[Deputydave]

Greg Elifritz is just Marshall-Sanow version 2 with a smaller and less well documented data base.

Ellifritz, Marshall & Sanow have done us no favors.

Agreed. M&S was, at best, junk science. That's why it was debunked decades ago.

 

[Deputydave]

Those were two excellent resources in their day.

As I and others have mentioned already, their 'study' was, at best, junk science. Been debunked for decades. Same as kinetic energy dump, ballistic wound theory and all the other nonsense over the last 30 years.

Not really. I have no reason to believe that Marshall and Sanow didn't start their research with the best of intentions, but they had to realize early on that there were far too many variables at play in a "one shot stop" to render any meaningful conclusions. I seriously question how they got reportedly got their data in the first place.

I detailed, in depth the problems I had with their 'study' here 20 years ago. Sadly, all the earlier posts from that era are gone now. In short, problem number one was their criteria. Supposedly only unobstructed, frontal torso shots were considered where the individual was incapacitated within 10 feet. That's an issue because it is extremely common for gun shots to go through obstacles, like limbs and/or from odd angles. Secondly, it didn't include the weapon the person shot was using. So if it were an edged weapon, collapsing within 10 feet of getting shot may be a 'stop' whereas the bad guy having a firearm and being able to return fire before supposedly collapsing wasn't factored into the equation. Thirdly, they were very secretive about their source material citing much of it was confidential. That's a problem because shootings that are investigated by the police eventually become public record. They don't normally keep shootings classified. So that was a red flag. There were other red flags with their study but it's been so long since I even thought about this study I've forgotten them. Unfortunately, there are still folks that see this 'study' referenced and think of it as factual information rather than seeing it for what it really was...tripe.

 

[Deputydave]

Guess you didn't see any of the videos/studies addressing"stopping power" as a myth.

I've known 'stopping power' was a myth for over 30 years. The OP was presented for informational purposes and discussion. Did you have some point to make?

 

[Deputydave]

I guess stopping power just isn't a politically correct term.

I've always considered it a gun rag term. Right up there with kinetic energy dump', 'one-shot stop', 'knock down power' and 'ballistic wound theory'.

 

[Deputydave]

Nothing wrong with those terms, it's just that some misinterpret them, don't understand them, take their meanings or values to ridiculous extremes trying to discredit them.

There is a lot wrong with those terms. They make the uninitiated think they have a basis in reality. They do not. OSS was debunked decades ago. So was 'Wound Ballistic Theory'. The creators of both those pieces of junk science were members of GT years ago, haven't seen them around for more than a decade thankfully. WBT was the worst. That clown created multiple account and would stroke his primary account with all his secondary accounts. Got caught, got banned. Then he'd come back with a different screen name and get banned again. This happened multiple times till he was finally gone completely. Also would reference a wiki page as scientific source material until it was discovered he created the page out of thin air. All the usual nonsense like 'your heart stops if the kinetic energy of the round exceeds 500 fpe'. And I and others have shown where OSS was debunked and discredited multiple times here and on other forums. So there are no ridiculous extremes in trying to discredit them, the ridiculous extremes are in trying to defend what was debunked a decade before GT even existed.

And the danger is a newbie believing this trash and becoming a velocity junkie rather than choosing a caliber they can control quickly and accurately under stress along with a round that will reliably penetrate to a vital.

 

[Deputydave]

And thanks for proving my point with "your" ridiculous heart stopping at 500 ft lbs of energy factoid, I had not heard that before.

Well, no actually. My point was proven, you're just not understanding that fact. The '500 fpe factoid' wasn't MY ridiculous tidbit...it came from your religion i.e the velocity junkie school of myths. Do you not read a post with the intend to understand it? Seriously. Wound Ballistic Theory, which was a derivative of kinetic energy dump theory put that ridiculous factoid out on the forums like 20 years ago. And of course it was thoroughly debunked and discredited along with all of their other junk science. So I really don't get why you think that's a point for 'your side' when it's another example of how silly 'your side' gets with trying to prove that which was disproved a decade before GT was even an idea.

Again they all are real each and every one very much real. The only question is to "what degree"

This is America and you're welcome to believe whatever you want to believe. But no, Wound Ballistic Theory isn't 'real', not even to one 'degree' unless you're going to consider it a 'real' debunked piece of pseudo science. Same with kinetic energy dump theory and all of that ilk. Stop repeating everything you see someone else post.

