Defensive Carry banner

Stopping power = Trauma

11K views 69 replies 39 participants last post by  Buckeye63 
#1 ·
I'm approaching the topic of stopping power from a more common sense standpoint. First off, any projectile out of a firearm will kill if it hits something major like a COM organ (heart, lungs, liver etc), brain or central nervous system. The human body isn't exactly armor plated (we're wimpy compared to most animals of the same size) and any firearm can and have killed.

A standard FMJ projectile will act a lot like a BBQ skewer. It will drill a nice clean hole from entry to exit. FMJ 22LR, 9mm and most other rounds save .45 ACP (big and slow) will "skewer". And unless the skewering happens to be along the path of a vital organ or shatter an important bone (spine/hip), some people may not even notice they're shot. They may bleed out eventually but the wound would not be debilitating.

Now, take most of the major calibers designed to penetrate, expand and tumble within the body and the story changes. Those types of rounds cause trauma. Not so much like a BBQ skewer anymore but like a screwdriver driven into the body, and twisted and jerked around on the way in. I'll submit at this point that larger, faster moving and better designed (for expansion) rounds tend to achieve this effect better. Without naming calibers.

The trauma that a gaping, big and uneven wound causes would be what stops an assailant. Short of a hit to the vitals, there's no guarantee they'll stop, but trauma may cause the body to shut down or go into a state of shock whether or not a vital organ is hit. That would count as stopping power.

So a FMJ 10mm that "skewers" a nice clean hole thru an assailant will probably do close to nothing if it didn't hit a vital organ (at least nothing more than making a 10mm diameter hole). But a well designed high velocity expanding round of almost any defensive caliber (the slow but heavy .45 ACP being the only exception because it naturally pitches and yaws within human tissue) will cause trauma that will stop and incapacitate most human beings.

Feel free to discuss or add to this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
See less See more
#36 · (Edited)
Personal opinon here is I have seen many people having been shot with various calibers. Those shot with larger calibers got their attention a lot quicker. I have seen and was personally standing next to a man shot with a smaller caliber. He did not know he had been hit until told he was bleeding.

One of the videos I have demonstrates well the shock waves that go through the body as being shot with a 9mm and a .45acp, both using FMJ. I wish I could post that video on here. This was done using a gutted hog hanging from a bar. The shots were equally placed and the difference is mind altering.

The caliber wars rage on and will always do so. The fact is people try to justify what ever caliber, gun, holster or whatever they have simply because it is what they have or for many other reasons. A pathologist can offer training and experence with various autopsies and it is not going to change anyone's mind. Until they actually see something like the video I have, nothing is going to convence them otherwise. I can place just as many holes in something as quickly with a .45 as one can with a 9mm or .22. It is in training that alows one to hold on target.

I will agree though that any caliber is better than no caliber. A Glock is better than the finest custom gun if a Glock is all one has when they need it.

FWIW: The video was done with a man having never shot a .45acp before and a military trainer that was sold on the 9mm being the best ever. The trainer walked away saying the .45 damage changed his mind. I am going to spend a couple hundred dollars getting that vieo on to a DVD so I might be able to post it some way soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouisianaMan
#37 ·
Maxwell has a point an thats one of the reasons I carry 125gr JHP or 230gr XTP's I can hit with it an I will most likely never face multiple bgs in a long shootout. For the average guy going about his or her day the snub or any compact semi that reliably delivers a quality round should suffice.
 
#45 ·
I do not own a tablet and my phone is a flip phone. My phone has a camera but I have never used it. people tell me I can buy a VHS to DVD recorder at various stores but I have yet to find one.

Both my PC and laptop have DVD writers. How to get the video from a VHS tape to a computer so I can make a DVD is past my expertise. I was out of college before the handheld calculator was in use. I got my first computer 12 yrs ago while I was in my late 50's. There are still many things I cannot do on the computer. I know both PC and laptop have an extremely large amount of storage available so the only issue is getting the video onto a computer.
 
