Posts
I pulled this off the internet some time ago and do not recall the source, but it is interesting information. I believe it was created from information gathered by law enforcement. Perhaps you can confirm the data from another source and use it for your blog.
Regards,
Steve Lowe
Hi! Yes, it seems to be Marshall and Sanow's data. The link to their book can be found below. These are numbers taken of actual shooting incidents where they knew the ammunition used. They only took into account center of mass shots, disregarded limb shots that would have affected the study due to inaccuracy of the shot placement. I think its a good guideline to decide what caliber and brand to go by, also the projectile diameter, weight and speed.
FerFAL
Stopping Power
Top loads for each caliber
Brand Bullet Shootings One Shot Stops Percent Penetration
Federal 308 168 gr Match 112 110 98% 24.9"
Remington 223 69 gr JHP 40 39 98% 16.9"
Federal 357 Magnum 125 gr JHP 641 615 96% 11.1"
Federal 45 ACP 230 gr HS 173 166 96% 13.9"
PMC 30-30 150 gr SF 44 42 95% 19.6"
Remington 40 S&W 165 gr GS 146 137 94% 13.9"
Remington 45 ACP +P 185 gr JHP 77 71 92% 12.9"
Winchester 44 Magnum 210 gr JHP 71 65 92% 16.3"
Federal 357 SIG 125 gr JHP 24 22 92% 12.3"
Federal 9 mm +P+ 115 gr JHP 189 172 91% 13.9"
Winchester 41 Magnum 170 gr ST 61 55 90% 14.9"
Federal 10 mm 155 gr JHP 20 18 90% 12.4"
Speer 9 mm +P 124 gr GD 74 65 88% 13.6"
Winchester 30 Carbine 110 gr JSP 43 38 88%
Winchester 9 mm 115 gr ST 421 349 83% 13.7"
Federal 45 Colt 225 gr LHP 36 29 81% 14.9"
Winchester 38 Special +P+ 110 gr JHP 49 39 80% 12.1"
Remington 38 Special +P 125 gr GS 10 8 80% 12.4"
Winchester 44 Special 200 gr ST 70 53 76% 13.8"
Federal 380 ACP 90 HS 96 68 71% 9.4"
Winchester 32 ACP gr ST 151 99 66% 9.2"
Federal 38 Special 129 gr HS 77 50 65% 10.2"
CCI Stinger 22 LR HP 465 178 38% 7.3"
Winchester 25 ACP gr Expanding Point 204 55 27% 8.9"
BT = Black Talon GS = Golden Saber GD = Gold Dot
HS = Hydra Shok ST = Silvertip LRN = Lead Round Nose
SWC = Semi Wadcutter JHP = Jacketed Hollow Point FMJ = Full Metal Jacket
All data taken from Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow's book: Stopping Power: A Practical Analysis of the Latest Handgun Ammunition
.
17 comments:
Why worry too much about 1-shot stops...you usually have at least 6 rounds, and even with something as underpowered as a .380, 3 or 4 shots in the center of mass should do the trick. Of course, that's the problem isn't it - most people (even cops) can't reliably put 3 shots where they want them. ...better one well placed .22 than 6 misses with a .357.
I have seen/read so many of these "expert" comparisons. Here is another comparing 9mm vs. 40 vs. 45ACP.
http://www.greent.com/40Page/ammo/9/9mm-advoc.htm
That is a pretty interesting table My first impression is that it either uses cherry-picked data or there are some confounding variables that remains unaccounted for. I find it odd that some of the bullets which have a both higher velocity and higher mass (and thus momentum) give a smaller 1-shot stop percentage.
Although, those percentages are all so high as to make me wonder at the people who say nothing but a brain/upper spinal cord shot will stop somebody. Something tells me all of those hundreds of one-shot stops were not the result of perfect placement to the brain/spine.
Does the book contain more than a raw data chart, or does it contain data upon which a statistical analysis has been run? Processed data is a lot more useful than raw data, as long as the processing is honest.
These data are clearly meaningless. Sorry if that offends, but given the small number of supposed data points in each caliber/load combo, the odds of a linear relationship between the bottom end (.25 and .22) and the high end are so low as to make it unequivocally clear that the data are made up.
Here's a nice analysis:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm
Another here:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/afte.htm
Everyone is free to pick whatever they want from among the available loads, and believe whatever theories seem attractive. If bigger is better, get a 50 GI, I guess.
http://www.guncrafterindustries.com/model1_50gi.shtml
I prefer to stick with the fact that there's a survival anecdote for every load (i.e. someone got shot a dozen times and kept right on ticking) so this is all largely a silly discussion. I prefer the 9mm, in 147 gr JHPs, but I'm fine with the 45 ACP, too. You may differ.
