What's the quickest bad guy stopper (different viewpoint)?

[Lancel]

Another thread on this topic has lived on since last year but is missing a few significant calibers.  Since the topic is immortal, I'm restating the poll to include some other calibers from a slightly different viewpoint.

Multiple shots are ok so far as recoil and magazine size allows.

In the absence of a shotgun, my vote is for the 10mm since it not only includes whatever stopping power is in a .40 S&W but also has .357 Magnum velocity in big bore flavors.

What's your thoughts on this never-ending story?

Thanks,
Larry

[Dusty Miller]

Hey, haven't Marshall and Sanow just about wrapped this up?

[williamlayton]

Well discussions like this are never wrapped up, in my opinion, and it is a different angle.
In view of my, recent, involvement or study on this I would suggest the 10mm or 9x23 (which is not included in the poll but is added jest to muddy the water) because of speed.
Blessings

[ButlerFord45]

Definitive answer:

American Derringer Alaskan , 45-70 with 500 grain hollow point loaded to about 750-800 fps.

 :roll:

[Dusty Miller]

OK, I'm gonna top all you guys.  The best one shot stopper is a howitzer!  They're a bit tough to carry, not to mention conceal, but they definitely get the job done with one shot!

[Lancel]

Dusty:

Hey, haven't Marshall and Sanow just about wrapped this up?

There's a lot of controversy and doubt over Marshall and Sanow's data collection and analysis.

ButlerFord45:

... derringer, 45-70 with 500 grain hollow point ...

Yep, you just got to get the bad guy to test fire the derringer at something safe.  Collect up the derringer from wherever it flipped to then collect up the bg's wrist from wherever it flipped to.  End result should be a manageable bad guy. :grin:

Dusty:

The best one shot stopper is a howitzer

I'll believe it when AmmoLab does a gelatin test. :grin:

Larry

[leverfan]

There's a lot of controversy and doubt over Marshall and Sanow's data collection and analysis.

Larry

That's a polite understatement.  I've seen food forgotten in an oven all day, and it still came out looking less "cooked" that some of Marshall and Sanow's data!

[williamlayton]

See, tha thang wernt done an put to bed were it.
The Howitzer is highly unconceable on a person, so how bout a RPG under a duster. Second thoughts is a new rule--can't kill more tha one at a time except on a pass thru scenerio. :oops:  :-D
It does appear that the modern thought is towards as big and fast as is controlable. Control being a factor does put a limitation on large, we are talking a more than one shot scene here.
.38 has proven to be not large enough-ok, ok it is large enough but not large enough.
.45 is large enough and normally thought to be at the limits of control. The speed is lacking. Your experience may vary.
.357 is fast enough and at the limits of control at the speed. See above disclaimer.
10mm is above the limits of the above mentioned control, fer most folks. Speed is very good.
9x23 is within the control specs and is as fast as a .357 same can be said for the .38 Super.
Blessings

[xnmr53]

Let us eschew morbid equine flagellation. :toast:

[Lancel]

xnmr53:

...equine flagellation.

Seems that no matter what, this horse never dies.  So I figured I'd saddle it up for the long ride.
:-)
I kinda like the look of it, look forward to seeing it grow.

Larry

[S.S.]

I will use my example:

Take a marble and a slingshot and fire said marble into the middle of a pool (can be a THUMPER marble if you like). (small, High Velocity)you will get a small splash and very little movement of the water! Thus very little
Hydrostatic shockwave effect (ripples won't make it far across the pool).

Now, Take a concrete block and simply slide it off the diving board.
   (big, Low Velocity). You get a large splash and chances are that the
   Hydrostatic Shockwave will get to all sides of the pool!!!

Same is true for a Bullet!  I don't want the bullet that creates all kind of
sharp cutting edges when it expands such as the BLACK TALON and that
type . I want the bullet that is going to transfer as much of its
energy as possible to my targets Central Nervous System.
This is what makes a "stopping" bullet!  I do not want my target
to bleed to death from all those cutting edges, I want the electric impulses
to stop reaching its brain from the Hydrostatic Shackwave disrupting them. This is accomplished by a large slow moving projectile.
I have worked with ballistics for almost 30 years and have had to take issue with Marshall and Sanow's opinions on several occasions.
I still respect them though!

[Bikenut]

Others have said it already..... shot placement is paramount! A .22 short that hits is far better than the .45 that misses.