The only things that need discredited are ridiculous extremes.

Well, once again, they have been for decades. Yet some people (you) still hold onto them for dear life as if it will make them true.

 

[Deputydave]

Exactly... at least for hand held weapons nothing is 100%, but that does not mean some are not better than others.

Long guns are not 100% either. And while we all like to believe that a .44 is better than a .22 the real test is actually proving it. I'm not saying that a .44 isn't better than a .22...what I'm saying is that proving it is quite another matter. Because someone can demonstrate that a .44 creates a bigger wound channel, does more damage and whatever but then we have people that you can't talk to because their dead from a .22 shot and there are people you can talk to that got shot with a .44. The whole thing just has so many variables. And the definition of 'science' is what can be tested, repeated, verified and falsified by more than one observer. And obviously gun shot wounds are not something that can be tested, repeated etc on living persons and even if it could (God forbid) there are still to many variables to consider. The classic 350lb man killed with one shot of .22 while a 130lb man took 7 rounds of 30-06 to put down. Sometimes it just doesn't make sense. However, it does go a long way to disprove all that some folks like to spew out i.e. energy dump.

Which is why the standard is a round that penetrates deep enough to hit a vital spot, can be controlled and can offer fast, accurate follow up shots.

 

[Deputydave]

And to be clear, the extreme examples were by design to show just how far the pendulum can swing. And both example were actual shootings. The 22 example a police investigated homicide and the other Sgt. Hathcock. And again, not suggesting a 22 is ‘better’ than a 44 but in certain situations it obviously could be.

And this leads to the velocity is important argument of the velocity junkie. If a 30-06 can have multiple failures it becomes obvious that velocity, even from a rifle, is not an absolute. Much more so in a handgun.

At one time I was a velocity junkie like Rail. If I found a round went 1300 I wanted one that went 1350. If I found that I then wanted one that went 1400. I was a rookie then and that was before I became an instructor and participated in ballistic testing. I became much more educated on the subject of terminal ballistics along with many case studies and interviews.

 

[Deputydave]

And that is why some researchers used to only look at incidences where one round hit... and did it achieve a stop.

It needs to be pointed out that the incidents that these 'researchers' cited came under scrutiny for reasons I detailed earlier in this thread. They may have happened, they may not have happened or they may have been 'embellished' to lean towards a preconceived result.

 

[Deputydave]

I had a nice long post to you but then figured, 'why bother'? I and others have explained the facts to you repeatedly and you still default to 'energy' as being a factor of wounding for handguns (above more important factors). So you are free to believe as you wish, I don't have to shoot with you or rely on you so it really doesn't matter to me what you believe.

 

[Deputydave]

OK. How about asking Mas here at GT if he 'embellished'....

Feel free to ask him if you like. Since he was not the author of OSS it really wouldn't apply. The reasons the original authors of OSS were discredited have been expounded upon for decades. The reasons their 'conclusions' have been debunked have also been expounded upon for decades. Having said that, if anyone wishes to still put stock in their conclusions they are more than welcome to do so.

 

[Deputydave]

Some believe in skill and training.
Some believe in magical bullets.

That's pretty much the entire thing in a nutshell.

 

[Deputydave]

Anybody rather defend their life with the 32 rather than the 357 Sig or 10mm?
Not me. Nowhere.

For someone with a disability and/or recoil sensitive the 32acp could be the much wiser choice. As long as the actual bullet penetrates sufficiently I'd rather have multiple 'lower power' rounds on target than one 'higher power' round. As an example, I'm pretty good with a 357magnum. But as good as I am, I'm even better with a .38 Special. Simply physics. I know I can put a full cylinder of .38's accurately on target in the time I could put two rounds of .357. I'd rather have 6 rounds on target than 2 rounds on target. Again, given that both have sufficient penetration to vitals. More rounds on target is superior to less even if the less is 'more' powerful. At least in as far as we're discussing service calibers. Someone will likely come along with the usual quip of 'just us a .22 then' even though a .22 generally isn't considered a service caliber. But then once again, for someone with a disability and/or recoil sensitive a .22 may be a wise choice.

 

[Deputydave]

Well if the goal is "better than nothing" that would qualify.
Perhaps a step up from the bottom? How about a Glock 19C - low muzzle flip, decent caliber.

In before ported guns aint for carry comment by someone with no personal experience.