Federal 357 SIG 125 gr JHP 24 22 92% 12.3"
Shouldn't that be 98%? Or am I missing something?
"I find it odd that some of the bullets which have a both higher velocity and higher mass (and thus momentum) give a smaller 1-shot stop percentage."
Just a thought: It goes straight through, the higher mass prevents breakup of the projectile when it hits softer objects? The lower mass projectiles break apart more readily and do more damage?
"One-shot stops" depend on a shock to the nervous system resulting in unconsciousness. I do not believe (nor do I think the data supports) the idea that it is necessary to shoot the central nervous system to shock the nervous system.
My experience is that there is no such thing as the idea that bullets just zip right through a target without doing damage. They have a smaller chance of damaging an artery resulting in a lower chance of death, but not a lower chance of nervous system shock. If bullets could just zip right through a target, we wouldn't use rifles with hard-nosed bullets (or they wouldn't be as effective as they are).
The .357 SIG math appears correct. 100(22/24)= 91.67
"My experience is that there is no such thing as the idea that bullets just zip right through a target without doing damage."
Nerveous system damage... seems more like the discussion is about shock waves, in which case the lessons from a U tuner apply? I wonder if it's related to how the funny bone works?
Sorry about the bad math qustion above = brain cramp, I guess?
The M&S "data" was not collected in a statistically rigorous fashion and as such is suspect at best and dangerously misleading at worst. Note that 115 grain loads are rated best for 9mm when analysis of the 1986 Miami FBI shootout clearly shows these loads are inadequate due to poor penetration.
The M & S "data" are misleading and outdated.
Here's a "Firearms Tactical" link to an archived copy of the FBI's own "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness" study, which debunks basically everything in the M&S study:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf
Additionally, numerous examples of people surviving (and NOT being stopped by) multiple hits with virtually every caliber show that "one shot stop" percentages are useless. If your life is in danger, keep shooting until the threat stops. End of story.
Actually Bones,the Miami incident is just one case, and that's much worse point of reference than analyzing over 100 separate ones. A 115 grain +P+ JHP will have a greater shock and is more likely to stop someone than a heavier and slower load.
Same thing is proven with 357Magnum loads, teh historic best load for stoping men is 125gr at 1400 fps, not heavier loads which may penetrate more but wont hve that same shock.
FerFAL
The Miami episode serves to demonstrate why statistical analysis is important. The only worry I have with 1 shot stops is whether a headshot with a .44 magnum will stop a 350ish pound boar hog that is charging (It does). Because unless I'm shooting a .44 magnum, I'm probably gonna shoot more than once. My only experience with "stopping power" is recorded elsewhere in this blog.
I do think the data presented by M&S is seriously flawed due to a lack of analysis and a lack of a coherent data gathering strategy (which means cherry-picked data). Raw data usually looks really good, but is essentially meaningless with regards to a comparison between the variables. That is a lesson I've had pounded into me so many times I think about it in my sleep.
That said, FerFAL is absolutely right when he brings up the point that kinetic energy (light and fast)shocks while momentum penetrates (heavy, and thus usually slower).
Guys, Miami showed that all the statistics and data in the world are useless if the bullet doesn't produce a stop. The FBI was using 115 gr ammo because the literature of the day was full of mythology and bullshit.
The M&S "data" is virtually meaningless because they did not use statistical sampling techniques. It's a collection of anecdotes, that's all.
For pistol rounds KINETIC ENERGY IS IRRELEVANT. No pistol round has enough energy to stretch soft tissues beyond their elastic limit. Pistols make a hole, that's all. The bigger and deeper the better, making penetration the primary consideration. (Think about it - bird shot imparts a lot of kinetic energy and makes a wide shallow wound - and does not stop reliably)
Rifle rounds (at rifle velocities) DO cause soft tissue tearing along the wound path creating a much larger wound.
Don't confuse pistols and rifles.
Here's some links to information collected on ar15.com and elsewhere.
Best handgun ammo:
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm
Wound ballistics:
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/AR15_Ammo_FAQnRules/index.htm#Wound%20Ballistics
The "shock wave" myth:
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/shock_wave_myth.pdf
What's wrong with wound ballistic literature and common misconceptions:
http://www.rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html
Guys, read this stuff like your life depends on it.
