Talk:Stopping power

message: *Talk:Stopping power/Archive July 05 - October 06
Greg Glover 23:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: This whole article is rather poorly written and has an utter lack of references to back its strong claims, but the Overpenetration section is clearly and immediately biased, so I added a NPOV template there. A sweeping claim of "exaggera[tion] by those who advocate shallow-penetrating "rapid energy transfer" bullets" without any evidence whatsoever is first made, then later a single NYPD study is used as evidence that bystanders are not injured by overpenetration. This study is more relative to police tactics than to bullet dynamics.
Honestly the whole article should be re-written without the subtle bias present everywhere, but perhaps this is a good starting place.
:I agree - the overpenetration + energy transfer section have in total 1 citation, a Washington Post article about subduing PCP users that does not even contain the word "energy". Is there really no scientific source for the (widespread) claim the exiting projectiles do in general less damage? Btw, it actually never made sense to me because e.g. a bullet with an entry-velocity of 500 m/s that exits with 100 m/s deposits 50% more energy in the target than the same bullet with 400 m/s entry velocity that does not exit the body. Call that "original research" but most 10th graders should be able to calculate that. --Felix Tritschler (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality - Overpenetration 

message: The defense industry has a definition for stopping power. The law enforcement community has a definition for stopping power. The home defense industry has a definition for stopping power and the hunting community has a definition for stopping power.
I think the creator or major contributors to this article failed to see that not so fine point.
I am a hunter. If I need a firearm to stop a predator or charging animal I will pick the biggest firearm I can handle. Probably that would be a .416 Weatherby Magnum.  For stopping intruders as a home defense weapon I would use my 12 gauge Over and Under with bird shot. The longest short from any room in the house is 25 feet. The pattern a that range is about 4 inches in diameter. As a former Marine I would like to see our troops carrying nothing less than a .260 Remington. Better yet lets got back to the 7.62 NATO round and top them off with 9.7g (150gr) Barnes Triple Shock’s. Our law enforcement community should carry any side arm he or she feels comfortable with.
When it comes to firearm projectiles, there are three scientific factors that determent a fatal wound: transitional kinetic energy; sectional density and bullet construction. All three factors must be in play and must combine to provide the proper wound channel for the specific intended target.
If you want to punch holes in non-yielding material such as steel only one factor need be in play: translational kinetic energy per square centimeter. The amount needed depends on the thickness and alloy of the metal. This is of courses  perpendicular impact along the z axis to the metal target.Greg Glover 20:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no one definition for stopping power 

message: I checked out the link provided 01 JUL 05, to, “impressive-sounding yet meaningless terminology” within the “Stopping power” article. The response given, “Energy does not correlate whatsoever with wounding ability” is incorrect and I believe based in the same misunderstand of bullet behavior that most people have.
The report as illustrated by the graphs is impotent. The authors failed to take into consideration a bullet construction. Bullets are constructed to perform many different tasks.  By thinking that all 9mm bullets perform the same and then lumping them in with all other handgun and rifle bullets is rather silly; don’t you think? Bullets even when within the same caliber are as varied as automobiles.
If we have five different bullets: Full Metal Jacket; Cast lead; Pointed soft point; Monolithic Solid and Truncated Solid, each weighing 11.7g (180gr) and having a muzzle velocity of 823m/s (2700ft/s). Do you think all these bullets will behave the same upon impact?
The answer is no.
Each of the five bullets will penetrate differing distances. Each bullet will create a different size “hole”. Therefore each bullet will create a differing volume for the wound channel. Also each bullet will arrive at the target a differing down range velocity. This is due to there differing construction which dictates a differing aerodynamic profile. Each of the five bullets will have a different Ballistic coefficient (BC). The scientifically proven and daily exercised equation for BC is a bullet’s sectional density (sd) divided by its coefficient of form (i) also know as the form factor. This equation was developed by Wallace H. Coxe and Edgar Beugless, Ballistic engineers of E.I. du Pont, Burnside Laboratory, Wilmington, Delaware ca.1936.
Kinetic energy correlates 100% with wound ability. The proven scientific fact and daily exercised equation of translational kinetic energy is derived from Sir Isaac Newton’s second law ca.1665 and proven by  Marquise du Châtelet Gabrielle-Émilie le Tonnelier de Breteuil (Émilie du Châtelet) using Willem 'sGravesande  research ca.1740. Just check out the artical on Émilie du Châtelet here at Wikipedia.
In conclusion the stuff you people are arguing about is a college survey class known as physics 17. This is high school level physics. It has been settled and proven science for the last 267 years. Can we please stop with the revisionist science?
Greg Glover 14:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fallacy is to assume that high school physics can explain such a complex field as terminal ballistics. --84.163.209.65 (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisionist Science 

message: Where is the section "ethical discussion" gone? Does the majority of contributors think that the effects of firearms are no subject to ethical discussions? I think that such a discussion section is necessary, but I am not willing to add it once again if it will be deleted shortly afterwards because someone thinks that there should be no ethical discussion about the choice of weapons...--SiriusB 11:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethical discussion? 

