Stopping Power

[Alamo]

I was always told to use the largest caliber that I could shoot properly/ accurately. As the article says, it's all about the physics of it... all other things being equal, more kinetic energy = more "stopping power" (as defined in the article).

Although the argument rages about the exact mechanism by which the bullet "stops" the subject, I heard somewhere (maybe the more medically inclined can confirm or deny) that it's the sudden catastrophic drop in blood pressure which causes all power to go out of the muscles and the target to fall into it's own footprint (no BP, no physical activity).

In some cases, there seem to be additional hard to quantify factors involved. Similar to other incidents related here, I heard from my uncle about how he shot a medium sized white tail head on through the torso with a .30-06. It took off, leaving a blood trail 10 yds wide and 100 yds long. When he caught up to it, it didn't have a single drop of blood left in it and it's body cavity contained nothing, no lungs, no heart, nothing recognizable... just jello.

In any case, I personally wouldn''t depend on accurate marksmanship in a gunfight (though I am a better than average shot). I carry 230 gr +P Ranger Talons in my compact XDm .45 because, like horseshoes & hand grenades, they will do the job from "close enough" (it's also why I have chosen the .308 platform over the .223). In fact, studies show that it's not optimal shot placement that will save you (good luck getting them to stand still so you can shoot them properly)... the #1 factor in surviving a gun battle? The ability to recognize and properly utilize cover.

[beachmaster]

He does not mean a miss as in a miss of the target, but as a horseshoe or hand grenade, if you are able to put a round near a vital organ, most likely the perp will go down. He isn't simply stating (I believe) that he realizes in combat you dont get to pin point exactly what you hit, you hit what opportunity gives you, with the best projectile you have, as many times as possible.

[blue109]

I think if you took 100 different shoot scenarios and reenacted them EXACTLY with 45 and then with 9mm, you would get the same results with either round.

[StainTrain]

 

please explain the part about if you denounce marksmanship as a necessary skill of winning gun fights. 

Marksmanship is very important and should not be dismissed.  If you are a crappy shot on a flat range with zero stress, your ability to make hits on any size target will diminish greatly in an actual shooting...especially a target that is making great strides to shoot you or avoid your shots.   

 

if you are able to put a round near a vital organ, most likely the perp will go down.

A lot of Trauma Nurses, ER Doctors, and people who shoot people will disagree with this.  The human body can take a lot of wound channels.  I mean a lot and still be a lethal effing beast.  I suspect you already know this, but it is worth repeating for those that like a lot of action television shows. 

 you hit what opportunity gives you, with the best projectile you have, as many times as possible

Yes.  I agree with this.

[Microgunner]

Larger projectile at higher velocity = more energy. More energy = larger temporary wound channel. Larger temporary wound channel = more tissue damage. Ergo: more energy = more potential stopping power.

[planeflyer21]

Larger temporary wound channel = more tissue damage?

 

where do you hear that from?

 

Here is one source:  

[Alamo]

Beachmaster has it right. I am not invalidating marksmanship or it's practice.... I said I am personally not depending on my ability to pinpoint shoot in a gunfight.

Study actual gunfights, trained LEOs only have a hit percentage of about 15-20% at POINT BLANK range. Although the requirements are not awfully stringent, they are required to qualify periodically and have trained extensively for just those types of situations. If you have trained and practice regularly, you might expect to have similar numbers.

[blue109]

I agree provided you put your rounds where they are supposed to go.

what I'm saying is...different shot placement aside....the exact same conditions recreated...the exact same shooter...the exact same target....the exact same impact point...id expect the same result between quality 45 and quality 9mm ammo. there are always variables outside of caliber that contribute to these shootings. ill continue to carry my little bullets because I know I can recover from the recoil faster than I could with my xd45 or my ported xd40. I can get more bullets out in less time, and in my mind that will make a bigger difference that the energy advantage of the larger round. if I ever make the decision that using my handgun is necessary, I plan on squeezing until that target stops moving. and probably a few after to be sure.

[beachmaster]

"Knock down power" is not the ability to physically knock a person down, or send him flying across the room Hollywood style.

There is a formula for "knock down power" "stopping power" or whatever else you want to call it, and it is much more complicated than the normal kinetic energy that we often see. In fact, kinetic energy can be a bit deceptive...

This is why you can shoot a steel plate with more kinetic energy than a 45, and the plate wont go down, but the 45 will knock it over. This is why a 45/70 round, lobbed through the air like an artillery shell, even a 1000 yards, would still take a buffalo down.

If I can find the formula, I will. But this is all much more complicated that the usual 9mm vs 45acp debate goes.

I for one do not believe if you took 100 9mm shootings and EXACTLY replicate every other variable, you would end up with the same results. I do not believe the capabilities of 45 and 9mm at close range are as close as many would lead you to believe.