However, real life dictates that a gun that is to be used for self defense out in the world has to be small enough to conceal but large enough to do damage. So which is better? The one you will carry because it is comfortable to carry regardless of caliber. Now I know I've irritated some 1911 afficionado's with that statement but it is the real life truth.

What weight bullets should be used in the gun that is being carried? The bullet weight that the shooter can reliably hit a target with. For some folks fast and light rounds are easier to shoot accurately, for others the slow and heavy ones work better. Which ever one allows the shooter to put all the rounds into the kill zone every time is the one to be used.

Fast and light vs slow and heavy? To my mind this is a pointless question. The real important question should be .............. which works best for the shooter doing the shooting?

[Swat Dude]

I will use my example:

Take a marble and a slingshot and fire said marble into the middle of a pool (can be a THUMPER marble if you like). (small, High Velocity)you will get a small splash and very little movement of the water! Thus very little
Hydrostatic shockwave effect (ripples won't make it far across the pool).

Now, Take a concrete block and simply slide it off the diving board.
   (big, Low Velocity). You get a large splash and chances are that the
   Hydrostatic Shockwave will get to all sides of the pool!!!

Same is true for a Bullet!  I don't want the bullet that creates all kind of
sharp cutting edges when it expands such as the BLACK TALON and that
type . I want the bullet that is going to transfer as much of its
energy as possible to my targets Central Nervous System.
This is what makes a "stopping" bullet!  I do not want my target
to bleed to death from all those cutting edges, I want the electric impulses
to stop reaching its brain from the Hydrostatic Shackwave disrupting them. This is accomplished by a large slow moving projectile.
I have worked with ballistics for almost 30 years and have had to take issue with Marshall and Sanow's opinions on several occasions.
I still respect them though!

I disagree with your logic and your example is not relative to the minute difference in bullet weight and diameter. The .40SW has 89% of the diameter of a .45 caliber. I think you are confused about the "cutting edges". The serrations in the Black Talon or Ranger as I think is its politically correct name, allow the bullet to expand, increasing its effective diameter in the intended target. The principal of a hollow point is to allow all the energy of the round to be transferred to the target without over penetrating. A bullet that proceeds through its target, maintaining velocity, has not given up all the energy it can into its target. A simple equation for Kinetic Energy tells you that a small, fast bullet has more energy than a large, slow bullet, due to the fact that the velocity component is squared. I'm sorry my friend but your pool above just doesn't hold any water.

http://www.ammolab.com/corbon_prb_40.htm

Shows .40SW expanding to .60 caliber through 4 layers of denim.

http://mysite.elixirlabs.com/index.php?uid=12665&page=1609

This page shows a 115 grain 9mm at 1350 fps has more energy to give up than a 230 grain .45 at 950 fps

[litman252]

A simple equation for Kinetic Energy tells you that a small, fast bullet has more energy than a large, slow bullet, due to the fact that the velocity component is squared

It's too bad that KE does not measure what it takes to kill people.

I'll keep mine Big and slow, but it's just a personal decision.
Tony

[papajohn428]

I'm not a fan of Kinetic Energy figures, too slanted in favor of speed.  Momentum is a better measure, but the best rule is still to carry the weapon that shoots the heaviest, fastest load you can control in rapid fire.  Then practice, practice practice.  Marksmanship is not about the best group you can shoot, it's about what you can do right now, on demand.  And a 25ACP in the chest is still better than a 357 or 45 that missed.  

And as Ross Seyfried once said, "You can't miss fast enough to catch up."  Of course, he was talking about shooting in competition, but what is the purpose of shooting games?  Skill at arms.  Period.

PJ

[gldome]

I gues an RPG in the mid chest should work............. :-D

[jimmyp50]

a full charge of 00 buck dead center at 10 feet......

[williamlayton]

May I offer the reality of it all in a nutshell, with humor added , GOD calling you home.
Blessings

[strider72]

I actually carry a Glock 19 and a KelTec P32, but voted for the .40 S&W because I feel that it is the best possible catridge for self-defense. It is a good compromise of caliber and speed. A 10mm would be nice but is generally heck on guns because of it power. The .40 is a good choice also because you can always change over to .357 Sig or 9x19mm for whatever reason.