message: The article describes the term as euphemistic.  That may have been written by someone
who mistakenly thought it meant "lethality", but it is in fact a specific and 
technically accurate description of the phenomenon under discussion.  I'd like to
remove this characterization if no one objects. MrRK 19:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a euphemism 

message: Does this not seem like a contradiction? "Bullets not intended to expand such as the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO, M855 Ball Round, may cause much more tissue damage as a result, of expansion or fragmentation? Regardless, I find this paragraph very unclear. -- Jmlane (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Paragraph changed to provide clarity, "Rifles commonly propel bullets to speeds of at least 2-3 times the velocity of the most powerful pistols. Such bullets have more kinetic energy (kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the speed). Bullets not intended to expand such as the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO, M855 Ball Round, may cause much more tissue damage than fragmenting or expanding handgun bullets due to the much higher transfer of kinetic energy."Greg Glover (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: I've again removed the following paragraph:
Courtney & Courtney, in self-published reports, make an exceptional claim that a ballistic pressure wave produces instant incapacitation, however no data exist to show it's a reliable incapacitation mechanism. Indeed there are many examples in which a ballistic pressure wave failed to produce instant incapacitation. One disturbing example is a video clip, produced by LeMas Limited, distributor of RBCD ammunition, of swine being shot by light-weight, high energy handgun bullets (in which LeMas was subsequently fined by the US Dept. of Agriculture): http://www.stopanimaltests.com/f-lemasPigs.asp . Another example is the 1989 shooting of drug dealer Jamie Martin Wise who was shot in his unobstracted upper torso by an Alexandria police department SWAT sniper firing a .223 Remington rifle. Wise was not instantly incapacitated by the bullet's ballistic pressure wave and, after being shot, he killed one SWAT officer (Corporal Charles Hill) and wounded another (Andrew Chelchowski).
The source appears not to pass WP:RS and WP:VER but I've taken it to the reliable sources noticeboard for those who wish to discuss. Arthurrh 18:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether this source is reliable or not is not the primary issue here as I see it; rather the first issue is one of  conflict of interest.  Michael Courtney quoting material by Michael Courtney is clearly and unambiguously a conflict of interest, and should be removed from the article.  If other editors read the source material and determine that it is both reliable and notable, then they can add it to the article.  scot (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The  conflict of interest guidelines explicitly allow for an editor to quote sources of his own authorship.  Therefore, the simple fact of an editor quoting sources he co-authored is not a conflict of interest.  Scientific publications often contain similar self-citations.  The examples where Courtney and Courtney are quoted maintain a neutral point of view, are directly relevant to the topic of discussion, and similar content has been approved and the same papers cited in peer-reviewed contexts.  If you believe the text that I added fails to maintain a neutral point of view, then suggestions of how it could be worded more neutrally would be appreciated.  However, since the points being made are also well-supported by citing third party sources, removing the citations themselves is unwarranted.  Michael Courtney (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To quote:  Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion.  Five of the 11 cites in the current article are from your own work; even given acceptance of it's reliability, the issue of your work's notability has not been addressed.  What I suggest, to eliminate the conflict of interest concerns and completely sidestep the notability issue, is to go through and wherever possible replace the cites of your own work with direct citations of the original works ("since the points being made are also well-supported by citing third party sources").  Any original research of yours can then be discussed regarding notability.  Support for its notability will also address concerns about the reliability, because if other reliable, notable sources reference your work, that provides support for both its reliability (if they are positive mentions) and notability (pro or con).  I would very much like to pick your brain over this stuff, because I'm sure you have a large body of reference material built up.  scot (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have added a number of other references, so that self-citations only account for 5 of 13 references in the neurological section.  The article as a whole is under-referenced, so the proportion of the total articles citations is meaningless.  "Notable" simply means "worthy of notice."  "Notable" does not require that other "reliable, notable sources" cite a given work.  Being relevant to the discussion, being authored by qualified scientists, and being published in an accepted scientific venue should be sufficient to meet the requirement of "notable."  Just about anything relevant to the discussion co-authored by a faculty member at USMA-West Point should probably be considered "notable."  Finally, since "notability" is a topic guideline rather than a content guideline, it should only be used to decide whether an entire topic ("stopping power") in this case) is suitable for Wiki, it is not an appropriate guideline to consider whether a small bit of content creates a conflict of interest.  The relevant content guidelines are neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research.  These guidelines are adhered to since the assertions are supported in cited scientific references.  
Michael Courtney (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the WP:COI issue is important. Re: notability, it reads specifically "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies." So in fact notability DOES apply. Further, it reads "When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion.". The guideline does allow latitude, but I think everyone would be more comfortable if we could do as the policy suggests: "If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back, reassessing your edits, and discussing your intentions with the community." Just my two cents. I don't think WP:COI is automatic exclusion, but where it's making people uncomfortable it should be avoided if at all possible. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: How many editors have contributed to the stopping power article since Courtney and Courtney were first referenced over six months ago?  One or two suggestions of COI definitely does not represent a consensus among the editors.  I have had a number of private exchanges with other editors who have been quite favorable in suggesting that Courtney and Courtney be cited here.  I am following the advice and discussing these edits with the community.  Can you make any case that the work is not relevant or worthy of notice?  I assert that being relevant to the discussion, being authored by qualified scientists, and being published in an accepted scientific venue should be sufficient to meet the requirement of "notable."  Those who disagree need to support their position rather than hide behind a claim that "discomfort" itself is sufficient cuase to exclude the citations.  In addition, parties claiming COI should describe how the citations serve the aims of the individual editor over the aims of Wikipedia.  The editor is not selling anything.  Being cited at Wikipedia confers no professional advantage in scientific careers.  The work is scholarly and meets the Wikipedia criteria for verifiability. 
[User:Michael Courtney|Michael Courtney]] (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality sources  