I do not believe 50 cent would be alive if he were shot 9 times with a 45 of similar design to the 9mm that shot him (ball vs ball, hp vs hp)

We often hear how far 9mm has come... this statement is odd, because it seems to signify that 45acp has developed less...

Often, to find the best use for a particular projectile, you can look at its original purpose.

30-06- killing people

308- killing large game

556- killing gophers

45- killing people from a handgun

9mm- killing people from a sub machinegun

So, if I have to pack something every day, it will be .45 or larger, depending on my environment, and my resources.

If you give me a sub machinegun to clear a house... well then so be it. I would still choose something else personally.

9mm is popular for one main reason. The govt wants you to think that it is great. Why? Because they want to use it. Why? Because its cheap to buy, and requires less training, as it is really easy to shoot (aka its cheap) the failure rate of 9mm is ridiculous, from ball to hp. But the "FBI" statistics, which seem to change depending on what source you look at, dont show it. I wonder why?

And the army is moving away from it. In fact, there is an army medic who has posted a blog about the hundreds of local national wounds he has treated, and I believe he states that a 9mm or 556 has NEVER in his experience, been responsible for the death of a patient alone. He said he even treated a point blank negligent discharge to a guys head, and the dude survived.

What does that mean? Carry as much gun as you can afford to carry. Not financially, but size, weight, and depending on your circumstances, power. (Too much over penetration can be a bad thing)

[beachmaster]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/10/daniel-zimmerman/medics-advice-shoot-heaviest-rifle-round-shoot-can-hit-shoot/

[Microgunner]

Larger temporary wound channel = more tissue damage?

 

where do you hear that from?

Why every good ol boy knows a bigger rock makes a bigger crater in the mud and a bigger rock throw harder makes an even bigger crater.

Are physics different in your universe?

[Microgunner]

PS who's talking about knocking them down with kenetic energy? Everyone here knows that's movie stuff. We're simply talking tissue damage which common sense tells us more is better than less, if we're not the receiver.

[StainTrain]

All these rounds will kill you. Provided that you hit where you are aiming.

The large wound channel expedites exsanguination. The 45 vs 9mm is a waste of time. Both are very lethal and both have had people survive multiple shots. The new 9mm is no slouch and performs very we'll not because the gov wants to use but because of velocity and technology. FBI/BRF (ballistics research facility) isn't cooking the books just to change over to 9mm. The FBI carries .45 (1911 and Glock 21). 40 and 9mm (Glocks and Sigs).BRF just provides performance data they have nothing to do with procurement. The newer 9mm performance mimics the 40

Carry what you will train with and what you are comfortable with.

Edited November 20, 2014 by StainTrain

[392heminut]

Study actual gunfights, trained LEOs only have a hit percentage of about 15-20% at POINT BLANK range. Although the requirements are not awfully stringent, they are required to qualify periodically and have trained extensively for just those types of situations. If you have trained and practice regularly, you might expect to have similar numbers.

BS! I was a firearms instructor for my department for over 14 years and LEO's for the most part DON'T train extensively. A large majority of LEO's only shoot their pistols when they have to, which is at qualifications. I've been involved in action pistol competitions for around 30 years and in a department of about 30 sworn officers I only managed to get ONE other officer interested in competition. There are some really good shooters in law enforcement but the majority are not and really aren't concerned in becoming better as long as they can shoot a passing score at quals. If you do the research you'll find that statistically civilian shootings have a higher hit percentage than law enforcement shootings. Civilians that train WILL have a higher hit percentage than the law enforcement averages.

[planeflyer21]

BS! I was a firearms instructor for my department for over 14 years and LEO's for the most part DON'T train extensively. A large majority of LEO's only shoot their pistols when they have to, which is at qualifications. I've been involved in action pistol competitions for around 30 years and in a department of about 30 sworn officers I only managed to get ONE other officer interested in competition. There are some really good shooters in law enforcement but the majority are not and really aren't concerned in becoming better as long as they can shoot a passing score at quals. If you do the research you'll find that statistically civilian shootings have a higher hit percentage than law enforcement shootings. Civilians that train WILL have a higher hit percentage than the law enforcement averages.

 

We find that continuously...agencies only pay for the minimum state-required training/qualification, and most line officers feel they shouldn't have to train with their OWN funds beyond that.  

 

We attempted to bring in retired SWAT trainers into our instructors program.  After a few months of "Why do we need/why would we want to train people to do that? We never did that on SWAT/LE," we parted ways. 

 

Limit your training if you wish but the more you have, the more likely YOU will be the one returning home at the end of the day.

 

The rip crews and cartel hit squads are training ALL THE TIME.