[dawei]

Another thread on this topic has lived on since last year but is missing a few significant calibers.  Since the topic is immortal, I'm restating the poll to include some other calibers from a slightly different viewpoint.

Multiple shots are ok so far as recoil and magazine size allows.

In the absence of a shotgun, my vote is for the 10mm since it not only includes whatever stopping power is in a .40 S&W but also has .357 Magnum velocity in big bore flavors.

What's your thoughts on this never-ending story?

Thanks,
Larry

1. It's not what you shoot; it's how you shoot.

2. Only hits count.

3. Use the largest caliber you can shoot accurately.

4. Refer to 1, 2, & 3 above.

[papajohn428]

To paraphrase something Clint Smith said, the best handgun is the one that will let you fight your way to your rifle the quickest!

The benefit of the handgun is that you can keep it at hand all the time, but if you're gonna do some shooting at bad guys, I'll take the rifle every time.

Hey Levergun, what was the problem with the Marshall/Sanow data?  From what I read about it (several years ago) their projections matched the actual street results almost exactly.  

I've followed this whole debate for the last thirty years with great interest, and it sounds like Ayoob and I agree........Marshall and Sanow were right, Fackler was wrong, and the street results bear it out.

Did I miss something?  :?

PJ

[DangYankee]

I find S.Sumner's example kind of interesting,  I have actually worked with Computers and Ballistic data, and he is not really that far off base when it comes to Energy transfer from small fast movers and large slow movers. What the Ballistics programs say and what simple physics say are almost totally opposite. In the "CYBER" world, the smaller high velocity rounds win hands down really. But my physics say that what the computer says cannot be. Using a 9mm Parabellum as an example, A 124/5 gr. .355 dia. FMJ moving at approx 1250 FPS (Approx. NATO Specs) has Approx. 430 Foot Lbs. of Muzzle energy. But this is a relatively mild recoiling round to fire. I know that the action of most semi-autos relieve some of the recoil, But it is not bad in a revolver either. Here is where my "PHYSICS" mind  tells me that "EVERY ACTION HAS AN EQUAL REACTION"  - Thus a round that has light recoil cannot be that powerful!
At this point I came to the conclusion that even science cannot agree on which is better!
Using S.Sumners example now Starting with the marble: Fire said marble into the pool at high velocity, Not much splash not much visible shock wave. This I have found to be the reason: The smaller high velocity projectile creates a totally different type of shockwave. The wave starts
from point of impact and creates a more compact "CONE SHAPED" Wave which grows in circumference along the path the projectile. Thus you do not see it on the surface. Now as the projectile diameter increases, the
more surface matter (water in this case) it displaces on impact and the
cone shape of the shockwave becomes less and less pronounced. The larger the projectile becomes, the more Radial the shockwave becomes.
Something interesting about the smaller higher velocity projectiles, is that when the "Shockwave"  reaches the far side of the matter it is traveling through, It bounces back! This would make a good arguement for smaller
High Velocity rounds, Because the actual hydrostatic shockWave seems
to last longer in the matter it strikes.
Once I find where the two projectiles have the same amount of shockwave it the matter at the same time, That should tell me where the
"Happy Medium" is.   But .....Testing was done with Non-Expanding
non-frangible projectiles !!! arrrgh!!!  Overall, I don't think that even science and a multi-Teraflop speed computer can end this arguement!

Good luck Guys!

[leverfan]

Hey Levergun, what was the problem with the Marshall/Sanow data?  From what I read about it (several years ago) their projections matched the actual street results almost exactly.  

I've followed this whole debate for the last thirty years with great interest, and it sounds like Ayoob and I agree........Marshall and Sanow were right, Fackler was wrong, and the street results bear it out.

Did I miss something?  :?

PJ

PJ-

I agree with you 100% about wanting a rifle (or shotgun) handy when a gun is really needed.  I used to follow the Marshall and Sanow "findings" to the letter when I chose ammo for carry, but I read some articles that made me go back and look at their writings again, both books and magazine articles.  Sure enough, Marshall and Sanow seem to be "cooking the books", for lack of a better term.  Even in very simple ways, they cannot have collected the amount of data that they claim, in the time frame that they claim.  How do I know?  They described the data collection, and the work it requires, and it just can't be.  That's based on their own numbers, folks, not some lab analysis.