message: Hum.. well, I would have preferred a forum discussion.
Let's overhaul this article.
First all all, let's remove all the references and external links and let's put the "nutshell" banner.
Other contributors, please do not interfere while I am reworking this article.
I will present the changes made and the arguments for them.
--M Deby (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: References should remain until their removal is justified.Michael Courtney (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have a conflict of interest in here Michael.. ;-) --M Deby (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the spirit of WP:BOLD, I have attempted to do a massive re-write, at least to address all the obvious issues.  I am sure that a lot remains to be done, but it is now at least ready for a re-write :-)  Yaf (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul 

message: I was reading the section on neurological effects.  The discussion of brain trauma resulting from a shot in the thigh was particularly interesting.  What were the immediate physical effects to the animals?  Did they lose consciousness? AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 10:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In many experiments, the animals are anesthetized, so immediate effects are noted as EEG suppression and temporary cessation of breathing (apnea).  One experiment in deer and one experiment in goats report results from unanesthetized animals showing more rapid incapacitation for loads with higher pressure waves.Michael Courtney (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects of ballistic pressure wave? 

message: It doesn't take a very developed gun to kill someone with a head-shot, or at least that is what I think.
All the melon testing and the recording to which direction the juices spray seems ridiculous: more ridiculous than the Pacific tree octopus. I also doubt a 15 to 20 seconds of "possible" consciousness really matters when oxygen supply to the brain is cut off.
I respect your research, but I still think it obviously shouldn't be questioned whether a shot piercing the brain is fatal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.79.69 (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  It doesn't take a very developed gun... 

message: The article is a bit unclear: it mentions the transfer of kinetic energy at one time and force of the projectile at other times. Disregarding the finer structure of the human body (so disregarding hydrostatic shock and all that), what determines how much damage is done? Is it momentum (thus force), which depends on the velocity (v), or is it kinetic energy which depends on the square of velocity (v^2)? Obviously the answer to this question is very important: if kinetic energy (1/2(m*v^2)) is the answer then it would be much more efficient to build guns with high muzzle velocity rather than high calibers (heavier projectile), while if the answer is momentum (m*v) you could go either way; it wouldn't matter if you make the projectile twice as heavy or the muzzle velocity twice as fast, you'd get the same result (again, disregarding things like overpenetration and hydrostatic shock, we're just using a concrete block for target practice).
: It's not so simple as that. If you want to stop a person quickly you have to damage major organs. That's pretty much all that matters. Once a bullet gets there, yes technically it's KE that does the damage but pretty much any bullet will have enough KE to cause serious trauma to things like the heart and brain. The KE is really needed to pass through things between the time it is fired and the time it finds that organ (sin, fat, bone, various organs that you can live without for a while). 
: But a lot of other things are important, pressure matters, focusing the energy into a small point helps against things like body armor.
: Historically we can see military use favoring small, fast bullets. However that is not purely a matter of effectiveness at killing people in a single shot. The military cares more about logistics than anything else. Guns can carry more small caliber bullets, and given the very low odds of instantly killing someone with anything less than a large caliber machinegun, that's a great advantage.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.81.80 (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what exactly causes damage? 