[blue109]

at my job we use to qual twice a year and always got free practice ammo. our trainer was a gun guy and knew what he was doing. we use to have friendly range sessions on weekends. fwd to now...one qual a year. our "trainer" is at hq 2 hours away and only shows up to count our targets. if we beg and plead we get 100 rds of practice ammo per quarter. I don't even bother since.they have made it a pain n the ass to even sign our pistols out over a weekend. I DO NOT feel safe with most of the guys I work with.

as long as expenses stay low the douche behind the desk gets his bonus.

Edited November 20, 2014 by blue109

[Alamo]

BS! I was a firearms instructor for my department for over 14 years and LEO's for the most part DON'T train extensively. A large majority of LEO's only shoot their pistols when they have to, which is at qualifications. I've been involved in action pistol competitions for around 30 years and in a department of about 30 sworn officers I only managed to get ONE other officer interested in competition. There are some really good shooters in law enforcement but the majority are not and really aren't concerned in becoming better as long as they can shoot a passing score at quals. If you do the research you'll find that statistically civilian shootings have a higher hit percentage than law enforcement shootings. Civilians that train WILL have a higher hit percentage than the law enforcement averages.

I'm guessing that as an instructor, very few people posses "extensive" training by your standards. :) I'm not calling into question that civilians probably shoot better than police, I'd be interesred to see the actual figures about how much better... the figures I've seen relate to how civilians shoot the WRONG guy less than police, not how their accuracy is better.

[392heminut]

A 50 round qualification course shot quarterly (if even that often) is not extensive by anybody's standards! That is the extent of a majority of police officers' training.

[beachmaster]

You know what is sad, is that is how the army has become too. :/ we spend a lot of time saying "pew pew" and there are so many rules during a live fire that you cant learn anything.

Corruption always starts at the top. We are in a bad place.

[392heminut]

From what my son tells me the Corps is pretty much that way too Beach. He says they only shoot once a year to qualify. He burns up quite q bit of ammo when he's home on leave to make up for that, and I make sure the ammo is there for him to shoot!

[blue109]

AZ. I am not LE.

[98Z5V]

The only thing about "stopping power" that I will add is this:  You cannot park someone permanently, in the very position where they stand or sit, unless you make a CNS or T-Zone hit.  Period.

 

If you do make the CNS or T-Zone hit, they will never, ever move again.

 

If you can't make shots like that on a flat range, you'll never be able to make those shots (intentionally) under stress. 

 

Even if you can make those shots on a flat range, you probably won't be able to (intentionally) make them under stress.  You need to gain proficiency on the flat range, and hone your skills with stressors included into your training. 

 

You might get lucky, though - even a blind monkey finds a banana once in awhile...  <lmao>

[Robocop1051]

Tom's on it. CNS CNS CNS CNS CNS... Need I say more?

The loss of the majority of your brain and all of you torso encapsulated organs will still not prevent you from wreaking indescribable havoc and mayhem in a very short amount of time. Add some creatively cooked up synthetic stimulants, and shit just went into overtime.

If center mass fails to stop... and the CNS proves too difficult to locate with a high velocity lead pill... The only other way to park their ass is a large bone contact.

"2 to the body, 1 to the head" has been modified to include a third phase follow through of "and 2 to the pelvis". Anyone that's seen a bone shot knows.

[blue109]

I always go for the Dick shot first....;)

[beachmaster]

kind of like the "a bigger rock throw harder makes an even bigger crater." is gun babble from the 1980's gun magazines. when they would shoot a hollow point into modeling clay making a dramatci crater and claim that this is what happens inside the human body.

 

1. humans are not made of clay

2. human tissue can expand and contract with out damage :ask any woman who has been pregnant.

3. their might be minor tissue damage from a temporary wound cavity at handgun velocities but not enough to merit the inclusion in this discussion

4. if you want damage from a temporary wound cavity you have to have rifle velocities

5. your .45 or any pistol cartridge will not equal a 5.56 or a 308

The human body may not be like clay, but comparative data can still show a difference between two things. If i want to see if hitting a vehicle with a car or truck will do more damage, so I run into a brick wall, and one leaves a giant crater, and one a small dent, I can extrapolate which does more damage.

I would also say that the mortality rate of women giving birth would be exponentially higher the longer medical attention is not available. Clearly some women can just give birth, and i am sure some people can just get shot. But at the same rate, if every shooting happened in a hospital bed, our ideas about what would be effective would be a bit different, as the mortality rate would be much more similar to that of giving birth.

I about ripped my mom in half when I came out. She was in the marine corps, and she didn't get an epidermal. (Sp?) So she had to suck it up. I am sure being shot might have been somewhat similar for her in certain conditions, and in either scenario, without medical attention she would have died.

Skin can only stretch so far. Some further than others. There are a lot of variables, to include chemicals, adrenaline, mission, etc. But I want an effective caliber, and if I want to see which caliber is more effective, shooting into some sticky mud/ clay in the ground isn't a bad way to compare. It doesn't have to be perfectly related to the body to be relative as far as comparing damage goes.