Talk:Stopping power/Archive July 05 - October 06

message: Greg Glover 23:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive July 05 - October 06

message: The result of the VFD can be found here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stopping power -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VFD Result 

message: The term does not seem so ridiculous (a shock wave moving through a static body of water -shocks move through solid materials) It may not be an actual effect but as written the entry seems to be carping and risks giving the image of erring from the NPOV
:The phenomenon you are actually talking of (compressive shock wave through static material) is known as a "sonic pressure wave;" it's a wave which is caused by brief compression of fluid tissues, and travels ahead of the bullet.  It generates _extremely_ high pressures, but only for a _very_ brief duration.  
:The sonic pressure wave can be conclusively proven to do absolutely nothing.  A device which I forget the name of is used in treating kidney stones, by generating identical sonic pressure waves which are several times more intense than those generated by even high-powered rifle bullet impacts.  A person has hundreds of such shockwaves going through their body during a single therapy session, with no harm nor incapacitation whatsoever.
:I suppose that means an alternative kidney stone treatment would be to allow yourself to be shot several hundred times in the abdomen with a machine gun, but I do not recommend it!
:What the term "hydrostatic shock" actually refers to is temporary cavitation, a simple transfer of momentum due to drag on the bullet in tissues; entirely analogous to a splash in water.  Force is exerted radially outward (as opposed to directly forward in the sonic pressure wave), and often displaces tissue a fair distance.  Hardly "static."  Arrkhal 05:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hydrostatic shock 

message: I removed the following two paragraphs, they are argumentative, show poor understanding of the subject and the second is a non sequitur.
::Of course, the above example is rather ludicrous – sort of a trick question / answer type of presentation rather than an accurate description of the deadly effect of a bullet.  First of all, a bullet is not in the shape of basketball or of a brick but in a design that will penetrate a human being.  Secondly, the .45 caliber, 230 grain (15 g) bullet that has the energy of 369 ft.lbf (500 J) is the muzzle velocity listed in most ballistic tables.  If a person’s head is situated in front of a .45 caliber muzzle when it is fired, the effect would be quite deadly and it is definite that they will be “stopped”.
::Evidently a major arms maker, Heckler & Koch, gives credence to the idea of “stopping power”.  Their MP5 submachine gun, used for years by many SWAT and military tactical units, fired the standard 9mm parabellum [.36 cal] NATO cartridge.  However, in response to requests by users for a cartridge with increased terminal effects on target, H&K offered a new model of the MP5 that fired the 10 mm Auto cartridge [.40 cal].  This cartridge provides up to twice the muzzle energy of the standard 9 mm parabellum.
Bgeer 19:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes.  How did I miss those paragraphs being put in?  Good job. Arrkhal 00:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure energy transfer as related to the number of gunmen in the JFK assassination is relevent to energy transfer as related to stopping power. This section seems to dismiss energy transfer entirely. I think it should be more objective. Giordano Bruno 22:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy transfer 

message: Just because someone's unscientific, unproven pet theory has been conclusively disproven is a reason to hit pages with NPOV?  What, do all the Wiki pages on geography get hit with NPOV tags by the Flat Earth Society, too?  I'm just going to remove the latest NPOV thingo, since the guy didn't even bother to give any reasoning.
Arrkhal 07:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is up with all this NPOV crap? 