message: Written in the History section:
"not the fact it was fired out of a machine gun which does not make a round stronger"
It is well established that barrel length has a significant effect on bullet velocity and energy.  Is the statement a quote or someone's error? 192.77.126.50 (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant mistatement 

message: This article is called 'Stopping power', however, it deals solely with smallarms bullets.  There is also a moderately extensive body of research dealing with the effects of explosively created  fragments.  A key point being that these may have far higher velocity and a lot less mass than bullets, since World War 2 it's been generally recognised that a 1 gram or thereabouts fragment is sufficient. Nfe (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large part of subject missing 

message: I have a problem with the big hole section. Mainly, it is stated as fact and not that it is just opinion of mainly older people and those who worship Dr. Fackler. First off, they don't cite the .40S&W nor like it as a majority. The "big hole school" calls it the .40 Short and Weak (see glocktalk forums, thehighroad, thefiringline etc.) and they like 10mm and .45 calibers.
When a bullet exits the body, it means a portion of the kinetic energy of the round didn't get to disrupt surrounding tissue as much, and some of this energy goes into expanding the bullet at the same time (to make a bigger hole...).
Exit wounds do not mean more blood loss; this is ridiculous. Blood loss doesn't have to be external. If someone is shot in the chest and a cork is placed in the wound, it doesn't mean they aren't bleeding. The opinion that an exit wound is twice as likely, or any amount more likely to cause a person to bleed out, is false. The pressure in tissue is so much less than in blood vessels, it is easy for blood to fill cavities in the thoracic cage or anywhere in the body. This blood kept inside is useless at best, damaging at worst (such as when lungs fill).
The 9mm which eventually killed Platt in the FBI shootout filled his chest and lungs with 1300cc of blood which is about 6 cups. An exit wound perhaps may have given him more room to breathe, although unlikely it is possible. I'm going off my memory for all of this but stand by my research and statements. If necessary I'll put my credentials on the table and make an account. My addition to the article was "in the opinion of this school of thought" or something to that effect, but it's deleted and the article is poorly written when stated as fact like that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.233.11 (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big holes, alright... 

message: In the article, the article mentions that "Bullets are constructed to behave in different ways, depending on the intended target. Different bullets are constructed variously to: not expand upon impact, expand upon impact at high velocity, expand upon impact, expand across a broad range of velocities, expand upon impact at low velocity, tumble upon impact, fragment upon impact, or disintegrate upon impact." In the quoted section, tumbling is mentioned. However, tumbling is not developed afterwards. I believe it is a very important factor on stopping power. If somebody reads this, a contribution on this topic would add a lot to this article.
MC707 (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tumbling 

message: No doubt the most mediocre article on all of Wikipedia. Goes against nearly all of what industry professionals currently believe about terminal ballistics and defensive firearm use. I'm not even sure how such a low quality article could be allowed on here; I realise Wikipedia is 'open source' but this is just completely unbelievable. This article degrades the overall quality of the community.108.181.1.84 (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of article 

message: The article contains numerous assertions without supporting references. It's hard to verify this material. I'd hate to see good material removed, but if it's unverifiable then it really doesn't belong here. Rezin (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thinly sourced 