The data is only somewhat helpful. Shot placement is understood as the most important factor. I like the advice of a tank Sgt. Shoot until it changes shape or catches on fire. To learn more about what is effective in hunting situations, where the goal is a quick and humane taking of game, check out the extensive writings of Chuck Hawks. It's much like the choosing tires for your car. For optimal performance, different tires are better for different driving conditions for a particular vehicle, but of course, if the driver is lousy, it won't matter much anyway.
a
Hydrostatic shock at 3000 fps from a 5.56mm or 7.62mm rifle bullet is certainly a different consideration than a similar mass pistol projectile at 1000 fps. I wonder if any researcher has investigated the "hydrostatic shock curve" for both handguns and rifles and compared results? Perhaps what we have is a skewing of (individually) accurate information for different classes of weapons?
I've always wondered whether the +P+ 100 GR truncated cone 9 MM (specialty round - 1500 fps) had more "stopping power" than the 147 GR HP's at 1000 fps. Perhaps in the lower velocities, heavier is better, and as you move up in velocity, mass becomes less critical? But what is that curve? Does it start at 1350 FPS, or 1700, or 2200? And what is the contribution to lethality compared to mass at lower velocities?
It would seem we have confirmed conflicing information even in this age of quantatitive statistics.
So we can all agree that a 1 oz 12 gauge slug at 1000 fps is more lethal than any pistol, as long as the point of impact is center of mass. 3000 foot pounds of energy is hard to live through. Heck, it sure hurts my shoulder to fire lots of them!
Here is my understanding, for what it is worth. "Stopping power" is the capability of a bullet to disrupt nervous system function enough that somebody loses consciousness.
The variables that I can identify are shot placement, projectile shape, projectile velocity, and the mental state of the person being shot. It takes a lot more to shop somebody who is juiced up on methamphetamine (or adrenaline) than it does to stop somebody who is at a resting state.
No, there is not an equation to accurately predict the effects of a specific round, with a specific placement, in a specific type of person, in a specific mental state. To develop such an equation would require some very illegal lab testing because the historical data is insufficient to account for all of the variables.
What I can unequivocally state is that I have been rendered unconscious for at least a few seconds (I think I lost about 1 minute of memory) by a shot to my abdomen from a handgun (did not hit my spine, but did hit my left Iliac crest). This incident makes me reject the idea that a person cannot be stopped except by a direct hit to the central nervous system.
With that said, this discussion is almost purely academic. The standard practice is to shoot until there is no longer a threat.
Anonymous said:
"But what is that curve? Does it start at 1350 FPS, or 1700, or 2200? And what is the contribution to lethality compared to mass at lower velocities?"
What, no one reads? Kinetic energy, "shock," all this stuff is silly, unscientific crap published endlessly in gun rags. Go back and read the links to firearms tactical!
Why is self-defense supposedly so different from hunting? When a whitetail or a hog drops DRT (Dead Right There) the bullet or a fragment thereof disrupted the upper spine or the brain. Any other hit (short of splitting the animal into chunks) and it RUNS AWAY. This is true if you hit it with a .410 slug, a 500 S&W, or a 7mm mag.
Guys that fixate on "hydrostatic shock" are just buying the snake oil used to lube people into buying some exotic "superbullet" or the newest cartridge/lightning bolt (9x23, .357 Sig, 9mm Win Mag, etc.). My personal experience with the 9x23 reinforced this view.
Honestly, I'm unchecking updates on this thread because of the silliness quotient of the comments (and the topic as a whole).
@Anon
The problem is that your viewpoint isn't established in any scientific way either. Both sides have a large mass of anecdotal evidence that they like to quote as if it is scientific. Did you not read my post? I was rendered unconscious by a handgun that did not hit my spine or brain...that incident alone refutes your position that a brain/spine shot is necessary to stop somebody instantly.
You have your hugely unscientific sources, just as others do. You may with to remove your mouth from the kool-aid cup and listen to what others have to say. I did read your articles and they are about as silly as the original chart in this post. My own life experience makes that abundantly clear.
The system involved is too complicated for us to address the issue in any definitive way and we are left with only anecdotal information (or pseudoscience BS). That is no reason for you to be demeaning toward people just because you have decided that you are right and therefore everybody else is wrong.
"My personal experience with the 9x23 reinforced this view"
Which is?
I thought the benefit of 9x23Win or any of the super 9's was the same difference between .357Mag and 9mm Luger.
Post a Comment