message: The entire purpose of a "stopping power" definition is to gauge the effectiveness of multiple calibers of weapons.  As a firearms enthusiast (though admittedly not an expert)... I have fired many, many rounds.
Stopping power statistics are generated over SCORES and SCORES of incidents.  To claim that the caliber has nothing to do with it, when there is an obvious correlation between caliber size stopping power... is not good science.  Of course, aim is a factor in one single shooting...  
ex: Jim shoots Steve in the face with a .22, Steve dies, therefore aim has the ultimate say in stopping power.
If you use this argument to propose that a more accurate gun has more stopping power, and that the FBI collected statistics are invalid, you are lying to yourself and to others.  The ONLY thing you could prove with this method would be that those higher caliber guns are STILL MORE EFFECTIVE because they are MORE ACCURATE... which is outright FALSE.
In all firearm calibers there is an understood tradeoff...  larger caliber requires more kick and fuel to travel at the same speed and accuracy as smaller caliber... but will deliver more damage.  At any given weapons size... the smaller rounds WILL have an accuracy advantage.  The will USUALLY have a muzzle velocity advantage, and sometimes will deliver more force to the target.  Stopping power, then, can be seen as a function of caliber, accuracy, distance, and muzzle velocity...  The numbers, which were in fact collected, seem to indicate that the following calibers have the ultimate stopping power, in order from greatest to least (One shot stop):
Street Data (FBI, et cetera):
1) .357 magnum Federal JHP (96%)/.45 Auto Federal Hydrashok JHP (96%)/.45 Remington GS JHP (96%) 
2) .40 Auto Remington Golden Sabre JHP (94%)
3) .44 Magnum Winchester SilverTyp JHP (92%)
...
X) 9mm Luger Federal (9BPLE) JHP+P (91%)  (The best 9mm round), followed by Winchester +P 90%, SilverTyp (83%), etc.
Note that this study does not indicate lethality... merely, which rounds have been street proven to be the best at STOPPING a fleeing or fighting criminal with the use of only 1 bullet.  The only arguments that matter beyond this are that perhaps a 9mm clip can hold more bullets, or that less kick on a 9mm and more accuracy mean that placing more bullets is easier... I dunno, that's not what we're arguing... we're looking at the stats.  
Also, more than statistics...  The Strasbourg goat tests...  measured an Average incapacitation time for several calibers by shooting multiple goats through center mass in a scientific fashion.  600+ goats were used in acquiring the data... and the Average Incapacitation Time is seen as a direct measure of a bullet's ability to stop a 160 pound goat (roughly equivalent to the average male in cardiovascular makeup).
According to this test, the average incapacitation times from best to least, from chosen calibers, were:
1) .357 magnum (top of the chart with Remington: 7.34 seconds average incapacitation time, Federal: 7.44 AIT, Winch.: 7.86, and Remington SJHP: 7.9)
2) 10 mm (CorBon: 7.66, Winchester: 7.92)
3) .40 Auto (Winch: 7.86, Federal 7.90, Fed Hydra: 8.32)
4) .45 Auto (Rem: 7.98, Fed Hydra 8.40)
5) 9mm (Federal: 8.90, Corbon 8.92)
It is interesting that in 2 totally different kinds of tests, the numbers would be so similar... .357, .40 and .45 auto falling within 1.5 seconds of each other's best times and 2% of each other's 1 shot stop rate, with the best 9mm falling to almost 3 seconds slower acting than the best times.  
The two sets of data SEEM to indicate that the ability to deal death most quickly comes from a combination of muzzle velocity AND size, rather than simply muzzle velocity alone, which is what small-caliber proponents tend to harp on.  This is reflected by the fact that 9mm performs worst out of the selected calibers in BOTH independent tests, and is the smallest... though the numbers do also indicate that if the 9mm had even MORE muzzle velocity, it may be able to compete with the .357 magnum, since the bullets are similar in size.  
Police switched up from the 38 special for a reason, and they switched up to the .40 from teh 9mm for a reason.  The North Hollywood shootout, the evidence collected by the FBI, and doubtlessly several other incidents gave people reason to change to a caliber with more stopping power.
This article should be changed...  One-shot-stop is NOT a marketting tool.  Just because marketers use data does not make it marketting data.  
Reference:
http://webplaza.pt.lu/~smat/database/News/StoppingPower/Power.htm
:Velocity itself is not relevent except for penetration, and weight also affects penetration. When I look at cartridges I look at energy, at the muzzle and at outlying distances.  Muzzle energy is a function of velocity and weight. The "stopping power" of the calibers tested corrolates exactly with their energy. A typical .40 has more energy than a typical .45. Therefore caliber would seem to be completely irrelevent. I am puzzled why .40 is rated higher than .44 magnum, since .44 has both the caliber and energy advantage. Actually I do not give much credence to these statistics. There has never been anything like a scientifically sound test of stopping power and it's probably impossible to make one (barring actual human test subjects). Most of the tests most commonly cited are hoplessly unscientific (the infamous Thompson-Lagarde tests for example)and can't be said to have proven anything whatsoever. With these studies, is the difference between 96% and the "worst" bullet, 9mm, at 91% really signifigant? If these data are true, 9mm is the hands down premier caliber since it offers highest magazine capacity with only 5% less "one shot stop capability." I wonder if the authors are trying to sell energy transfer theory by arranging the data this way, because the percentages are too close to say that they prove anything. 
:The greater energy something possesses the more damage it can produce. Think about nearly any example in the physical world (like putting your fist through a wall). The question is whether a smaller bullet with more energy distupts more tissue than a a less powerful bullet which is larger (.40 vs. .45) Personally I feel that stopping power is a largely academic discussion. All pistol bullets are relatively the same size and have relatively the same force -- relative to other objects in the world and relative to say, rifle bullets. I think if these tests show anything they show there is no practical difference.
:I agree that the main advantage of a higher energy bullet (and even larger caliber) is probably psychological -- though whether that manifests more as comfort to the shooter or discomfort to the person shot is debateable! Giordano Bruno 22:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several Problems with this article. 