#60 ·
I've linked a video before of Dave Spaulding saying handguns' biggest asset is that they are portable, not that they are the best.
The best handgun is the one you can control and get back on target. He gives a very common sense explanation of different wound cavities and calibers. I think what he is trying to stress is training and training more. Here is that link again.

 
#47 ·
You are not even considering hyper static shock. Look at a high power rifle round. Even with a Fmj with a hit that does not hit a vital organ but causes either a brown out or black out. I will bring up a pistol caliber the 9mm that some people think is low on the power scale. Marshall Evans who has compiled the most known actions of gunshot wounds with his data shows that with a pistol round with light fast bullets 9mm the hyper static shock of course with good expanding bullets there has been bleeding on the brain even when hit in the torso. There are many factors that causes death besides hitting a major organ. And I agree with you that it takes time for some one to bleed out if not hit in an area that shuts down the body instantly. Thats why you see people trying to make handgun projectiles more lethal. If we see handgun velocities get to rifle velocities we can not handle them as well as a lower velocity projectiles. We as layman of velocities and projectiles will sit and ponder on this until we are all using Rayguns.
 
#51 ·
"Hyper" static shock? Never heard of it. Nor have I heard of "Marshall Evans"...Evan Marshall, though--I've heard of him, and his questionable science.

"Hydrostatic" shock is a dubious theory at best--that magical shock waves move through the blood vessels and shock the brain, causing shutdown.

There are far, far too many real-life shootings where this simply does not happen, even using lightweight, waprspeed bullets. Heck, it doesn't even happen with rifle bullets, which dwarf handgun rounds as far as velocity and energy; if the hydrostatic shock theory held any value, nobody would ever be able to walk away from a rifle wound--yet they do, all the time.

Additionally, the biggest proponent of hydrostaic shock (Courtney) also has said that it's important to use bullets that punch deep enough to get to vital structure...so, kinda seems like he hedged his bets as well.

You might want to do a lot more research into this subject.
 
#48 ·
Old adage "The pistol just buys you time to get to your rifle"

OK; kinda' joking as we don't always have access to the rifle.

Basic physics speak the truth; so I see little value in regurgitating what many here already know.
OK; it's fun to talk about; but sooner or later practicality should win the day and be foremost in our mind when the subject is self defense.

We all know and few will disagree, shots on target should be a prime concern.
Muscle memory in times of panic must rule the day.
Clear thinking while always not predictable can always be practiced in pre-stress training. Martial artists understand this concept.

If I carry a handgun for self defense, I am not necessarily seeking the so called "One Stop" magic bullet as I do not believe it exists in std caliber ammo.

That being said, be it 380...9mm..40 or 45 cal, ; ALL have the capacity to kill a human.

We all make a judgement call in what we carry; but without the training of the mind and body in a shooting scenario, I submit the caliber of the projectile is not of paramount importance. Now let's not be silly; I don't carry a CO2 .177 pellet pistol for self defense; and I doubt any here do wither.

I train for multiple shots on target..not one! 9mm..40..45 at typical self D distances will stop nearly anyone.
 
#49 ·
I don't have standing to offer "the answer." I appreciate the experience and insight posted already.

I've wondered about "psychological stops" and the 125g .357 Magnum. Does the massive flash and intense blast convince many recipients that they are indeed being shot at and should cease & desist?

The "carefully aimed vs. spray-and-pray" argument has a long history in military usage. Commanders (and logisticians) have often feared that troops would waste ammo faster than they could be resupplied. So, some resisted the breech-loader, the magazine rifle, the semi-auto, the auto, the lighter faster-shooting auto. Others held out for the magazine cut-off, the M14 selector-lock, the M16A2's 3-round burst selector. For all I know, Caesar or Genghis Khan worried that archers would waste arrows by shooting too rapidly, and Roman Centurions probably argued vehemently about the relative importance of speed, precision, and power.

