-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
10 year stopping power study
- Thread starter LCC
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Interesting. Glad I have my M&P15 and my shotgun, and my 9's, 45's, and my 38/357's. Don't think I'm in the market for a Judge, though.
The "conjecture" put in this study about the probable effectiveness of .410 pistols does not match the actual defensive shootings in Oklahoma using such weapons. Specifically, getting the assumed five buckshot hits with one shot is the rare exception. More likely, empty the gun and get one hit.
Also, most people who have come to our range with a Judge exhibit low marksmanship skills and don't seem to want to spend the money for extensive practice. The owner who uses it as a tractor gun and routinely shoots snakes with it learns to hit his target. YMMV.
Also, most people who have come to our range with a Judge exhibit low marksmanship skills and don't seem to want to spend the money for extensive practice. The owner who uses it as a tractor gun and routinely shoots snakes with it learns to hit his target. YMMV.
sigp220.45
US Veteran
Echo40
Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2017
- Messages
- 4,032
- Reaction score
- 7,822
Is there any point in watching this or is it just like all the other studies on "stopping power" which spends several minutes rattling off statistics with no meaningful conclusion save for the fact that, shock of shocks, bullets are potentially deadly when aimed at vital portions of the anatomy, so you can pretty much defend yourself with whatever you want to?
Honestly, I don't mean to be rude, but these so-called studies have been done to death and they all ultimately conclude with what any sensible person already knew to begin with; that shot-placement is the most decisive factor in a gun fight rather than caliber, velocity, or energy foot-pounds, so sometimes it gets old watching them expecting whoever posted the video to actually include some new information rather than just copy/paste statistics which have already been thoroughly compiled and analyzed ad nauseam over the years, without even bothering to so much as include their own opinions or preferences in the video for the sake of having an alternative viewpoint or basis for comparison.
Especially when the title is effectively click bait because the subject of "what is the best handgun caliber" is never actually answered.
Honestly, I don't mean to be rude, but these so-called studies have been done to death and they all ultimately conclude with what any sensible person already knew to begin with; that shot-placement is the most decisive factor in a gun fight rather than caliber, velocity, or energy foot-pounds, so sometimes it gets old watching them expecting whoever posted the video to actually include some new information rather than just copy/paste statistics which have already been thoroughly compiled and analyzed ad nauseam over the years, without even bothering to so much as include their own opinions or preferences in the video for the sake of having an alternative viewpoint or basis for comparison.
Especially when the title is effectively click bait because the subject of "what is the best handgun caliber" is never actually answered.
Last edited:
very possible that some of us aren't as enlightened as you, so find it interesting.
“Stopping power” for the private citizen is making that other fella’ decide that he’s got something better to do at the moment than screw with you. Nothing more, nothing less . . .
Whether you find this interesting/informative or part of the caliber war sideshow, the fact is, very few minds are changed. What would be interesting would be responses saying, "After reading this, I ditched my fill-in-the-blank for a shiny, new fill-in-the-blank." Haven't seen any like that yet.
.455_Hunter
Member
The micro-compact .22/.25/.32 that helps meet your primary criteria of not getting fired from work or not getting excommunicated from your church has infinite more stopping power than the high-capacity duty pistol that stayed at home.
In certain real life shots, the lack of penetration might make the difference between the wound that will incapacitate a dangerous and determined enemy or not. In certain real life shots, the lack of damage and the ability for a determined enemy to stay in the fight because he doesn't bleed fast enough can be dangerous.
That's why we judge cartridges, bullets, loadings on their objective qualities in their potential of performance. That is why terminal ballistics exists and why it is important. How well the round works when it is employed in the field. This is the most, if only, objective based scientific approach we can have towards this matter.
The raw statistics are useless, because there is not enough context. Where was the shot, how far did it penetrate, was it in line to penetrate a vital and failed to get deep enough, was it in a path where it would have never hit a vital no matter how well it performed, did it hit an artery but failed to cause good bleed out?
Without controls, there is no science or scientific analysis, the statistics are useless, or if anything dangerously inaccurate. A 44 Magnum hollow point through the large intestine is compared directly, 1:1 to a 22 fired directly through a heart, a 357 Magnum that killed a man dead with a well performing round that penetrated at deep angle to break the man's spine and incapacitate him decisively is compared 1:1 to a 32 ACP that barley wounded a man with a poorly aimed torso shot that got him to panic and give up the fight.