message: This article needs to be changed.
It reports that stopping power is essentially a myth.  That's flat out BS.
http://webplaza.pt.lu/~smat/database/News/StoppingPower/Power.htm
That is both scientific (goats) and statistical (FBI).  Higher caliber with decent muzzle velocity wins.
Until you have statistical or strong scientific evidence contradictory...  this article is defunct.  It's got some POV stuff going on...
This and other articles are ignorant of the facts, such as the AK-47 vs. M-16 article never mentioning the price of the weapons, etc...
:OK, your credibility has dropped to about zero on the mention of goats, as the "Strasbourg Goat Tests" are almost universally accepted as pure fiction--certainly they cannot be considered a credible reference in that light.
:But besides that, yes, this article could probably use a re-write.  There is certainly no clear consensus on what makes a good defensive handgun round, there are just a number of POVs.  
:As for caliber, the FBI's paper on Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness pretty much sums things up--you must be able to penetrate to a minimum depth to hit a vital organ, and at that point, the bigger the wound channel the better.  The trick then is optimizing this with the other requirements (recoil, Hauge convention, external ballistics, armor penetration requirements) to maximize wounding potential without making the round unmanagable.
:As for AK-47 vs M-16 as far as combat effectiveness is concerned, I think the Soviets themselves answered that question with the introduction of the 5.45x39mm--it's got an even smaller bullet at an even lower velocity than the 5.56x45mm.  As far as price goes, not only is it irrelevant to the stopping power argument, but the AR-15 is quite inexpensive in terms of accuracy; the 1000 yard matches are now being won by AR-15s shooting heavy VLD bullets, a feat of which the AK-47 is certainly not capable.  The AK is certanly more reliable in adverse conditions, but as Kalishnikov himself was fond of pointing out, that was because of the loose tolerances involved.  The US went for high accuracy, the Soviets went for high reliability.  scot 23:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such thing as stopping power.  An ice pick through the eye socket will kill you faster than a 16" naval gun which merely blows your legs off.  "Stopping power" is almost entirely dependent on what is hit (which is dependent on shot placement and penetration), and hole size, like the article says.  Read the entire thing before making ignorant comments.  Arrkhal 01:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad, bad article.  Stopping power should be redone. 

message: "there are many documented instances where suspects have instantly dropped unconscious when the bullet only hit an extremity, or even completely missed!"
Has this effect only been observed when shooting at suspects, or is it general to shooting at any kind of human? Ojw 13:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychological effects

message: i saw 2 mythbusters episodes where they dealt with water and ballistics; one, firing from air into water, the other firing underwater, and the distance a bullet would travel thereafter with some penetrating power left. Is this a good article for a mention of such, or would another be better? Gzuckier 17:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd think terminal ballistics would be a better place.  scot 19:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: underwater ballistics (mythbusters)

message: This sentence was had just been separated from the preceeding sentence which claimed a moral difference between criminals and soldiers which justifies more harmful action against them. I think the deleted sentence should be replaced to emphasize that policemen are not allowed to act as a judge in a democratic country and thus the preceeding argument is no real justification for more excessive violence. I hope that the paragraph is now somewhat less confusing.--SiriusB 14:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think perhaps that entire paragraph needs to be worked over, because it's mixing military and police usage, which are covered by different rules.  In warfare, you shoot people to discourage them from acheiving their goals, and the rules governing warfare prohibit expanding, flattening, or exploding small arms bullets to limit the "collateral damage" done to the body.  In police usage, lethal force is generally only authorized when there is an immediate danger to the lives of others, so the force must therefore be designed to disable the subject as quickly as possible, to prevent the subject from harming others.  The restrictions on police ammunition are made by legislators who are (or at least we'd like to think they are) weighing the risks of stopping the subject faster vs. the harm the subject could do in a given situation.  And HP vs. FMJ isn't the only consideration, there's also caliber; Eurpoean police have long used much smaller calibers, such as the .32 ACP and .380 ACP, where the US police have used .38 Special, .347 Magnum, .45 ACP, 9mm, and .40 S&W.  .380 ACP is probably the smallest caliber I'd consider an expanding round in, it's not that deep a penetrator in FMJ form, making it bigger just reduces the chances of penetrating deeply enough on an angled shot.  scot 17:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Confusing sentence" 