Patton's famous comment about the M1 being the finest battle implement ever invented, showed a commander who explicitly valued rapidity of fire & GI's were taught to deliver "marching fire" for suppression. In WWI the MG was the infantryman's nightmare, and the German MG-42 of WWII scared hell out of GI's who felt overwhelmed by its rate of fire. Lots of psychological stops there. Many troops in Vietnam (and beyond) were taught to rely on firepower (even though they had generally trained in deliberately-aimed semi-auto fire). The 1960s-70s Marines & Army bickered over which type of rifle fire was more effective, just as their fathers had argued the relative merits of the '03 vs. the M1.

The rise of the Wonder-9's immediately followed Vietnam, and both past & current military experience had demonstrated that troops tended to fire fast, if & when they decided to fire at all. Experience seems to show that cops and civilians who "spray" are simply following a largely effective and widespread instinct of men in combat. So deeply rooted is this instinct that "fire discipline" has long been a major concern of armies, cops, and guys like us. Most argue for fire discipline, but it's attainable only by the very cool-headed.

I often cite Fairbairn & Sykes, who saw a **lot** of close-range combat. In Shooting to Live, they stated explicitly that they preferred expanding bullets, but had to play by Hague Convention rules. They also wanted their pistols to resemble machine guns as much as possible, and their point-shooting technique stressed firing first and firing a burst. Unwilling to quantify "stopping power" ****because**** they saw such conflicting & inexplicable results in hundreds of shootings, they recommended the biggest, heaviest, fastest bullet that the shooter could control. They clearly favored the 1911, yet provided anecdotes of failure with the .45 and .455 & apparent instantly success with the .380. . .only to have the .380 recipient subsequently pop to his feet and escape.

Today I think they'd choose a hi-cap .40-something and recommend a 9mm for the less-trained, with the heaviest, fastest, expanding bullet the shooter could control. Interesting that their views on caliber influenced, or perhaps were influenced by, the British Army's pre-war choice to replace the .455 with the .38-200, as a weapon & cartridge better suited for average soldiers to fire first, in bursts, and achieve torso hits. On auto vs. revolver, the Army considered the revolver simpler for the average user; F/S argued for the auto, but nobody worried about sustaining handgun fire for more than one reload. Anything requiring more than that needed stronger medicine, period.

Bottom line, Fairbairn, Sykes and Applegate wanted to get in the FIRST shot, whether a hit or a near-miss, i.e. valuing what we refer to as suppressive fire. Next they wanted rapid, solid, torso hits, and insisted that up close it was better to hit quickly anywhere on the torso, than to try (vainly, in their opinion) to overcome instinct and aim precisely for "better" hits. They refused to allow scoring, ESPECIALLY anything that gave more points for "better" hits, because such would cause the shooter to aim deliberately and lose what they saw as the overwhelming advantage of speed. (They acknowledged the need for more deliberate, better-aimed fire as ranges lengthened.)

So, shoot first, shoot fast for multiple torso hits, but don't slow down to improve precision any further, and use heavy, fast, expanding bullets that "hit as hard" as one can control. The compromises and observations of F/S/A still sound familiar. One can argue the relative importance of speed, precision, expansion, tissue destruction, penetration, ad nauseum; we can all agree that we need "enough." Whatever "enough" may be in a given situation, however, is depressingly dependent on myriad variables, and there simply isn't a prize for getting it wrong, i.e. finishing second (apologies to Bill Jordan). All we can do is play the odds.
 
#50 ·
I tend to go with Glockman10mm on the 357 mag. JMO but, and I believe personally that 125gr sjhp 357 mag combo, that some still refer to as the "magic bullet",was hit on as much by luck as actual research. But it was and is second to none in a practical carry handgun as far as one shot stops and arguably one shot lethality.

There are revolvers with a bigger bark and muzzle blast, ie 44 magnum etc but they still dont historically put down the bad guy as well as the .357 mag. If you do your part with one it will definitely do its part.

However it came about, it is the round that almost every fighting caliber handgun round tries to mimic and still feed in semi autos. .357 Sig being the most obvious.
 
#53 ·
Pistol bullets don't have stopping power. There's not a handgun round I'm aware of that will "stop" someone charging you by it's velocity and momentum alone.
That is why we use tactics, to offline from a direct attack.

I've wondered about "psychological stops" and the 125g .357 Magnum. Does the massive flash and intense blast convince many recipients that they are indeed being shot at and should cease & desist?
There is more to it than that. The people I have seen shot with powerful guns, if they were able to talk at all wanted to get to the hospital NOW. The exception is the smuggler that took a contact shot from a load of 12 Ga 00 buck. He sank to his knees said " Madre de Dios" and died.

The rise of the Wonder-9's immediately followed Vietnam, and both past & current military experience had demonstrated that troops tended to fire fast, if & when they decided to fire at all. Experience seems to show that cops and civilians who "spray" are simply following a largely effective and widespread instinct of men in combat.
I was in LE during that time and it was the gang bangers who had the hi caps. Performing drive by's the serious ones used pick ups with 6-8 bangers in the back with shotguns.

I often cite Fairbairn & Sykes, who saw a **lot** of close-range combat. In Shooting to Live, they stated explicitly that they preferred expanding bullets, but had to play by Hague Convention rules. They also wanted their pistols to resemble machine guns as much as possible, and their point-shooting technique stressed firing first and firing a burst. Unwilling to quantify "stopping power" ****because**** they saw such conflicting & inexplicable results in hundreds of shootings, they recommended the biggest, heaviest, fastest bullet that the shooter could control.
Excellent wisdom! The last sentence to me is the essence "Carry the most powerful gun you can control."

There are revolvers with a bigger bark and muzzle blast, ie 44 magnum etc but they still dont historically put down the bad guy as well as the .357 mag.
I do not know if bark and flash play a role, however, I think there are two cause factors in the closeness in effectiveness.

1. In a determined spot on your body there are only so many pain receptors and I think that after a certain point they are just overloaded. There was some study where they studied and detected nerve damage several inches away from the site of the wound. Some of this may have some correlation to soldiers wounded in the head/ face and years later contracting neurological disorders.

2. It has been said that the 357 magnum is the upper limit for most shooters to control. It may just be that most people using the 44 magnum for SD are not able to get good hits.
 
#56 ·
F/A/S, etc.

Among my favorite shooting-related subjects are Fairbairn, Sykes, Applegate and their seminal books, Shooting to Live and Bullseyes Don't Shoot Back; their point-shooting concepts & techniques; the .38 S&W; .38's with 200g bullets; and the dynamics of close-range handgun encounters. All are intertwined to a great extent.

Can anyone steer me to sources that convincingly challenge the F/S/A data, conclusions and recommendations? Obviously the Modern School (now 40 years old) emphasizes sighted fire, Weaver stances, and whatnot. But what I'm looking for is any sources that question the truthfulness of "Shooting to Live", their careers, their data, their understanding of the dynamics of close-range combat, etc.

Here's what I'm getting at: Marshall & Sanow were "all that" until serious questions arose about the validity of their data and interpretations. General S.L.A. Marshall's famous conclusion that only 10% of combat infantrymen ever fired their weapons was the cause of much uproar and disbelief, and some sources cast a serious shadow over Marshall's work. Nonetheless, the Army adopted the M16 as a standard rifle at least partially due to the sensing that its "full-auto rock & roll" option would encourage many soldiers to open fire instead of taking cover.

So, does anything extant seriously challenge F/A/S experiences or veracity? If so, I'd like to study it. If not, I'd like to understand why their techniques in great measure are considered obsolete and are not generally taught. After all, F/A/S did recommend sighted fire. . .they just considered it to be limited to distances beyond the 12-15 yard effective range of point-shooting. Is anyone considered to be in their league as a surviving participant and observer in hundreds of gunfights?
 
#57 ·
If you take a look at the data in the "Alternate look..." thread, the percentage of torso/head hits with the .44 is actually pretty high, as it is with the .357 and .45. They were the only calibers with over 80% accuracy (defined as a hit to the head or torso). Maybe the fact that those calibers tend to be used in handguns with low capacity forces folks to be more accurate...dunno.

As far as the effects of "hydrostatic shock" (aka "temporary stretch" aka "pressure wave")...I'm starting to think that it is NOT a black or white issue. As in "long guns do and handguns do not." I think it might be more of a question of shades of grey, where long guns are much more likely to have this effect than handguns, but some handguns might have some effect in certain situations. Certainly shot placement and penetration rule the day, but there is evidence that this phenomena might have some impact (pun, ha ha). Certainly, if tissue gets stretched to the point where a neural signal fails to jump the synapse from one nerve to the next, then the signal can get interuppted and that might have some "stopping" effect. Again, not something to count on, but certainly a possibility.

:scratchchin:
 
#58 ·
Here's what I'm getting at: Marshall & Sanow were "all that" until serious questions arose about the validity of their data and interpretations.
Mr. Marshall's critics resorted to character assassination. A lot of what he wrote was taken out of context. You should visit his website stoppingpower.net. His results are similar to the numbers gathered during a Police One study and the latest one on "an alternative look at stopping power".

General S.L.A. Marshall's famous conclusion that only 10% of combat infantrymen ever fired their weapons was the cause of much uproar and disbelief, and some sources cast a serious shadow over Marshall's work.
Huh? I think you have that confused with someone else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gatorbait51
#59 ·
What is silly is the idea that people will continue to function just fine if a bullet does not hit a [vital] area. They may continue to fight and then again, they may not. Seriously damaged muscles, tendons, nerves and the onset of SHOCK may not be life threatening injuries right away but it certainly effects a persons ability to wage an attack on me. Have people been shot and continued to fight? sure.. Is continuing the fight the most likely response to being shot... nope.
 
#62 ·
40 Bob,

Nope, see BG S. L. A. Marshall, USAR, "Men Against Fire," the seminal work in which he argued that most men in combat don't fire a shot, but wind up passing ammo, messages, helping wounded, securing a flank or rear, etc. He based his conclusions on the post-combat interviews he and his Historical Section conducted with GI's in the ETO.

A colleague of mine in the USMA Dept. of History once laid out for me a number of the recent arguments against General Marshall's thesis. Our conversation took place in the early 1990's, so the historiography he reeled off to me probably dated from the 1980s-90s. I didn't try to memorize the details since I was busy trying to teach World History, review Balkan history, and write Civil War history at the time :) IIRC, one of the main claims Marshall's critics leveled against him was the accusation that his detachment's post-combat interviews were poorly done, documented, etc. I have no idea how that argument has fared over time.

As for Marshall & Sanow, I'm generally familiar with the arguments on both sides, but haven't studied it and have no dog in that hunt. If there is any relationship between Evan Marshall and Gen. SLA Marshall, I'm unaware of it.

My point in surfacing these names & their claims was merely to illustrate that I've personally put a lot of stock in "Shooting to Live," but have no idea whether anyone has come along since 1941 and proved that they were frauds, doctored data, or whatever. If anybody in cyberspace has learned anything of that nature, please tell me.

Here's why: right now I believe that Fairbairn, Sykes, and their US Army student Rex Applegate saw and did the things they write about. If they did, then their thoughts, assessments and recommendations are worth their weight in gold & mean more to me than anyone else's views. F&S supposedly each had scores of close-range gunfights under their belts--more than 100 each, if I understand correctly--and they trained, supervised, and led men of the British Shanghai Police who fought in hundreds more pistol fights. If there is anybody with more experience in pistol fighting than F&S, please point me in that direction and I want to learn their views, too. Until then, I'm assuming that nobody else has had as much experience in the realm we're discussing, even though their relative uninvolvement with expanding bullets may leave some gap in what they told us.
 
#65 ·
Trauma King says...they all hurt.

Wow. Didn't think my first post would be on a subject so close to me. Was looking more for holster or other talk. I can talk about trauma all day. Its my specialty. I like to say I've seen a lot. I'll never say I've seen it all. That's when I know I need to hang it up.

I see about 2 gunshots a month. About 60/40 on self inflicted vs. combative. Normally I'm taking them into the hospital. Hopefully. I like that. It is fun, it is exciting and challenging. Sometimes it is more cut and dry. The sheriffs deputy usually gives us an indication. I love these guys and all they do, but 3/4's the time they're wrong. So we always check.

One guy was shot thru his leg with a .380. Now to all those who deride the caliber and say it is useless. This dude was on the ground screaming to mom, Jesus and anyone else who would listen. Upon X-rays, femur was shattered into 14 fragments. His vasculature remained intact but with the shortening and rotation to the limb, he wasn't moving anywhere anytime. I don't know who shot him or why they shot him there, but it worked. It was not self-inflicted. He had a 9mm in his hand and later told the officers he did not shoot himself.

Seen some people with a 22LR to the head, the round bounced around inside and they're gone. You have to search for the entrance wound. There's no exit wound.

I've seen another with a 45 self-inflicted. The blast pushed his head back. Carved a tunnel from the back of his mouth up and out thru his nose. His eyes were sagging and the lower part of his face was gone. We gave him the suction unit and told him to, "stick it where he felt like he was choking." Weird to see people fight to live after doing something like that to themselves. We've had plenty of 45's thru and thru. Just depends on where it is thru and thru. One memorable one was a thru and thru on an arm. Everyone was stating that, until I pointed out where did it end up? It went thru and thru his arm and into his chest. Dude started freaking out then. Others go right thru the lungs with minimal problems medically. When I say that I mean the body is able to compensate. They can maintain adequate oxygenation and can compensate.. Sure, they're freaking out, but once care is transferred to a trauma center they were able to fix the problem quickly. It all depends on the situation. Which is what I'm getting at. There is no golden caliber, no golden spot to hit. Some people will sit here and talk about all day that so and so will not be enough, or this spot is statistically better than another. I told you what I've seen. There's no sure bet. All I can say from my 15+ years working the front lines of trauma as a first responder is this.

Any shot is better than no shot. Shoot responsibly, shoot quick and shoot accurately.
 
#66 ·
I can say from personal experience that a contact or near contact 22lr to the head can make an exit as large as a 45 slug. No bouncing, brain shifted of center line.

Longer distance I have no doubt a 22 LR will bounce around a bit, if it gets thru the skull.

Bullets do weird things when hitting actual humans not blocks of jello. However though Im sure its happened on a few occasions I cant see much left of the interior of a head, or chest that is still working to any degree after a couple of rounds of .357 mag 125gr sjhp.

I dont even own one now and havent for quite a while though I really would like to get another. Carried one for years before the semi auto craze. Never shot anything from deer to rabid St Bernard with it that it took more than one round of that particular cartridge to put it down for the count.
 
#67 ·
CNS hit (Brain or spine) is one shot drop....next is circulatory system (Heart) ..next is Respiratory (Lungs)

CNS ,nerve impulses..what controls everything in your body..a hit there is like pulling the plug... minus about this area ..small target...

Circulatory , If you stop blood flow or slow it down..,the blood cells do not get oxygen and the brain is robbed ...small target..

Respiratory, If you interrupt the production of oxygen the brain dies.. in fact medical emergency personal ..upon arrival of a accident checks for respiratory function first..
A big plus its a
Larger area to hit

I feel a hit in the middle chest cavity is the best possible area to land a projectile or projectiles...being that you will most likely hit the lungs,possibly the heart .and maybe the spine....

I feel multiple hits are the best way to go..especially if you can get four hits in one pull of the trigger..

 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top