message: * "It was introduced in 1898 for use against "savage foes",  but fell quickly from favour due to concerns of breaching the Hague Convention's international laws on military ammunition, and was replaced in 1900 by re-issued Mk II pointed-bullet ammunition."
* "Bullets with sufficient stopping power for humans are generally large caliber, 9.07 mm (.357 caliber) handgun bullets of hollow point design. "
This article need to make clear when it is referring to bullets that are legal to use in international conflicts under international law, and those used by states on their own citizens that are are unlawful in international conflicts. -- PBS (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point but it would require almost a complete rewrite of the article to clarify what is being discussed at each point. My general impression is that modern armies in international conflicts are not especially concerned with stopping power as discussed in this article. Maybe the best approach is indicate that the material applies to other situations unless indicated. Rezin (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: :Core-locked rifle bullets that strike a major bone (such as a femur) can expend their entire energy into the surrounding tissue, causing it to take on a gelled consistency as the cellular structure is destroyed.  The struck bone is commonly shattered at the point of impact.
We never define what a "core-locked rifle bullet" is. Searching Google the best I can find is a proprietary cartridge: Remington Core-Lokt. It sounds like it's a partially jacketed bullet with controlled expansion. It's not clear how it'd effect a bone differently from other bullets, either fully jacketed or unjacketed. It seems like it could be simplified to something like, "Bullets that strike a major bone (such as a femur) can expend their entire energy into it, causing it to shatter." But without a source I'm hesitant. Any ideas? Rezin (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Core-lockt is a trademark name from Remington.  Virtually all bullet makers have a similar bullet design.  It's a controlled expansion bullet designed for hunting.  It's improper to use a trademarked name and if it's on this page should be removed ASAP. Digitallymade (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Core-locked  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Stopping power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080720002850/http://www.paysonroundup.com/section/frontpage_lead/story/27665 to http://www.paysonroundup.com/section/frontpage_lead/story/27665
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It is a point easily proven on the range, and through mathematics.  The section states that it is a myth, but then states that it often occurs, then states that it cannot exceed the recoil.   That means the subject impacted cannot be "knocked back" significantly more than the shooter was unless there is a significant difference in the weight of the shooter vrs the subject.
If a 200 pound man would be "Knocked back" 1 foot back by any projectile, a 10 pound block of ballistic gel would be "Knocked back" 20 feet by the same blast.207.191.12.134 (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Take into account what surface contacts the ground. Also, standing is a continuous exercice of equilibrium, for bipedals. --Askedonty (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - I over simplified for the sake of understanding.  If we were to be entirely scientific we should account for static friction, the composition of the two contacting surfaces, angles of projectiles and surfaces. However, these are tiny contributions to the equation.  If you arranged for every variable in the most optimal situation to create "knockback", the result would be very unspectacular.  My point was to illustrate the clear fallacy of the concept of "knockback". Also, I don't see how the act of balance has any contribution.207.191.12.134 (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That last was only about the common image. It is in fact stated in article that "an actual knockback effect is however observed in real-life shootings" and that it's a "psychological reaction". There is also the pursuit of heavy calibers. It would be still about the proper self-propelling force of the projectile, relative to its mass. It sure seems strange at first sight that a bullet hit is globally that much less "powerfull" than a heavy blow like from an axe - give us the math if I'm misleaded again - but I'm somewhat reminded of relativistic figures like the limit to the width of the string that would break under its own weight. So it's entirely the local trauma (blunt force trauma) which is effective in terms of stopping power. Blunt force trauma explains quite well what it is about, and so much for the power feelings of the healthy. Last what about the theory of a knock-back from slug rounds ? I tend to think it's so much the same that a very basic armor (see Bulletproof vest) would be efficient for protection.  --Askedonty (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Aside from cannon fire, where there were some documented examples, I think you make an excellent point, and wanted to thank you for bringing it up.  I do know of a case of a deer being knocked down by a 12 gauge slug, but it was hit in the side while running, so presumably was thrown off balance by the unexpected receipt of the equivalent of a shotgun's kick.  I recall a WWII soldier's story of crossing a battlefield when he thought he felt someone punch him, and looked around to see who did it, then noticed that he'd been shot.  Perhaps enough force to make someone stumble or fall, but no more than that, even when we're talking about a modern military rifle.  It's hard to see how the concept of knockback ever existed outside of Hollywood. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Knockback" is a fallacy. 