Making these results completely worthless at best, and dangerously misleading at worst. Poor performing rounds will look better through the lack of controls, and good performing rounds will look worse because the averages. All the while ignoring the mechanical aspects of what makes shoots fails or successes, what wins and loses individual, real world gun fights.
The poor performer that might have stopped an attack in another instance, may not work in another instance. One shot may be easier, another fight may be easier. That's why we go by the potential of the cartridge not some worthless average, or an apples to oranges comparison of gunfights and shots.
Junk science, pure garbage. Nothing but hot trash being sold as "authoritative science" when it is nothing of the sort.
That's why we judge cartridges, bullets, loadings on their objective qualities in their potential of performance. That is why terminal ballistics exists and why it is important. How well the round works when it is employed in the field. This is the most, if only, objective based scientific approach we can have towards this matter.
The raw statistics are useless, because there is not enough context. Where was the shot, how far did it penetrate, was it in line to penetrate a vital and failed to get deep enough, was it in a path where it would have never hit a vital no matter how well it performed, did it hit an artery but failed to cause good bleed out?
Without controls, there is no science or scientific analysis, the statistics are useless, or if anything dangerously inaccurate. A 44 Magnum hollow point through the large intestine is compared directly, 1:1 to a 22 fired directly through a heart, a 357 Magnum that killed a man dead with a well performing round that penetrated at deep angle to break the man's spine and incapacitate him decisively is compared 1:1 to a 32 ACP that barley wounded a man with a poorly aimed torso shot that got him to panic and give up the fight.
Making these results completely worthless at best, and dangerously misleading at worst. Poor performing rounds will look better through the lack of controls, and good performing rounds will look worse because the averages. All the while ignoring the mechanical aspects of what makes shoots fails or successes, what wins and loses individual, real world gun fights.
The poor performer that might have stopped an attack in another instance, may not work in another instance. One shot may be easier, another fight may be easier. That's why we go by the potential of the cartridge not some worthless average, or an apples to oranges comparison of gunfights and shots.
Junk science, pure garbage. Nothing but hot trash being sold as "authoritative science" when it is nothing of the sort.
7shooter
Member
Has anyone seen any study that improves on or contradicts Ellifritz ? IMHO this is still the best we have.
7shooter
Member
How would you do an empirical control group study ?
You can't. That's the entire point. Without it, you don't have science or a study. Just a meaningless bunch of numbers and averages that have no bearing on anything.
Besides, you missed the entire point of what was said. Mechanical understanding of the issue is more important than correlation and statistics. Understanding how bullets work, what incapacitates, why, and how, and how they all fail, is real importance.
Statistics and correlations only lead us to the real deeper understanding of the issue. They are not the final proof of anything, nor the most important part anyway.
Marshall and Sannow, and the rest like them, aren't "the best we have" they are absolute nothing with no meaning.
No meat is better than rotten meat.
Fishinfool
Member
Perhaps the only way to get real answers would be to set up a modern version of the Thompson / LaGarde testing originally done around the turn of last century on goats and pigs, only with better control and data collection. I doubt that would fly today with groups like PETA. Probably have a hard time getting enough human volunteers.
So, instead, we combine personal experience, what we have read or seen, personal likes and dislikes, and what passes for common sense when we pick a self defense handgun.
And the most effective choice ends up being simply having a handgun with you, and your potential attacker being so informed. Can't quote any specific statistics, but my "experience" (see above factors) after a long LE career, is that in the vast majority of cases, a potential attacker will beat feet when he becomes aware his intended victim is holding a firearm in his hand, and is willing to use it. Without a shot being fired.
The rare outlier is the thug who, for whatever reason, decides to risk death and continue the attack. That's when your willingness to use whatever you are carrying, to hit center mass, and to be willing to keep firing until the threat is down is what will save your bacon, with caliber and bullet brand becoming distant secondary considerations. JMHO.
Larry
So, instead, we combine personal experience, what we have read or seen, personal likes and dislikes, and what passes for common sense when we pick a self defense handgun.
And the most effective choice ends up being simply having a handgun with you, and your potential attacker being so informed. Can't quote any specific statistics, but my "experience" (see above factors) after a long LE career, is that in the vast majority of cases, a potential attacker will beat feet when he becomes aware his intended victim is holding a firearm in his hand, and is willing to use it. Without a shot being fired.