message: The section on overpenetration currently starts with "Overpenetration is exaggerated by those who...".  This is pretty poor for an encyclopedia.  It should start off by describing what overpenetration *is*, only getting to the debate over its significance once the definition is dealt with, if it does so at all.  I know almost nothing about this subject - could somebody with a clue rewrite this bit? --144.136.185.68 09:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overpenetration 

message: Well, if I shoot someone at his leg, this will stop him. It is the same case for other bone injuries.Mr.K. 13:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop him from walking, yes.  Stop him from shooting you, or pushing the button on the vest full of explosives and ball bearings he's wearing, or sending an alarm call over the radio he's carrying, most likely not.  Shooting someone in the leg (or anywhere else, for that matter) is lethal force, because a hit to an artery could cause death in minutes.  If lethal force is justified, then it's generally because someone's life is in danger, and you want to stop them from doing ANYTHING and do it NOW.  The ideal choice for this would be, say, a 16 inch naval cannon, but as those aren't too portable, and tend to produce a lot of collateral damage, most people don't carry them around (the exception of course being a battleship captain).  The goal of any weapon is to provide the greatest possible chance to stop someone within the constraints of portability, usability, minimizing collateral damange, legality, and cost.  Those values put on each of those constraints vary widely from situation to situation, which is why arms vary so much, as they each try to reach an optimum solution for a different weighting of constraints.  scot 15:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The above quote might have been adapted from http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf on page 11.  "Barring central nervous system hits, there is no physiological reason for an individual to be incapacitated by even a fatal wound, until blood loss is sufficient to drop blood pressure and/or the brain is deprived of oxygen." 68.232.64.116 22:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The only way to physiologically stop a person or other animal is to damage or disrupt their central nervous system (CNS)" 

message: :I'm no expert in Firearms but this claim in the article sounds quite extraordinary to me...
:"Despite this, being shot with a handgun is fatal only about 5% of the time, and result in serious medical damage approximately 15% of the time. It has even been estimated that survival rates after being shot in the heart are roughly 50%. This is because the lower heart structure is simple, and holes may be stitched closed, while holes in the upper heart structure damage valves which are complex and hard to repair."
:It essentially states that if you are shot with a Handgun, there is a 95% chance you'll live, and an 85% chance that it won’t even be a serious injury. Is this really true?
:Firstly the statement doesn't clarify the circumstances, is this with a single shot? What type of handgun is it talking about (presumably some are more lethal than others)? Is this at close or long range? Is this with immediate and good medical care? Or will you just survive anyway?
:Then of-course there is the question of where does this information come from? Is it properly sourced? Is this information for America or is it a worldwide phenomenon etc.
:Now I know (from what I've been told) that Handgun shootings are often survivable and that if you want to kill someone don't use a "puny" 9mm, but this figure of only 5% fatalities seems ludicrously small. --Hibernian 04:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only 5% of people shot with handguns will die? 

message: This is just a possible theory/chain of thought that may be somewhat interesting.
Stopping power against a soft, unarmored target does not exist, insofar as kinetic energy transfer is concerned. Most bullets just go right through things, im pretty sure we all agree on that.
But nobody has said anything about stoping power versus armor. Assuming the armor is capable of resisting penetration, the kinetic energy of the bullet would be distributed over the armor surface, as well as into the target. Thats why it's possible to break ribs and bruise flesh, even wearing a bullet proof vest.
Shyft 06:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Stopping power against a soft, unarmored target does not exist, insofar as kinetic energy transfer is concerned." False, that is junk sciance. Greg Glover 20:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory/Suggestion 

message: "In one instance, a man was tasered for refusing to incriminate himself by giving a urine sample.  In another, a 75 year old woman was tasered when she allegedly swung her arm at a police officer."
In addition to the POV of "tasered for refusing to incriminate himself", I'm not sure what this is doing here, since tasers don't come up at any other point in the discussion.  While it *arguably* touches on stopping power, wouldn't it be better on the Taser page?  Whereever it goes, it certainly shouldn't be a bizzare conclusion to 'ethics', with no discussion of 'taser' in the rest of the article.203.129.48.203 07:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snippet about tasers