message: First of all Stopping power is a MYTH that is so poorly described that the concept has no genuine value.  The FBI has stated in their recent report (after more than 2 years research)
Here are a few lines from the FBI report:
* Handgun stopping power is simply a myth
* There is little to no noticeable difference in the wound tracks between premium line law Auto enforcement projectiles from 9mm Luger through the .45 Auto
* Most of what is “common knowledge” with ammunition and its effects on the human target are rooted in myth and folklore
* The single most important factor in effectively wounding a human target is to have penetration to a scientifically valid depth (FBI uses 12” – 18”)
* 9mm Luger now offers select projectiles which are, under identical testing conditions, I outperforming most of the premium line .40 S&W and .45 Auto projectiles tested by the FBI
* Given contemporary bullet construction, LEO’s can field (with proper bullet selection) 9mm Lugers with all of the terminal performance potential of any other law enforcement pistol caliber with none of the disadvantages present with the “larger” calibers
These are not all the points, but they are enough.  
Here's some more:
Studies of “stopping power” are irrelevant because no one has ever been able to define how much power, force, or kinetic energy, in and of itself, is required to effectively stop a violent and determined adversary quickly, and even the largest of handgun calibers are not capable of delivering such force. Handgun stopping power is simply a myth. Studies of so?called “one shot stops” being used as a tool to define the effectiveness of one handgun cartridge, as opposed to another, are irrelevant due to the inability to account for psychological influences and due to the lack of reporting specific shot placement. In short, extensive studies have been done over the years to “prove” a certain cartridge is better than another by using grossly flawed methodology and or bias as a precursor to manipulating statistics. In order to have a meaningful understanding of handgun terminal ballistics, one must only deal with facts that are not in dispute within the medical community, i.e. medical realities, and those which are also generally accepted within law enforcement, i.e. tactical realities.
From my standpoint, I am pleased that the FBI has come to recognize in 2017 what I have been stating publicly since 1970.
Digitallymade (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors by Section: First Section 

message: Why should i bother with purchasing 50-caliber rounds to stop a threat immediately? Why can't i use 9x19, fire 3-4 accurate and shots to his torso, with comparable effect? 
Americans, you're so stupid. You're obsessed with one-shotting, but you leave behind things like accuracy, firerate, reliability, ergonomics, armor penetration, recoil, etc, completely. You can't know what your enemy is made of. It may be, for instance, someone like Roy Benavidez, and destroy you even after you empty your entire magazine into his body, and then survive. It may be someone in body armor beneath his jacket. Or someone with a company of "friends". 
And back to the laws of physics. There are NO law of kinetic energy conservation. There's only laws of conservation impulse and energy, separated. Let's say that i, for instance, fire a 5.56 round into titan block with mass of 2000 KG. Before impact, bullet has roughly 1700J of kinetic energy, and block has 0J of kinetic energy. After impact, bullet has roughly 0J of kinetic energy, because, well, it stopped. 
The question is: the block will have 1700J of kinetic energy after impact, yes? Even without friction, the answer is NO.
You can't say that bullet with an 1000J is twice as powerful than a 500J bullet, twice as stopping, twice as armor-penetrating, etc.
Because light and fast bullets usually transfer their energy very, very rapidly, and the huge part of this energy becomes thermal energy, because thermal energy is a freakin' graveyard for all other types of energy. At the exit of someone's body, the bullet will be heated for a hundred or two degrees. That is the reason for 5.56 bullets with their fragmentation usually being unable to one-shot-stop a man, the bullet just heats itself, that's all. Heavy, dull and slow bullets deliver best stopping power. There is also such thing as "viscosity" that makes velocity (in terms of armor penetration) less important than mass and density of a projectile. 
Hydrostatic shock is also a myth, it's just too unrealiable. You can't make a round that is small, but instantly destroys someone's all internal organs with a blastwave. If you will raise it's velocity more and more, it will became a railgun projectile, or a plasma. Plasma has nothing to do with "hydrostatic shock", but it's usually effective against both humans and tanks. 
You know what "shot placement" is? Aim for the head, that's what i say.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.138.94.100 (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stopping power is overrated. Kinetic energy is overrated. One-shot-stop is overrated 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Stopping power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216044223/http://www.ballisticstestinggroup.org/tbipwave.pdf to http://www.ballisticstestinggroup.org/tbipwave.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.paysonroundup.com/section/frontpage_lead/story/27665
*Added archive https://archive.is/20070419215315/http://www.paysonroundup.com/section/localnews/story/23902 to http://www.paysonroundup.com/section/localnews/story/23902
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The word pain is mentioned 7 times in this article, as a contributor to "stopping power." From what I learned as a former medic, in the armed forces, and heard from people surviving being shot, in most cases, there is no pain at all (at least for an hour or two) because of the shock to the system.
Same goes for hunting. Animals shot with a silencer tend to continue grassing until they bleed out, while otherwise escaping because of the sound of the shot.
I feel that the references to "pain" is misleading, and should be corrected/removed.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zardoch (talk • contribs) 20:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the comment, but unfortunately what you have provided is original research. Do you have any reliable sources that you can cite for this same information? - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pain.