The rare outlier is the thug who, for whatever reason, decides to risk death and continue the attack. That's when your willingness to use whatever you are carrying, to hit center mass, and to be willing to keep firing until the threat is down is what will save your bacon, with caliber and bullet brand becoming distant secondary considerations. JMHO.
Larry
Echo40
Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2017
- Messages
- 4,032
- Reaction score
- 7,822
I still say that the best way to compile meaningful statistics on the overall effectiveness of various firearms cartridges would be to legalize the execution of registered sex offenders by firing squad.
Granted that most sex offenders range from scrawny wimps who can only overpower small children to huge misshapen blobs of flesh who immobilize their prey with their sheer girth, but at least it would provide a good baseline between two extremes, which tend to be what most folks who insist that only a select few cartridges are effective because apparently every attacker is 8ft tall, weighs over 300lbs, and wears multiple layers of leather and denim.
Granted that most sex offenders range from scrawny wimps who can only overpower small children to huge misshapen blobs of flesh who immobilize their prey with their sheer girth, but at least it would provide a good baseline between two extremes, which tend to be what most folks who insist that only a select few cartridges are effective because apparently every attacker is 8ft tall, weighs over 300lbs, and wears multiple layers of leather and denim.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2012
- Messages
- 3,328
- Reaction score
- 5,498
Not a terrible idea.
You would, however need a committee to decide which offenders would get which calibers.
I think the ACLU would object to execution via multiple pelvic hits with a .25 auto.
Hair Trigger
US Veteran
I enjoyed the video, the person who did the study obviously did some research and collated a lot of data, and I believe there is a good bit of validity in the statistics. HOWEVER......
There is data missing that can skew his results, that was not included, and would complicate establishing a valid comparison. One thing not included in the caliber comparisons (or at least not discussed), is the distance each was fired from to do X amount of injury or to be a fatal shot. Certainly, shot placement is a key factor, but is not an absolute. A shot to the thigh, severing the femoral artery, is just as lethal as a chest shot hitting the aorta. Surely, the aortic wound would kill faster, but both individuals shot would bleed out before definitive care could be provided. In a similar circumstance, a shot to a meaty part of the leg, without significant vascular injury, may not stop or disable someone, but the same shot, moved just enough on the leg to hit the bone, would fracture that bone and instantly stop the person from a further advance. A .22 to the head from two feet away would kill just as quickly as a .357 Magnum from 50 yards, most likely. Shotgun wounds are hard to quantify; A close-in shot, where the shot column has not spread more than an inch or so, is akin to a high-caliber slug, damage is local to a single area. Where the shot has room to disperse, hits are more remote from each other, and can do damage in multiple areas, either more or less significant than the single wound.
What I'm getting at is, there are many more factors involved than were explored in the video, and IMO, any comparative study on the lethality, wounding ability or stopping power of a firearm is almost impossible due to the almost infinite set of variables that present themselves in a shooting incident.
There is data missing that can skew his results, that was not included, and would complicate establishing a valid comparison. One thing not included in the caliber comparisons (or at least not discussed), is the distance each was fired from to do X amount of injury or to be a fatal shot. Certainly, shot placement is a key factor, but is not an absolute. A shot to the thigh, severing the femoral artery, is just as lethal as a chest shot hitting the aorta. Surely, the aortic wound would kill faster, but both individuals shot would bleed out before definitive care could be provided. In a similar circumstance, a shot to a meaty part of the leg, without significant vascular injury, may not stop or disable someone, but the same shot, moved just enough on the leg to hit the bone, would fracture that bone and instantly stop the person from a further advance. A .22 to the head from two feet away would kill just as quickly as a .357 Magnum from 50 yards, most likely. Shotgun wounds are hard to quantify; A close-in shot, where the shot column has not spread more than an inch or so, is akin to a high-caliber slug, damage is local to a single area. Where the shot has room to disperse, hits are more remote from each other, and can do damage in multiple areas, either more or less significant than the single wound.
What I'm getting at is, there are many more factors involved than were explored in the video, and IMO, any comparative study on the lethality, wounding ability or stopping power of a firearm is almost impossible due to the almost infinite set of variables that present themselves in a shooting incident.
Last edited:
for local trips instead of taking time to grab the 9mm.
The video is based on the Ellifritz study, and would be unrealistic to expect a deep dive in 10 mins, so just basic data points to consider.
Last edited:
