least under those circumstances prevailing during my 'field experiments'. I stress 'generally' - I've seen exceptions, but (again, in my own personal experience, they have been rare enough to be 'exceptions'.

I think we all agree that shot placement is the primary consideration, which is why responsible armed citizens practice, keep facilities such as Gunsite, Front Sight, and Thunder Ranch in business, and practice. I think it may also be accepted that the 'rules' differ depending on the individual's circumstances: Military personnel are charged with eliminating armed threat, fulfilling the mission is paramount. Police are more 'accountable' for 'collateral damage' and function under more restraint. Armed citizens have less latitude, and are held to higher accountability.

To elucidate, a sworn LEO may empty a magazine into a violent criminal and face a 'professional' review, which may or may not adjudicate the action as 'justified'. An armed, responsible citizen may also empty a magazine into a violent criminal, but will almost certainly face legal charges for 'excesses'. Face them, not necessarily be convicted of them.

(Just adding fuel to the fire.)

[ColtM1911A1]

To make comments concerning the ability of said round to perform, one first needs to define what they mean by "one-stop shot". Are we talking the definitions set forth in Marshall's work, or do you have some other definition?

For me, this concept means little as I have never trained my students or myself to fire one shot then evaluate, and few encounters have the bad guy dropping in a heap unless a head shot or spinal column is hit accidentally happens. To gather information on 'one shot stops' means to gather information that is open to dubious conclusions. How about 'two-shot stops' - 'three-shot stops'. The laboratory is not the street, but it's information, at least, gives data of what one might expect from a given bullet design and the performance can be estimated...

To put the odds in your court (however small those might be when handgun performance is involved), one must first be able to hit what he's shooting at, carry a caliber/handgun that he can control and manipulate, choose a bullet design that will defeat soft, hard, or soft&hard barriers, and train. train, train. As long as the caliber chosen is one of the major recognized defensive calibers, the bullet design is what makes it effective, not the other way around...

With such low energies produced by the handgun platform, nothing can begin to approach centerfire rifle energies and terminal ballistics. But even in rifles, the bullet design determines it overall performance (a Nosler Partition is certainly a better design than would be FMJ for hunting)...

'Any action has an equal and opposite reaction' -- what you feel is about what you'll deliver to the bad guy, unless you have a rocket-assisted bullet with an engine that kicks in after it leaves the barrel. My point all along has been to select the best bullet design after considering the conditions you may encounter, and then (IMO) carry one of the larger calibers to take advantage of the wounding ability of expanded bullets -- you'll need all the advantages on your side considering handgun energies...

[pioneer461]

Hairy Eyeball wrote; "These individuals may have experience that supports those opinions, if so I'd be curious to hear about them."


My definition of a one-shot-stop, is the immediate cessation of aggressive behavior caused by one pistol bullet.

My experience to support that statement is 30 years as a cop, many of those years investigating homicides and non-fatal shootings. Bullets do funny things, and can not be counted on to perform as they do in ballistic gelatin. Certainly, one well placed shot that hits the central nervous system will most likely produce a stop, but too often there is no CNS hit and bad guys pumped up on speed or PCP, etc., keeps on coming despite multiple hits.

My opinion, based on my training and experience, your mileage may vary.

[ColtM1911A1]

Hairy Eyeball wrote; "These individuals may have experience that supports those opinions, if so I'd be curious to hear about them."


My definition of a one-shot-stop, is the immediate cessation of aggressive behavior caused by one pistol bullet.

My experience to support that statement is 30 years as a cop, many of those years investigating homicides and non-fatal shootings. Bullets do funny things, and can not be counted on to perform as they do in ballistic gelatin. Certainly, one well placed shot that hits the central nervous system will most likely produce a stop, but too often there is no CNS hit and bad guys pumped up on speed or PCP, etc., keeps on coming despite multiple hits.

My opinion, based on my training and experience, your mileage may vary.

Good post, pioneer461, and your definition matches mine except I would add 'one or multiple shots'...

[HairyEyeball]

ColtM1911A1 wrote:

'Any action has an equal and opposite reaction' -- what you feel is about what you'll deliver to the bad guy...

Perhaps if the firearm were the same weight, traveling at the same velocity, and applied to a similar cross-section...none of which apply. The angular momentum of both objects may be equal, but the 'felt recoil' and the 'felt impact' of the projectile vary greatly: If your statement were valid as expressed, the act of firing would be as incapacitating as that of 'stopping the bullet'.

Additionally, as others - most recently pioneer461 - point out, the object is to neutralize the threat. In some cases, that is accomplished by 'dissuading' an assailant, in some 'disabling' is necessary, in extreme cases it may be necessary to kill. In each case, external factors - 'reasonable' or not - intrude: Mac Marine will not be held accountable for expending 'X' number of rounds in neutralizing an enemy attack, but Joe Lunchbucket will face some rather pointed questions should he empty a full magazine of .45 JHP into the center of mass of one assailant.

There is universal agreement that shot placement is - or should be - the primary concern. That's why we practice, generally with those firearms we are most likely to use under 'extreme circumstances', and logically with the same ammunition. The intent is - or should be - to end the confrontation in the shortest amount of time possible, suffering the fewest 'consequences' possible, physical or legal. To the best of my understanding, at least, that would imply selection of the firearm and load with which the individual has the highest combination of comfort and confidence - including accuracy - that will neutralize the level of threat he may reasonably expect to encounter. Or, to give the 'short answer' to your question:

...one first needs to define what they mean by "one-stop shot". Are we talking the definitions set forth in Marshall's work, or do you have some other definition?

A 'one shot stop', as used in my previous comments, is the minimum necessary to cause an assailant to 'cease and desist' aggressive behavior. To further elaborate, in hope of avoiding misinterpretation: Under the 'normal' circumstances an armed civilian may reasonably expect to encounter, a minimal number of rounds will stop an assailant, whether or not it 'kills' him. Unfortunately, in today's litigious society, either outcome is fraught with 'legal' consequences, but that is food for another rant.

[Bill of Rights]

Perhaps if the firearm were the same weight, traveling at the same velocity, and applied to a similar cross-section...none of which apply. The angular momentum of both objects may be equal, but the 'felt recoil' and the 'felt impact' of the projectile vary greatly: If your statement were valid as expressed, the act of firing would be as incapacitating as that of 'stopping the bullet'.

Um... No... "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.", so the amount of force in both directions is the same. The difference is in the area of impact. If I hit your hand with a hammer, it's going to hurt, and it's probably going to break bones, but it's not going to penetrate through your hand. Alternatively, if I put a nail in between your hand and my hammer and apply the same force, the nail will penetrate, possibly all the way through. The area of impact is infinitesimally smaller with the nail or with the bullet than it is with the handle or face of the hammer or the backstrap of the pistol.

"Y'kinna change the laws o' physics!" (a bad parody of Montgomery Scott, Chief Engineer of the Federation starship Enterprise)

Blessings,
B

[HairyEyeball]

Don't see where there's a disagreement: Both sides of the equation balance, only the components differ. What you 'feel' on one end is attenuated by the mass and velocity of the firearm, and accentuated on the other by the mass and velocity of the projectile. The element of perception - the physical force you 'feel' - as you absorb the energy is vastly different. I understand what you're saying, I'm just of the opinion that your choice of wording is misleading.

At one end, the momentum transmitted to your hand is attenuated by the weight of the firearm and the surface area of contact between it and the hand. At the other end, an equal amount of momentum is concentrated in a much smaller area of contact, at a much greater velocity, resulting in the nervous system 'feeling' more pain (unless it is shocked to the point of effectively 'shutting down').

I'm just of the opinion that the term 'feel', as you use it in this context, presents a misleading concept. We agree on the principle, it's the expression of it that appears to be causing any misunderstanding.

[Bill of Rights]

Sorry I wasn't more specific, I was referring to your statement about the act of firing being as incapacitating as stopping a bullet. I should have said that, but I didn't. My error.

Blessings,
B

[HairyEyeball]

Not a problem - thought I was clear on the 'if' part of mass and velocity being equal (which they obviously aren't). Despite the fact that they apparently violated them with regularity, Lt.Cdr. Montgomery Scott was right: Ye cannae change the Laws of Physics.

That said, I intend to (again) remain on the 'shooting' side of the equation.

[pioneer461]

Something I have observed and studied, is the fact that people with the correct amount of drugs onboard, will not "feel" the impact of one or more bullets. It has been observed time and again on the streets, and I have read from reliable sources, that soldiers in combat, pumped full of adrenalin, sometimes don't "feel" the impact of bullets. The bullet(s) need to damage a support structure ( leg or pelvis bones ), or shut down the central nervous system ( head shot or spinal cord damage ) to put some people down right away.

Very large individuals, drug users, mentally deranged folks, and just someone moving toward you with a good head of steam, will not be stopped by bullets. I've even seen close range buckshot fail to put someone down immediately. I've investigated cases where a person continued agression, despite multiple major caliber pistol hits. In one case, a bad guy's heart had been exploded by a police .357 magnum HP, and he still managed to run over 500 feet before falling.

On the other hand, demonstrating the importance of developing a survival attitude, some folks including police officers, have received non-life threatening bullet wounds give up and sit, or fall down and die.

These experiences are one reason the police train to fire multiple shots in self defense situations. Double taps to the center mass, followed up with a head shot (when possible) if the first two don't do the job. We are trained to shoot until the threat has stopped.

Some of these situations I have seen first hand, others have been learned in training, including Caliber Press' Street Survival Seminars and publications. ( http://www.calibrepress.com/ )

Great discussion. 8)

At my side, day & night. S&W 457, .45acp.
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb294/pioneer461/Pistols/Guns019.jpg