Second, my own experience as a hunter, and seeing other people hunt, taught me a lot about what it takes to make a sure, quick stop.  I'll put my own observations into the mix when I choose ammo for myself, and I expect I'm not the only one.  I've also seen a few people shot, thanks to my old job, and that colored my opinions as well.

What else?  Well, there's really too much for a single post, but http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm does a good job of hashing out reasons to question Marshall and Sanow's findings.  There are a lot of articles there, I suggest that you read all of them through as you find the time.  I don't take the Fackler crowd as gospel, either, but they do an excellent job of hanging Marshall and Sanow with their own faked data.  One doesn't need to agree with Fackler to know when an author is playing fast and loose with the facts.  Especially when some of the sources they quote complain of being misquoted, taken out of context, or having quotes fabricated.

Fackler has his reputation on the line, and no doubt some government contracts.  Marshall and Sanow are out to sell books, and, possibly, some bullets for a few manufacturers.  It doesn't make it any easier for the rest of us to find a reliable source, but at least we can find out who the liars are.

There has, as yet, never been a large, reliable, un-biased study of the massive size required to obtain real answers in the debate about stopping power.  The one thing that we all know for sure is, put your bullets in the vitals, and make sure you use bullets that can reach vitals.  Don't rely on "one shot stops," ammo is cheap, put two or three where they need to go when your life is on the line, or the lives of your family members.

[alpacker]

A 12 pound sledge between the eyes.

lacking that, a Ten Ga. Pump shotgun loaded with anything.

[Swat Dude]

a full charge of 00 buck dead center at 10 feet......

I have personally witnessed a suspect take a dead center sternum hit with tactical 00 buck shot out of a Benelli semi-auto shotgun from approx. 15 feet by one of my fellow teammates on a SWAT callout. This same suspect had driven his pickup truck through the rear block wall of his ex-wife's house and then into the rear sliding glass door where he brandished a shotgun to neighbors and then entered the residence. luckily, she and her children weren't home, but beat cops were on scene before he could get out of the residence and he was stuck. We responded and attempted to negotiate for over 8 hours but as daylight started to approach, we gassed the living piss out of this residence. The 40-year old male suspect could be seen walking around in the thick teargas with no protection seemingly unaffected by its lung gouging effects. We then entered the residence and my teammate located the suspect in the garage. When he came at my teammate with knife, my teammate put one in his chest. He never had an opportunity to take a second shot as the first one basically put the guy on the floor. I would have a hard time believing that any human being, no matter how much speed or steroids he was on, would get up from this devastating blow to the chest. There was about a 5 inch hole left in the middle of his chest and the ME later reported that his heart and most of his spinal cord behind it were almost completely destroyed by the shot.

[Swat Dude]

Using a 9mm Parabellum as an example, A 124/5 gr. .355 dia. FMJ moving at approx 1250 FPS (Approx. NATO Specs) has Approx. 430 Foot Lbs. of Muzzle energy. But this is a relatively mild recoiling round to fire. I know that the action of most semi-autos relieve some of the recoil, But it is not bad in a revolver either. Here is where my "PHYSICS" mind  tells me that "EVERY ACTION HAS AN EQUAL REACTION"  - Thus a round that has light recoil cannot be that powerful!
At this point I came to the conclusion that even science cannot agree on which is better!

Not to be too much of a smart ass, but maybe you should quit using your "PHYSICS mind" and start using your PHYSICS Book. Your recoil argument is not scientific:
Let's assume a 230 grain bullet traveling at 919 ft. per second and a 115 grain bullet traveling at 1300 feet per second. If you do the math, you will find that these bullets have the same kinetic energy, and will produce the exact same FORCE against your hand assuming all things equal. I won't bore you with the equations ("Force=mass x acceleration" and "VelocityFINAL - VelocityORIGINAL=2 x acceleration x distance over which acceleration is applied") but it takes the exact same FORCE to accelerate the 230 grain bullet from 0 to 919 ft/sec in a six-inch barrel as it does to accelerate the 115 grain bullet from 0 to 1300 ft/sec in a six inch barrel, assuming constant acceleration. Therefore, if the guns are identical in everyway except barrel diameter, the equal and opposite reaction force on your hand would be identical with both bullets. I would speculate if one caliber has more perceived recoil, it is because the acceleration of the bullet is not constant, due to the dynamics of primer, rate of powder burn, etc. and the bullet has much higher acceleration at some point in its travel in the barrel, causing a higher force required to accelerate it at that portion in its travel. It is that type of "gut-feel" science that gets these debates so twisted in the first place.