I would suggest two things; first, someone needing to port a 9mm needs to spend more time in gym. Second, anyone having a ported weapon for SD has never been in a CQB situation firing the weapon in tight and below eye level without eye protection. Ported pistols are fine for range toys. And yes, I’ve shot ported pistols.

In terms of caliber, whatever you can handle quickly and accurately under stress is the best caliber. Whatever round is reliable in your pistol and provides adequate penetration is the best.

 

[Deputydave]

Look at your first quote. Then ...
I suggest an alternative to lowest performing caliber, like ported 9mm (for example)

Which as I and others have stated, is a very bad idea for a SD pistol and simply not needed in a 9mm. To be honest, it isn't really needed on a 40S&W or 357sig either. If someone (you) isn't capable of making fast, accurate follow up shots with a particular caliber the solution isn't silly gimmicks that can be detrimental in SD, the solution is going down to a caliber you can control.

You tell the person with disability or recoil sensitive to spend more time in the gym

So the question becomes; Are you being dishonest intentionally or do you lack reading comprehension? I spoke of someone having a disability and/or recoil sensitivity using a smaller/less powerful caliber in post #204. Ten posts later, #214, I addressed your comment on viability of ported pistols for SD. Two different posts, two different points. Trying to join the two is intellectual dishonesty at best. #214 was a general statement but had you in mind if you really need to port a 9mm pistol.

 

[Deputydave]

you are either missing my point or ignoring it.

I have neither missed your point nor ignored it. I addressed it head on. You took two different posts, on two different things, 10 posts apart and tried to weirdly join them together for some reason. That is intellectual dishonest and I have explained why, in detail. No insult intended but I did call you out for doing it.

And again, you clearly haven't read or understand the points I've made. Or, you are again deliberately being dishonest with your comment of 'enjoy your .32'. I never stated I had a .32 but stated, accurately, that it could be a good choice for someone with a disability and/or recoil sensitivity. So if you aren't going to read another members post for comprehension or if you can't honestly engage in conversation then you need to excuse yourself from the conversation.

 

[Deputydave]

I'm glad I'm not the only one shaking his head....

 

[Deputydave]

Uh huh

Anyway, back to the topic.

@Railsplitter or anyone that believes in the kinetic energy dump mantra;

I'll use Gold Dot since it is a popular and well tested brand of ammo. (I've done this before but never had any of the energy dump folks touch it). Source data is Luckygunner ballistic testing.

357sig = 125 grains for 13.2 inches of penetration with .67 inches of expansion @1375 fps for a total of 525 fpe.

9mm 124+P = for 16.8 inches of penetration with .52 inches of expansion @1141 fps for a total of 359 fpe.

So the 9mm achieved 3.6 inches of additional penetration. The 357sig expanded 0.15 of an inch larger and had 166 fpe extra. It should be noted that in most high capacity platforms the 9mm will have an additional 2 rounds of ammunition. As has been stated before, a trauma surgeon is NOT going to know the caliber of the bullet from the wound track in living (or dead) tissue. So the question becomes; is 166 fpe extra and 0.15 larger bullet superior to the extra 3.6 inches of wound track that the 9mm may have produced? If the trauma surgeon wouldn't notice the difference in the wound track, would the bad guy notice the difference of 166/0.15 or would he notice the extra 3.6 inches of penetration? The fact of the matter is that the bad guy is not going to notice whether it was a 9mm or a 357sig. He will only notice if one of the bullets struck something important.

And for anyone not wanting to read all 12 pages thus far, I don't blame you. In short, I don't dislike the 357sig caliber. In fact, I have three pistols that shoot that caliber and I like and enjoy them. I simply don't subscribe to discredited/debunked energy theories or discredited/debunked one-stop shot theories.

 

[Deputydave]

Quivering gel is not the same as living tissue. The fact that people are shot with rifles and don't go down is pretty substantial proof of that point.

The .38/.357 example doesn't mean very much either. It depends on shot placement, and even then it depends on the person shot. A difference of 300 fpe is pretty meaningless for handgun terminal ballistics. A fact confirmed by ammunition manufacturers and trauma surgeons. For example, the LAPD Officer shot through the heart with a 357magnum in the late 80's. Survived and returned fire with her issued 9mm killing the attacker. So there could well be shootings where the .38 stops the attacker and one where the 357 did not and vice versa. Again, 300 fpe is pretty meaningless in terms of terminal ballistics. However, you are welcome to present the peer reviewed study that demonstrates handgun FPE is a significant factor in wounding that is accepted in military/LE circles.