A different take on stopping power

[MphsTiger1981]

Just for a little different perspective, not all of the people who are looking for someone to rob or harass are gang bangers or meth heads. I was thinking of this yesterday when I was looking at the Commercial Appeal on-line. They had the list of the area's most wanted. The first guy up was a stocky caucasian guy who was wanted for aggravated assault. If you look at this guys mug shot, most of us have known guys like this. A bully, who is going to take whatever he wants from anyone who doesn't have the nads to stand up to him, and even if you do, he's probably the guy who is going to have a smile on his face while you're fightin' him. You look at a big guy like that and wonder if that little .32 in your pocket is going to stop him unless you hit him in the face or some place critical where he simply can't continue. It's unlikely a guy like that will let a little blood stop him from finishing you off and taking your watch, wallet, wife, daughter, whatever. For me, this guy is just as much the face of the wolf as the dude with the red or blue bandana wrapped around his head or hanging from his pocket. These guys do a little jail time and they probably spend most of their free time in the yard lifting weights, staying strong. Its times when I'm out and see guys like this on the street, that I question "stopping power" of whatever I happen to be carrying at the time.

[Guest mosinon]

Interesting how some consider the meth-head or the gang banger "mythical", just because they have never encountered one, but watch them puff their chests out when someone challenges their rationale for carrying a weapon and calls them paranoid.

To the one who doesn't believe in carrying, the bad guy is "mythical", just because they have never encountered any kind of trouble themselves.

Q: What's the definition of "paranoid"?

A: Someone who is more prepared than you.

I don't think gang bangers are mythical. I'm sure they are real. And I think carrying a pistol is a fine thing. If it were easier, if I didn't have to go through a class (8 hours! of worthless crap from what I am told) and spend dough I'd do it. I still might do it. But I am going to feel compelled to speak up (it is a failing of mine) if the state video is wrong or something.

I am, however, aware of one thing. Gang bangers, mafioso and so forth aren't crazed lunatics like the guy who shot up Va tech or the guy who went nuts in Arizona. Generally, if you are worried about gang bangers or the mafia you're worried because you've become a problem to their income stream. Since I don't sell drugs I don't actually worry about that stuff much.

A gang banger is a rational person, he's in it for the money. The lunatic is not. You could probably stop a gang banger with a .32, but it is going to be a lot harder to stop a lunatic with a 22 than a 45. i bet.

At least I think so. The lunatics worry me more than the criminals. But how many shots does it take to stop someone who is on a mission from God or something? That is actual incapacitation. That is the question I'd like the answer to.

Finding out that answer is probably possible but ethically abhorrent.

[BigK]

OOH! A caliber debate. These are always good for some fun.

[guyandarifle]

It is my understanding that the overwhelming number of DFU's (Defensive Gun Uses) in this country each year involve never firing a shot. (The actual estimates are wildly diverse from around 100K to over a million but the idea is the same) Point being most bad guys, once they ascertain they are actually at risk of being shot, will think of something that needs done elsewhere. (left the curler on, forgot Big Cheezy was coming over and you left your favorite crack-ho unattended, etc) So, statistically speaking anyway, being able to present any firearm has a high probability of sending the vermin scurrying. A caliber debate involving people cognizant of their mortality is pretty moot. It's the few that are "driven" (for whatever reason) to press an attack that can make one wish for a .357/.40/.45/10mm as opposed to that easy-carrying .380.

My bottome line is that something trumps nothing and if you aren't willing to keep it on you worrying about caliber is folly.

[chances R]

It is my understanding that the overwhelming number of DFU's (Defensive Gun Uses) in this country each year involve never firing a shot.... So, statistically speaking anyway, being able to present any firearm has a high probability of sending the vermin scurrying.....

My bottome line is that something trumps nothing and if you aren't willing to keep it on you worrying about caliber is folly.

Exactly

[daddyo]

I don't know what the chances are of one ever needing to use their weapon in self-defense, but let's say that it's 2%. Pretty small odds that you will ever have to defend yourself. But we know that it happens. So, if someone finds themselves in that very small 2% they're either going to have a weapon or wish they had one. Statistics don't matter when it's happening to you.

Seems to me that the same rule applies with the ability to stop an attack. Your chances of being confronted by some crazy on PCP, a gangbanger, or a meth-head is pretty small, but if you find yourself in that very small percentage, you're going to either have sufficient fight stopping capability or you aren't.

I believe I'll err on the side of caution.

Jeff Cooper said something to the effect that he didn't choose his carry weapon to be comfortable, but comforting.

[Guest grimel]

Yeah, I suppose. What's a blue million? You have a million blue examples of this to show me or are you talking about stories you heard, scarenarios and such? Wait, are smurfs being dragged into this?

Call Tom Givins. Ask him what the current rate for survival is. IIRC it's 10/11 with most leaving the hospital the same day.

Yes, the elusive gang banger who wants to get shot, some kind of weird super warrior.

Great strawman, but, to make it clear for you, a goodly number of them have been shot with pistols and managed to survive with minimal damage. Now, they aren't overly impressed with pistols.

I can't imagine two well placed wouldn't damage something, they've got skin, right? I imagine that two well placed rounds would at least puncture the skin. I would also imagine that blood would come out of the skin.

Have YOU ever had a puncture wound? How long before you felt it? How long before you were unable to complete a physical activity?

I'm pretty sure I am able to post the stuff I find interesting as long as it is okay with the mods.

I didn't say don't post, I said don't post crap calling it research.

Well, I'm not quite sure you understood my criticism of the study. Let me try to make it clearer. My criticism of the study (not that I necessarily agree with the conclusion) was that "incapacitation" was defined as "the attack stopped" This definition, I think, is a problem. Stopping an attack is not "incapacitation" stopping an attack is making people wish they were doing something else.

That is the least of it's problems.

I suspect we agree more than you realize.

I doubt it. I'd not even bother posting something as a study with that many fatal flaws. Any correlation between that study and an actual study would be random chance.

[Guest grimel]

It is my understanding that the overwhelming number of DFU's (Defensive Gun Uses) in this country each year involve never firing a shot. (The actual estimates are wildly diverse from around 100K to over a million but the idea is the same) Point being most bad guys, once they ascertain they are actually at risk of being shot, will think of something that needs done elsewhere. (left the curler on, forgot Big Cheezy was coming over and you left your favorite crack-ho unattended, etc) So, statistically speaking anyway, being able to present any firearm has a high probability of sending the vermin scurrying. A caliber debate involving people cognizant of their mortality is pretty moot. It's the few that are "driven" (for whatever reason) to press an attack that can make one wish for a .357/.40/.45/10mm as opposed to that easy-carrying .380.

My bottome line is that something trumps nothing and if you aren't willing to keep it on you worrying about caliber is folly.

The problems ensue when you find yourself facing the person who isn't overly impressed that you produced a pistol. Especially, if it appears you aren't willing to pull the trigger.

[Ramjo]

I would rather carry a 12 gauge all the time. Hard as heck to hide a Mossberg 500 under a poloshirt!

I like this idea.

[daddyo]

The problems ensue when you find yourself facing the person who isn't overly impressed that you produced a pistol. Especially, if it appears you aren't willing to pull the trigger.

THIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[guyandarifle]

The problems ensue when you find yourself facing the person who isn't overly impressed that you produced a pistol. Especially, if it appears you aren't willing to pull the trigger.

I thought I'd covered that in the end of my post with this:

It's the few that are "driven" (for whatever reason) to press an attack that can make one wish for a .357/.40/.45/10mm as opposed to that easy-carrying .380.

If it was more an observation that one can't carry under the presuppostion that merely pulling your weapon will be sufficient you were going for then I'm certainly in agreement there. As to your 2nd assertion if you haven't made up your mind that you're going to be willing to pull the trigger if (God forbid) that situation arose then you very much need to reassess the whole carry issue.

[JAB]

Seems to me that the same rule applies with the ability to stop an attack. Your chances of being confronted by some crazy on PCP, a gangbanger, or a meth-head is pretty small, but if you find yourself in that very small percentage, you're going to either have sufficient fight stopping capability or you aren't.

The flaw I still see in your logic is that you are positing that a 9mm, .45 or whatever you have decided the 'minimum' pistol caliber is will stop that crazy on PCP, gangbanger or meth-head. The problem is that short of maybe a .44 Magnum or bigger a person such as you describe isn't all that likely to be stopped with any handgun.

To me, the advantages to carrying a 9mm over a pocket .380 or small .38 revolver are capacity and 'shootability'. I honestly don't believe that shooting someone once with a 9mm or even a .45 is any more likely to stop them than shooting once with a .380 or .38. That said, I do believe that shooting someone 10, 12 or 15 times with a 9mm is more likely to stop them than shooting that same person six or seven times with a pocket pistol (i.e. emptying a magazine into the threat.) I also believe that, under stress, good hits are more likely at ten yards or so using a larger handgun. These are the reasons I do prefer to carry larger if clothing allows (when it isn't too danged hot to wear anything more than shorts and a t-shirt.) Of course, both of these advantages may be negated by the probability that one won't even have time to empty their pocket pistol, much less a fifteen round mag and the very low likelihood that the conflict will involve ranges greater than three to five yards.

There are also other factors to consider. One is that my average body temperature is 99.9 degrees Fahrenheit. That has been my average body temperature since I was a kid. This means I burn the heck up in the summer even wearing just a short-sleeved polo or t-shirt. On warmer days (and to me, warmer means anything over about 80 degrees), throw on even a loose, thin, unbuttoned cover garment and there is a good chance I will overheat and get sick if I am to be outside for very long. Except in very limited circumstances, I am not interested in open carry and IWB carry absolutely, positively does not work for me. Therefore, for me, the very slight chance that I might need to use my firearm with the even more remote chance that it will be against an assailant who won't be stopped by a .380 or a .38+P is negligible compared to the fact that carrying a larger firearm will require me to dress in such a way that I will almost certainly overheat and be sick (dizzy, nauseous, etc.)

Therefore, it all comes down to threat assessment. For me, in the area where I live, the threat of heat-related illness or injury in warmer months is much more realistic than the almost infinitesimal chance that I will encounter the storied psychotic male silverback gorilla on crack that will only laugh at my P3AT or my 642 because getting shot with it tickles so much. In cooler months - when the possibility of heat-related illness isn't a concern - then, yeah most of the time that I can carry I'll carry a bigger gun in either a larger caliber or higher capacity (or both.) In the summer, however, for me it isn't about comparing a really small handgun to a full-size, larger caliber handgun. Instead, it is about comparing carrying a really small handgun to not carrying, at all.

Edited July 18, 2011 by JAB

[daddyo]

The ballistics speak for themselves. So do the laws of physics.

[JAB]

The ballistics speak for themselves. So do the laws of physics.

Physics? You mean like for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - meaning that if any handgun (or any hand or shoulder fired gun, period) had the power to knock someone down by sheer projectile force alone then the recoil would put the shooter on his butt, too?

And the laws of reality say that it doesn't matter what gun I am carrying if I am too busy being dizzy or puking to use it because I got too hot.

[Guest grimel]

To me, the advantages to carrying a 9mm over a pocket .380 or small .38 revolver are capacity and 'shootability'. I honestly don't believe that shooting someone once with a 9mm or even a .45 is any more likely to stop them than shooting once with a .380 or .38.

You aren't serious? Well, about the 380?

Therefore, it all comes down to threat assessment. For me, in the area where I live, the threat of heat-related illness or injury in warmer months is much more realistic than the almost infinitesimal chance that I will encounter the storied psychotic male silverback gorilla on crack that will only laugh at my P3AT or my 642 because getting shot with it tickles so much. In cooler months - when the possibility of heat-related illness isn't a concern - then, yeah most of the time that I can carry I'll carry a bigger gun in either a larger caliber or higher capacity (or both.) In the summer, however, for me it isn't about comparing a really small handgun to a full-size, larger caliber handgun. Instead, it is about comparing carrying a really small handgun to not carrying, at all.

Sorry your health is so bad.

[Guest grimel]

Physics? You mean like for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - meaning that if any handgun (or any hand or shoulder fired gun, period) had the power to knock someone down by sheer projectile force alone then the recoil would put the shooter on his butt, too?

No, more like a 90gr bullet at 900fps isn't likely to do as much damage or penetrate as deeply as a 124gr bullet at 1100fps.

[Guest mosinon]

Call Tom Givins. Ask him what the current rate for survival is. IIRC it's 10/11 with most leaving the hospital the same day.

You're the one making the claim, I think you should back it up. I suspect it is completely true by the way. I suspect that there is no magical death pistol in existence.

Great strawman, but, to make it clear for you, a goodly number of them have been shot with pistols and managed to survive with minimal damage. Now, they aren't overly impressed with pistols.

A goodly number? Minimal damage? I'll admit the study the guy did was flawed. But at least he had numbers and methodology. You've got opinion. If I want to kill someone I'd go with a rifle, or an ax.

Have YOU ever had a puncture wound? How long before you felt it? How long before you were unable to complete a physical activity?

<br>

That's kind of the whole point of my criticism. There are plenty of times in life where I have stopped doing something because I got hurt. Say i stepped on a nail. It hurts, blood pain and all that. If it were a life or death situation stepping on a nail wouldn't stop me, I'd keep on going. It's the same with the study. Since the study equates incapacitation with quitting (not the same thing) it is flawed.

<br>

<br>

I didn't say don't post, I said don't post crap calling it research.

<br>

Well, it was research. The guy did research. you might not like the conclusions, you might not care for the methodology and so forth but it is still research. And even if it wasn't research, even if it was some guy just trolling from his computer citing no statistics and all in a tizzy about the mass of crack addicted meth wonder bunnies with grills and gang banger tattoos who walk through a rain of bullets just for fun on a saturday night carrying a katana wielding member of the yakuza on their shoulders to get to octogenarians relaxing at the country club I'll call it research if I wish.

That said, uh, why not criticize the research? All you've done is criticize the conclusions.

That is the least of it's problems.

Do go on. Data collection? Variable control? They are all valid concerns, I'll admit.

I doubt it. I'd not even bother posting something as a study with that many fatal flaws. Any correlation between that study and an actual study would be random chance.

Wait, let me get this straight. You wouldn't bother posting the study, and to be clear it was a study, but you would waste copious amounts of time deriding the study? A study that was posted not because the conclusions were valid but rather to show that it is possible to do your own study?

You also posit that if the study happened to have the same results as an "actual" study it would be because of "random" chance. I am afraid that would not be random chance. Random chance is like we are playing black jack and we both get black jack on the same hand. It is random but it happens.

For this study to reach the same conclusion as an "actual" study (as yet undefined) on random chance would be impossible (or nearly so, while the variables were not well controlled there were too many of them to have that happen. I don't feel like running through the calculations right now). What I think you really mean to say is that the if the study done by the author and an "actual" study reach the same conclusions (if they do, I doubt it but you are the one who said it could happen) it would not be due to the studies validity but rather to the illogic on the part of the author. In other words he's right because he got lucky.

To illustrate. Suppose we are both presented with a math problem. The problem is 10*x=100

You say "Well, that's easy. You divide 100 by ten and determine that x is necessarily equal to 10" Your answer and logic are sound. I, being the cretin I am, also say the answer is 10 but I say that because X=10 in roman numerals.

Honestly, this is what I get out of what you post: I want to be justified in what I carry and this study disturbs me! I'm scared others will read this and be swayed to carry a small caliber!!!!!!

It was just an interesting article. Nothing more.

So how do you propose we go about the study?

[JAB]

You aren't serious? Well, about the 380?

Yes, I am absolutely serious. Again, I'm talking about the 'garden variety' lowlife not the crack-addled male silverback gorilla member of MS13 from the planet Krypton that some folks apparently encounter while going about their daily lives.

Sorry your health is so bad.

Well, my health isn't the best it has ever been - had some heart issues (cause unknown) last year but that doesn't really have that much to do with it. Honestly, it is just that my normal body temp is higher than average so I am more prone to heat-related sickness at lower temps. That has been a lifelong issue, for me. The trade off is that I am perfectly comfortable wearing short sleeves or maybe a windbreaker when others are shivering in heavy overcoats. My point was that heat-related sickness (which is of greater concern since I have had the heart issues) is a much more likely 'threat' for me than an uber-criminal bent on killing me with no regard for injury to themselves.

[JAB]

No, more like a 90gr bullet at 900fps isn't likely to do as much damage or penetrate as deeply as a 124gr bullet at 1100fps.

But neither is going to physically stop a determined attacker through energy transfer and both will make holes to let the air in and blood out - and not 'icepick' like holes such as a .22 would, possibly, produce. Further, in the 'tests' of which I am aware, with the right ammo even a short-barreled .380 like the P3AT is capable of giving penetration results of 12 inches or greater. Just how thick an assailant do you think you will face?

[Guest grimel]

A goodly number? Minimal damage? I'll admit the study the guy did was flawed. But at least he had numbers and methodology. You've got opinion.

Him having numbers and "methodology" is the same crap as the dems/liberals saying "we are doing something". Crap numbers and crap methodology are worse than nothing. I have more than an opinion. From my first post:

That guy is exactly what is wrong with terminal ballistics. First, he has no idea of a statistically valid sample (neither did M&S nor it seems Ayoob). Second, he (and Ayoob) suggest doing your own study. Great, where will you (he) start? How are you going to control for single variable? How will you collect the data? How will you classify a stop? What will be your criteria for properly performing bullet? How about variations in barrel length (initial velocity)?

The simple way to stop the silliness is take the time to read and halfway understand the FBI requirements, then, buy the ammo that meets those requirements.

Well, it was research. The guy did research. you might not like the conclusions, you might not care for the methodology and so forth but it is still research.

Pseudo science isn't research. It is another idiot producing less than worthless data giving yet another "authority" to confuse people.

That said, uh, why not criticize the research? All you've done is criticize the conclusions.

Again, my first post: That guy is exactly what is wrong with terminal ballistics. First, he has no idea of a statistically valid sample (neither did M&S nor it seems Ayoob). Second, he (and Ayoob) suggest doing your own study. Great, where will you (he) start? How are you going to control for single variable? How will you collect the data? How will you classify a stop? What will be your criteria for properly performing bullet? How about variations in barrel length (initial velocity)?

The simple way to stop the silliness is take the time to read and halfway understand the FBI requirements, then, buy the ammo that meets those requirements.

Wait, let me get this straight. You wouldn't bother posting the study, and to be clear it was a study, but you would waste copious amounts of time deriding the study? A study that was posted not because the conclusions were valid but rather to show that it is possible to do your own study?

People reading this thread should at least have one post bringing sanity to the situation. It does not show doing your own study is possible. The general you doesn't have 1% of the financial resources to do a study and way less than 1% the statistics background to do a study. Add in the knowledge on how to DO a study and it becomes an impossibility for the general you to do anything close to a study.

You also posit that if the study happened to have the same results as an "actual" study it would be because of "random" chance. I am afraid that would not be random chance. Random chance is like we are playing black jack and we both get black jack on the same hand. It is random but it happens.

For this study to reach the same conclusion as an "actual" study (as yet undefined) on random chance would be impossible (or nearly so, while the variables were not well controlled there were too many of them to have that happen.

Um, that is what I mean. It is impossible for this study to reach as an actual study (it was defined by implication in my first post the FBI/IWBA testing). It already has failed to reach those conclusions.

Honestly, this is what I get out of what you post: I want to be justified in what I carry and this study disturbs me! I'm scared others will read this and be swayed to carry a small caliber!!!!!!

It was just an interesting article. Nothing more.

What part of "The simple way to stop the silliness is take the time to read and halfway understand the FBI requirements, then, buy the ammo that meets those requirements" do you fail to understand?

[Guest grimel]

But neither is going to physically stop a determined attacker through energy transfer and both will make holes to let the air in and blood out - and not 'icepick' like holes such as a .22 would, possibly, produce. Further, in the 'tests' of which I am aware, with the right ammo even a short-barreled .380 like the P3AT is capable of giving penetration results of 12 inches or greater. Just how thick an assailant do you think you will face?

12 inches of gelatin doesn't equate to 12 inches in a person and that is the bare minimum.

[daddyo]

This thread is hilarious.

[G27]

This thread is hilarious.

In multiple ways, yes.

[JAB]

12 inches of gelatin doesn't equate to 12 inches in a person and that is the bare minimum.

Yeah, okay. Whatever.

Hopefully we will both be lying on our death beds a long time from now, getting ready to succumb to old age, and looking back on how we never had to use those guns we were so concerned about carrying.

[Caster]

Yeah, okay. Whatever.

Hopefully we will both be lying on our death beds a long time from now, getting ready to succumb to old age, and looking back on how we never had to use those guns we were so concerned about carrying.

Oh how nice that would be. Better not stay around State side if that's what you want. I hear the air is nice and clean in the Alps.