While we are on the debate about a small bullet traveling very fast being better than a large slow one, which would you rather have, a .45 diameter 230 grain bullet at 1000 ft/sec. or a .308 diameter 125 grain bullet at 3150 fps. For me personally, I'd take the Winchester 308, that is, assuming a good tactical hollowpoint round that could dump the full force of its energy into the perp.

Finally, on the subject of momentum, you are correct in your assertion that a heavier bullet has more momentum, soooo...it will more than likely retain more energy, i.e., not slow down as much, over a given distance. Small light rounds tend to give up their energy to air resistance much faster than heavier bullets.

[357mag]

I don't claim to be any physics genius or anything, but common sense tells me that it is not as much the bullet diameter as it is the frontal area that is going to cause a larger change in the shock wave produces. it is agreed that a .44mag is enough to kill a whitetail. But when shot into a 3/8" steel plate at 50yds. it does very little damage to the plate, a small dent and that is about it. A 7-30 Water at the same distance makes a large dent and makes a crater in the steel. The 7-30 is obviously much faster and has more energy than a 44mag, but both will stil put a deer down in one shot at that distance. The 44 dumps more energy quicker because the frontal area that is transfer in the energy is much greater, where as a spitzer style bullet needs to expand before it can transfer is energy as well, it works because it has so much extra energy to transfer.

Therefore a smaller diameter bullet going faster might have more engery based on calculations, but is going to take longer to create the same shockwave because it has less area to transfer the energy through. Where as the larger one is going to transfer it's energy quicker, even if it is less energy.

As far as my opiniom on which is a better carry round I prefer the larger slower bullets for the fact that they are less likely to travel far on a pass through shot, where as the faster ones are going to keep going and possible hit an innocent bystander.

[leverfan]

As far as my opiniom on which is a better carry round I prefer the larger slower bullets for the fact that they are less likely to travel far on a pass through shot, where as the faster ones are going to keep going and possible hit an innocent bystander.

If two expanding handgun bullets of identical construction are fired into the same test medium, the faster of the two bullets will often penetrate the least.  It will tend to open faster, shed pieces, and generally make a shorter, wider wound channel.  I've seen tests done with identical bullets loaded in .38 Special loads and full house .357 mag loads, and the faster you push an expanding bullet, the less it penetrates.  There are exceptions, due to the many styles of bullet on the market today, but it's a good general rule.  All that magnum energy tears the bullet up, instead of going deeper.  

If the bullet is non-expanding, and it holds together at high velocity, then the faster load will punch a deeper hole.

[357mag]

Leverfan, I agree to a certain extent. The faster the bullet goes the quicker it can tear itself apart and the less of it there is left. But a bullet is only going to expand so far and then whatever energy it has left is going to keep it moving. With identical bullets a 300 Weatherby is go to over penetrate a 308. If it didn't, more people would hunt elk with a 308. If the bullet is designed to completely fall apart, than a faster shooting caliber would be ideal, but most bullets (especially for self defense) are designed to expand rapidly to a set point and then keep punching through at a larger diameter. In this case a slower bullet is going to travel less distance after exiting. In most self defense situations it is not a question of if a bullet will exit, but how far it travels when it does. Anything larger than a .25ACP has enough energy to exit a human body when shot under 20ft. away. At further distances some are not going to exit, but most confrontations are going to be at  very close distances.

[leverfan]

A Nosler Partition, Barnes X-Bullet, or some other bullet designed for deep penetration will go deeper when fired from a 300 Weatherby as opposed to a 308.  However, a thin jacketed cup-and-core bullet will quite often go deeper when fired from the 308.  The magnums are famous for over-stressing many bullet designs, causing messy, shallow wounds.  You can easily prove this for yourself, or you can look it up in literally dozens of articles.  I've seen it proven to my own satisfaction, with both rifle and handgun bullets.

It is possible to eventually slow a bullet down so much that it can't expand or penetrate very well, but I don't think that's what either one of us is talking about here.  Terminal ballistics can raise plenty of debate amongst folks that spend their lives studying it, so I don't expect complete agreement from everyone on the board when we toss out ideas.  Hashing this stuff out is good for the gray matter. :grin: