Talk:Stopping power/Archive July 05 - October 06

Archive July 05 - October 06

Greg Glover 23:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"impressive-sounding yet meaningless terminology"

I can't help wondering, if this is put right. The auther states, that Most theories about stopping power rely on impressive-sounding yet meaningless terminology—such as "energy transfer" and "hydrostatic shock"—to hide the fact that they have minimal basis in physics. In reality, stopping power is simply related to the physical properties of the bullet and the effects it has on its target, but the way i see it, the stopping power is directly proportional with the amount of kinetic energy, that the bullet have at the time of impact. Since kinetic energy is E = 1/2 * m * v^2, the energy is increased when the mass and velocity are increased. The more kinetic energy, the larger a wound, i suppose. Unless you get more stopping power if the bullit stays in the victim, which (i think) would be more painfull then if it were to go right trough.

What are your thoughts on this? - --Cordtz 1 July 2005 05:02 (UTC)

Energy does not correlate whatsoever with wounding ability. Check this link for a few scatterplots. And try reading the energy transfer section in the article. Arrkhal 1 July 2005 05:42 (UTC)

The correlation isn't perfect, but the claim that increased projectile energy makes no difference whatsoever to the degree of injury is implausible. Try a simple experiment, dropping coins on your hand from different heights (and thus with different energies), and see which impacts hurt more than the others. Even the article you linked to shows that there is a correlation, at least for some calibers.

It may be that energy is less significant than many other factors, but to claim that it is absolutely irrelevant is incorrect. --Random wikipedia reader.

I tried to improve it. I think it's blatantly false to call the concept of energry transfer meaningless, altho the correlation of energy transfer to stopping power may be yet to be demonstrated. Friday 2 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)

VFD Result

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

Overpenetration - statistics

for what population does the 90% miss rate apply - I'm assuming an average of the entire US. If so clarification is required in the text.GraemeLeggett 11:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Police officers in shooting engagements of 21 feet or less, IIRC. Source is the FBI's statistics on shootings. I'd look up a link, but I'm lazy. When engagement distances increase to 50 feet, percentage increases to 20 or 30 percent hits. Criminals, on the other hand, hit 90% of the time, according to same stats. Not all that surprising when you consider that, due to moral and legal restrictions, police almost never shoot first, and therefore rarely have time to aim, except at extended ranges. Arrkhal 05:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please look up that link. The rest of the article is pretty good, but the lack of a link to a source for that statistic is a glaring omission. TaintedMustard 16:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not the exact study in question, but it does provide numerous statistics: http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS-%20What%20We%20Didn't%20Know%20Hurt%20Us.pdf

Still looking for the original study, but it was done back in the 80's IIRC, so it's unlikely to be easy to find. Arrkhal 04:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Medical consequences and ethical discussion

This article contains much interesting information about the mechanisms of gunshot effects and their goals. But what is still mission in my opinion is the political background and ethical discussion. Of course, an ethical debate is not a topic of an encyclopedia, but it should at least be mentioned that there is a discussion (recently e.g. in Germany, where full metal jacket bullets are being replaced by deformation ammunition). Also the fact that FMJ bullets are obligatory in war is due to ethical arguments.

Use of FMJ is due to several factors, and I do believe it's a reasonable requirement. FMJ rounds (not counting steel-jacketed 7.62mm NATO rounds manufactured by some countries, such as Sweden and Germany, as well as any country's 5.56mm NATO, which fragment) make a much smaller hole, but still have about equal chance of stopping a soldier compared to a more damaging projectile. If either hits the brain, cervical spine, a major blood-bearing organ, or a major artery or vein, the soldier does not have long to live.

Expanding rounds do have a higher chance of hitting a vital spot (more frontal surface area), and do more damage to what they do hit, which is why they're used for hunting; hunters have the luxury of aiming for vital spots on more or less helpless animals (note that I'm not against hunting, just stating a fact).

If either type of bullet hits non-vital tissue, such as the stomach or an extremity, either is capable of incapacitating with roughly equal chance via psychological factors; mostly excruciating pain and emotional trauma/fear/fainting (either of which would have a much lesser effect on an animal, in most cases).

Both types of round provide roughly equal chance of a psychological incapacitation (pain and fear), roughly equal chance of an instant physiological incapacitation (direct hit to brain or spine), and only differ greatly in the likelihood of--and time to effect a--physiological stop via blood loss.

So the massive tissue damage incurred by expanding ammunition (often a hole big enough that you can stick your fist in, at the widest point), particularly in nonvital-but-important tissues like the intestines, do not provide much of a benefit to immediate incapacitation.

There is evidence to the contrary, of course, such as performance of "dum dum" ammunition during the British-Afghan war (not sure what the correct name of that war is), and the supposed superiority of the .357 magnum compared to the .38 SPL.

In the .357 vs. .38 argument, there is actually very little that the .357 does that the .38 cannot; a few extra cm of penetration and a few mm of expansion is all. According to Dr. Roberts, the real reason for the .357 having a better "track record" with law enforcement is because it's louder, and flashes brighter; it's much scarier to the person on the receiving end, and their chances of fainting out of sheer terror are higher; the reason why the .38 had such a poor reputation is because cops are, as previously stated, _terrible_ shots, and missing with the .38 just wasn't doing the job. Missing with the .357 worked better, though; funny, that.

So it wouldn't surprise me if a similar mechanism was behind "dum dum" ammunition's effectiveness; a rounded FMJ bullet that whizzes right through flesh transfers little momentum, so the person hit often feels very little, particularly when the adrenaline is flowing freely. An expanding "dum dum" however, generates intense blunt trauma, and thus "feels" much more substantial to be hit with. Current non-fragmenting FMJ is a good compromise between the two; makes a small-ish hole, but "tumbles" (actually moves to a stable, base-forward orientation) shortly after penetration, and generates quite a bit of blunt trauma. Fragmenting FMJ like steel-jacketed 7.62mm and all 5.56mm ammo is quite another story, though. Arrkhal 05:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to add is that many soldiers express concerns over the disparity in chances of rapid incapacitation due to blood loss; particularly in close quarters (such as most civilian self-defense situations), you want the absolute highest chance of any type of incapacitation you can get. Soldiers generally have automatic weapons, however, which are capable of multiple, rapid hits, greatly increasing the chance of any of the three types of incapacitation. This should increase the effectiveness at least as much as improving ammunition would.

Another thing is to keep in mind that the chances of psychological incapacitation are not very high, and depend on quite a number of uncontrollable factors: mindset, will to live, adrenaline and other psychoactives (created by the body or not) in the bloodstream, pain threshold, etc. Not much that can be done about any of those aside from psychological warfare beforehand. There's no substitute for good shot placement. Arrkhal 05:32, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another point of interest is the medical treatment of gunshot wounds and the prognosis of recovery, if the shot person survives. For example, can large permanent caveties actually heal, can the organism replace the destroyed tissue, at least with surgical aid? What may be the influences of a person's physical properties (size, weight, strength, consuming drugs etc.) on the stopping power and the medical prognosis, if this person has been hit? Since I am no medic, I hope that someone else could add these informations (maybe in another article linked from here, since medical treatment is not a direct subtopic of "stopping power").

You can probably guess most of the effects for yourself. A giant hole in the heart is not survivable >99% of the time. A giant hole in one lung has fair chance of survival, if medical aid is rendered in time; but both lungs has a much lower chance. A giant hole in the abdomen somewhere is somewhat survivable, provided that peritonitis does not set in; but if certain organs are destroyed, immune function and digestion can be severely impaired. A giant hole through nothing but muscle, such as an extremity hit, however, tends to heal reasonably well because they can drain very easily.

Well, without special medical knowledge, I think, it is impossible to predict the healing (not just surviving) chance, i.e. the body's capability of regeneration of destroyed tissue. For example, as far as I know, lung tissue of an adult does not grow again but is lost forever (making recovery from many years of smoking so difficult). So a hit by an expanding or tumbling bullet in the lung will leave a permanent hole, only sealed with cicatricial tissue. I also can hardly imagine, that a "fist-sized" hole in a muscle can be filled again with muscle tissue. The rim of the hole is not a smooth cut but more ore less crushed, and there is also the problem similar to that building a bridge over a wide river from both sides to the middle and finally connecting both sides in the middle, and doing this without any far-reaching tool or measurement (such as cranes, ships, laser equipment or even the naked eye) but only connecting one stone/segment to the other without looking what is ahead. Growing tissue does not have architectural equipment to fill a wide-spaced hole such as it has never been there. The only possibility I can imagine are modern surgical techniques to rebuilt the destroyed tissue. But I don't have the special surgical knowledge whether this is possible today or not. However, I think that mending such injuries also a very important topic, at least as important as causing these injuries. So, I think, there is a need for such a section or sub-article.

While the body can't regenerate many types of tissue (muscle among them), it can still seal up holes fine, as long as the edges are held together (usually with stitches). Pretty much exactly like if you have any piercings, if you take the ring out and leave it out long enough, the hole closes up. Arrkhal 23:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The body can't really regenerate muscle tissue? I ever thought that this is exactly what happens to an astronaut when he or she returns to Earth after months in weightlessness, or to someone after several weeks in hospital. I think, it is possible to (re)generate muscle tissue, but the point is, where to place it (remember the bridge analogy above). Maybe, the hole in the muscle needs to be sealed first before volume can be regenerated. But how are gunshot wounds actually treated? If the tissue needs to be held together, then it wouldn't be enough to stitch just the entry and exit hole. You will need to seal the whole passage of the projectile, and we are talking about a wound in three dimensions (especially for hollow-points or fragmented bullets), not two like common superficial injuries. But how can this be accomplished without causing more damage just to get the stitches into the body? I ever wondered why people talk or write so much about causing injuries with guns (just take a look on the reference list) while you'll hardly find anything about treating and healing them.

Muscle tissue itself can't be regenerated. In other words, if you have 1,000,000 muscle cells in your body, and one dies, you will have 999,999 muscle cells (or fewer) for the rest of your life. Individual muscle cells can vary in strength and size, however, and those attributes can change during a muscle cell's lifetime through exercise or disuse.

Ah, that's new information to me. I ever thought, only nervous cells and lung tissue (and teeth, of course) can't be regenerated. Is this generally impossible (maybe due to fundamental cytological or even chemical/physical principles) or only for the human body? Maybe a complete regeneration can be achieved by surgery in future?--131.220.96.38 10:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not that unusual for tissues to be unable to completely regenerate. The only organs I know that can regenerate to a great extent are the skin and the liver. Most others are more limited; for instance, the stomach can regenerate its lining, but if you remove half the stomach, it doesn't grow the missing half back. Nerve and muscle cells can't divide whatsoever, though, and can only be replaced by stem cells. Arrkhal 21:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

http://www.vnh.org/EWSurg/EWSTOC.html This link might be useful, particularly this chapter: http://www.vnh.org/EWSurg/Chp22Soft-TissueInjuries.pdf

One exceprt of interest:

No Primary Closure of War Wounds.

Dressing.

• Do not plug the wound with packing as this prevents wound drainage. Leaving the wound open allows the egress of fluids, avoids ischemia, allows for unrestricted edema, and avoids the creation of an anaerobic environment.
• Place a nonconstricting, nonocclusive dry dressing over the wound.

Wound Management After Initial Surgery

• The wound undergoes a planned second debridement and irrigation in 24–72 hours, and subsequent procedures until a clean wound is achieved.
• Between procedures there may be better demarcation of nonviable tissue or the development of local infection.
• Early soft-tissue coverage is desirable within 3–5 days, when the wound is clean, to prevent secondary infection.

Emergency War Surgery

• Delayed primary closure (3–5 days) requires a clean wound that can be closed without undue tension. This state may be difficult to achieve in war wounds.
• Soft-tissue war wounds heal well without significant loss of function through secondary intention. This is especially true of simple soft-tissue wounds.
• Definitive closure with skin grafts and muscle flaps should not be done in theater when evacuation is possible. These techniques may be required, however, for injured civilians or prisoners of war.

Though, I think you're falling for the misconception that bullets possess some sort of "magical" wounding ability. There's really no harm a bullet can inflict that a severe auto accident can't do "better." A hole is a hole, and you'll be treated the same at the hospital whether it's from a bullet or a fencepost pipe. Arrkhal 03:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Maybe we can add these information to this article or a related one.

Well, it is true that similar injuries can result from "common" accidents (but those are hardly intended in contrast to gunshot injuries). However, is is difficult for me to imagine how the body can close a hole without holding or stitching the edges together (if tissue can't be regenerated, what are the holes actually filled with?). Even more difficult if the wound results from a fencepost or a shark bite.--131.220.96.38 10:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think you're showing some bias again. Not all gunshot wounds are intentional (including in warfare), and not all vehicular crashes are accidental (especially in warfare).

Most healing is the result of the human body's ability to patch things together without very large amounts of regeneration. If you break a bone, for instance, the bone can knit, but if a bone, or part of one, is totally removed, it won't grow back. Stitches, casts, and sometimes screws and metal plates, are all artificial means of holding parts together so they can heal. While I'm not a doctor, I would guess that very large holes in muscle can be closed using dissolving sutures inside the wound. And some clever methods of suturing at the surface can close up large holes.

As an example, I recently had a very large cyst surgically removed from my back, which left about a 2 or 3 cubic centimeter empty space. The doctor used a suturing technique to create a "tensionless" closure, by very tightly binding the skin so that it stuck up in a ~5mm tall ridge, closing up the empty space. It's "tensionless" in that there is a very large contact area between the skin edges, so it heals together still in a ridge shape; then tension on the skin from just moving around gradually causes it to flatten, and since all tension is on the tissues which have joined together below the surface, visible scarring is reduced. At least in theory. The scar left by the procedure looks pretty big to me. Arrkhal 21:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A small hole through any of the above is usually much more treatable, particularly in battlefield conditions, and with modern antibiotics. As far back as the 19th century, it was noted that non-expanding bullets which passed clear through one lung often healed completely within weeks, even with the sadly primitive medical technology they had then. Arrkhal 05:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Use of FMJ is due to the 1899 Hague convention. At that some nations used jacketed rounds, but the British put theirs on from the rear, leaving the lead exposed at the tip. Germans put theirs on from the front, leaving the lead exposed at the rear. German evidence consisted of recovered hunting rounds which were different from the British rounds. The fact is, any round will fragment if it strikes flesh at a high enough speed. At that time the standard US round was a 220 grain .30-40 round, about 2300 feet per second, and the obsolete US round was the .45 caliber 400 or 500 grain unjacketed lead round, about 1900 feet per second. The standard British round was the 160 grain .311 inch diameter round, about 2500 feet per second. The standard German round was the .32 inch diameter 170 grain round at about 2800 feet per second. The Hague convention banned exposed lead rounds that cause unnecessary pain and suffering. That permits exposed lead (as in US, British, and German rounds) so long as the rounds do not cause excess pain and suffering, or if it does create that pain and suffering, it may still be permitted if that is necessary.

Recently Switzerland, and during 1960-1975, Sweden, attempted to market their design of FMJ bullets as being somehow more humane than competing FMJ bullets. The Swedish 6.5 round from their state arsenals has similar effect as the 5.56 M193 round the US used in Vietnam. The Swiss attempted to market 55 grain M193 type rounds from their state arsenals as more humane than the 62 grain M855 (aka S109) round. Meaker

Hydrostatic shock

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)

right to live

"Authority is bound by human rights to protect every person's life, including criminals, therefore killing of an assailant cannot be simply accepted as a "side-effect" but has to be prevented if possible, and also injuries, especially permanent ones, have to be reduced to an absolute minimum."

That's only one side of the coin. Parts of America and a few other countries still have capital punishment, and still have provisions for justifiable homicide.

There are still people and governing bodies out there that would say that any injuries incurred during the commission of a crime are the fault of the criminal; if they hadn't broken into that house, or raped that woman, or murdered that guy, they never would have been shot in the first place.

Then of course, there are the people that say the victim is at fault for inflicting any injuries on the criminal, because they had the audacity to use force to resist being murdered, raped, kidnapped, or assaulted.

Your statment was distinctly in the middle of those two extremes, but middle-of-the-road is not the same as neutrality. Arrkhal 22:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree. At first, regardless of the national law, the guaranteed right to live beyond justice is an important and reasonable aim of the struggle for human rights. It is one of the most important (and I would even say, the central) column of civilisation. Second, even in a country with death punishment it is left to the judiciary to punish delinquents. This is due to the principle of separation of powers. The police hasn't the right to punish, so the goal of the use of guns can only be to prevent more serious damage to other people. But the policeman is not allowed to judge. So he is bound to reduce harm even to the crimimal to the absolutely necessary minimum. Thirdly, the fact that one of the largest nations still has capital punishment is of course not a justification for it or for the use of deadly force regardless of the unbearable losses caused by this.

"Absolute minimum" level of damage is death in most cases, at present. Unless a criminal is incapacitated psychologically through pain, shock, or fear, the only way to stop them is to cause massive damage to the central nervous system, which has a good chance of causing death or permanent damage. Current technology restricts choice to either minimally damaging and minimally effective (rubber bullets incapacitate only through pain and fear, tazers are limited to 21 feet and don't always work, etc.), or to maximally damaging and maximally effective. When technology for longer-range electrical stun weapons, perhaps ones that use lasers to ionize the air enough to pass an electrical current along it, this will change. But until then, massive damage to the central nervous system is the only reliable mechanism for incapacitation. Arrkhal 15:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, your statements about "non-leathal weapons" seem to be an advocacy for lethal weapons rather than a neutral description of facts. I think, Wikipedia is not the right place for promoting firearms but to provide knowledge. Ok, it is not easy to guarantee neutrality when dealing with such serious topics. But a bias in favour of preserving the right to live for everyone would be more tolerable than against it, wouldn't it?

Yes, that is what I'm advocating, but I'm also describing the facts. Non-lethal weapons are inherently not as effective as lethal ones. If you were a police officer, would you rather have: a weapon which is almost never lethal, but is only effective ~25% of the time and at very specific ranges (as with chemical sprays and rubber bullets); a weapon which is rarely lethal, effective >90% of the time, but is limited to a range of either 15 feet/4.6 meters or 21 feet/6.4 meters, depending on model (Wild Bill Hickock once killed a man 75 yards/68.6 meters away with a single shot from a .36 caliber black powder revolver, made in 1851, so you can imagine how much better modern guns can perform); or a weapon which is lethal only ~5% to 15% of the time (thanks to modern medical technology), and has an incapacitation rate of closer to 75%? Arrkhal 15:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Additional note: I remember that had been argued in Germany that shallowly penetrating expanding rounds were recommended because the risk of hitting vital structures is smaller. I think this is indeed a reasonable argumentation though there are opposite opinions.--SiriusB 10:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That approach will no doubt result in needless deaths of innocent citizens and police officers. The best example I can think of is the 1987 Miami shootout. The very first bullet which struck Platt (a bank robber) entered his right upper arm, severed his brachial artery, and entered his chest, severing several more arteries, and stopping 1 inch short of penetrating his heart; this is the bullet which killed him, at the time of autopsy his right lung was totally collapsed, and 1.5 liters of blood were in his chest cavity. Despite being a lethal wound, and despite a second bullet which shattered a forearm bone in his right arm, the bleeding rate was slow enough, and the incapacitation effect lacking enough, that Platt was able to return fire on FBI agents, killing Agents Dove and Hanlon, and severely wounding McNeill and Hanlon. He then got into the Agents' car and tried to start it, before he was finally stopped by a bullet which struck his spinal cord. Had that first bullet (a 9mm 115 grain/7.5 gram +P+ Winchester Silvertip hollowpoint, which penetrates ~9 inches/22.9 cm in tissue simulant) penetrated 2 inches more, it would have hit Platt in the heart and incapacitated him sooner, saving two lives, a groin, and a neck.

Another example is when James Wayne Horne broke into Sammie Foust's house on May 9, 1996, and started beating her and slashing her face with a boxcutter knife, in a totally random attempted homicide and robbery. She was able to shoot him once in the face, once in the heart, and twice in the abdomen with a .25 caliber pistol. It took 1 hour for him to bleed to death from the bullet which struck his heart. As a result of the insufficient permanent cavity generated by the .25 caliber pistol, Ms. Foust suffered massive damage to her face, including the fracturing of most of her facial bones, the near removal of one eye, the loss of most of her teeth, and a crushed windpipe.

It's a fact that bullets are designed to incapacitate by killing, because that is the most effective thing our technology has been able to come up with; a dead person can't get back up, like they can after being tasered (law enforcement tasers stun for an 8 second duration), shot with rubber bullets, maced, or bludgeoned. Killing effect, however, is dependent on shot placement. However, insufficient penetration and/or insufficient wound size can negate even the best shot placement. Emasculating the weapons used by police results in criminals being killed exactly the same amount, but also results in additional deaths of police officers and private citizens, because the bullets don't kill or otherwise incapacitate the criminals quickly enough.

Rapid incapacitation through blood loss due to a single very large hole is easier on the criminals, too. The faster they pass out due to blood loss, the faster they receive medical aid, and the fewer times they are shot. If it takes 1 minute to bleed out from a heart wound, that's 1 minute in which further injury can and will be inflicted because the criminal is still a threat, and 1 hour in which medical attention will be denied. A criminal who is turned into swiss cheese because of ineffective ammunition is harder to treat than one who was shot only once in a vital, blood-bearing structure, since that is only one hole which must be closed. Statistically, the chances of surviving being shot in the heart are roughly 50%. Most of the people who die after being shot in the heart die because they were shot multiple times elsewhere (either in a homicide, or due to insufficient time to incapacitation), and/or because medical aid was not rendered soon enough.Arrkhal 15:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another additional note: You argue that one important drawback of "non-lethal" weapons is the high rate of misuse, because officers sometimes think that their use may not so immoral than the use of deadly guns. But this is not a drawback of taser guns etc. but simply a failure of training of the officers. Everyone who has been allowed to carry a weapon of whatever kind has to know what is allowed and what not.

I agree completely. The training most law enforcement officers recieve is totally inadequate. I actually do advocate the use of tasers by the police, but the fact that they are being misused is worth pointing out.

The fact that many people drive too fast or risky is not an argument against airbags and other safety equipment in cars. I think the only reasonable argument against the use of such "less lethal weapons" in certain situations is their lesser effect or effective range. But some situations require the strict reduction of the risk of body harm to the opponent (for example at demonstrations or if the opponents are kids).

In this case, it would be like banning air bags because of irresponsible parents putting child seats in the front seat, or something.

And, please, give more information about the statement "in many places in America, it is illegal for the police to use anything but hollowpoint ammunition". What is the motivation of this law? Certainly not the duty of (illegal) "in situ" punishment of criminals by ultra-harmful ammunition. But the sentence that follows immediately in the articel seems to imply this.--SiriusB 11:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Saving the lives of law enforcement officers, private citizens, and the criminals themselves is the motivation; the reasons are discussed above. Rapid incapacitation with as few shots fired as possible is better for everyone involved. The natural instinct for any human being is to "shoot them to the ground;" to continue firing until the criminal is no longer a threat. If only one or two shots are required, the criminal is wounded more quickly and less severely for the same incapacitation effect.

As a result, police officers and private citizens are injured less, the criminals are injured less and receive medical treatment much faster, and medical personnel have fewer nightmares about people who have been turned into swiss cheese.

It is possible that more effective bullets may cause a greater number of needless criminal deaths. It is undeniable fact, however, that insufficiently wounding bullets will result in needless law enforcement and civilian deaths; some criminals will be incapacitated by a cap gun or a miss, yes (it's well-documented that some people, on both sides of the law, have clutched at their bodies as if shot and fell to the ground unconscious, when the bullet missed them completely). But insufficiently wounding bullets are quite likely to result in more criminal deaths, because of those people who are not incapacitated by anything less than massive central nervous system damage. Arrkhal 15:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to add, overpenetration is a much-exaggerated but still valid concern with the use of full metal jacket ammunition. Many types of FMJ pistol ammunition are capable of penetrating 26"/66 cm or more of tissue simulant; that's the equivalent to two people lined up, assuming skin holdback effect hampers penetration by the full 4"/10.2 cm equivalent. There was even one instance where a police officer (I can't remember the department right now) was fatally shot by a .38 special 158 grain LRN which passed completely through a criminal and struck him. Arrkhal 16:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rate of fatalities

"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%." It would be useful to give references to these numbers (or at least refer to a weblink if it's already there). In most reported cases in Germany, at least in 50%, where police officers make use of their guns, it ends up lethal. Short range shots by policemen that have been survived by the opponent seem to be very rare. Just yesterday (13.04.) an 18 year old man has been killed in Lübeck, Germany, by a single shot into the chest or abdomen (differing between different press announcements). He died before the abulance arrived (i.e. within a few minutes). I would say, that was mainly due to the highly increased destructive effect of the expanding ammunition and the massive blood loss caused by it. The 5% fatality rate may be true if shootings with all kinds of firearms, including .22 sports pistols, are taken into account, but not with highly destructive police weapons.

The 5% rate is based on all shootings, however, the majority of shootings are with reasonable power guns, of .380 ACP (9mm Kurz) and up. All handguns, regardless of caliber (aside from perhaps the .454 Casull, .480 Ruger, and .44 magnum), are very weak compared to rifles and shotguns. I'll look for a source.

You should try looking up how many of the 50% fatalities were inflicted by submachine guns, or otherwise involving "swiss cheese" type wounds. In the USA, the majority of fatal shootings involve 5 or more gunshot wounds, and/or wounds to the brain or cervical spine.

Most of the reported shootings I remember to be fatal were done by police officers (shootings by special forces are not included here, just ordinary officers with ordinary handguns). And, as far as I remember, most of them were single shots or not more than two or three shots into the torso.--SiriusB 08:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, the vast majority of "ordinary police officers" in most European countries (England is the only exception that comes to mind) carry submachine guns as often as they carry handguns. In the USA, it's commonly only a handgun (or two, or three) on their person, and a shotgun in their car. If you look at the article I recently put a link to (One Shot Drops - Surviving the Myth), you can see it's pretty common for violent criminals to easily survive large-caliber handgun wounds, even multiple ones. Arrkhal 17:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'In the authors’ ongoing study of violence against law enforcement officers, they have examined several cases where officers used large-caliber hand guns with limited effect displayed by the offenders. In one case, the subject attacked the officer with a knife. The officer shot the individual four times in the chest; then, his weapon malfunctioned. The offender continued to walk toward the officer. After the officer cleared his weapon, he fired again and struck the subject in the chest. Only then did the offender drop the knife. This individual was hit five times with 230-grain, .45-caliber hollow-point ammunition and never fell to the ground. The offender later stated, “The wounds felt like bee stings.”'

Hard to believe, but maybe the guy was intoxicated with drugs or at least large amounts of adrenaline. I remember (but could not refer to particular sources) that people, who survived a criminal's gun attack, reported an "incredible blow", much stronger then that of a fist. On the other hand, I also remember a report of a man, who had been attacked by a lion (maybe in a circus or a zoo) and nearly killed. He did not feel any pain and felt like in a dream. Or an alpinist who fell several hundred(??) metres and survived. "It was like falling into a blue sky with pink clouds" (or something like that). Maybe, it is the same or a similar effect that made the offender suppress pain and fear.--SiriusB 09:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you're looking for results of American pop culture pervading most other countries, you've found one. Hollywood tells us that guns create massive, bleeding holes that spray blood all over, and kill instantly (unless it's a major character that was shot, of course). Hollywood tells us that guns never miss (unless they're being fired by extras). Hollywood tells us that a 1 cm thick piece of wood is protection against a high-powered rifle.

The reality is that human bodies are amazingly resilient to any and all forms of damage (also, entrance wounds from handgun bullets are typically slightly smaller than the diameter of the bullet itself, and exit wounds are usually slit-shaped and rather small and unimpressive looking; and, most bleeding from gunshot wounds in the torso is internal, staying in the thoracic or abdominal cavity, with very little blood making it out of the body; as a general rule, only extremity hits bleed externally to a great extent, since there's nowhere else for the blood to go).

A person's reaction to injury (any injury) depends entirely on psychological factors, unless the central nervous system is involved; some people have remained lucid after being chopped in half in various accidents, yet other people will faint if they prick their finger with a needle.

And almost any damage, aside from severe injury to the CNS, is survivable in the short term as long as blood loss is controlled, and blood transfusions are given in a timely fashion. In the long term, most injuries can heal (even if there's less tissue), and effects will depend on exactly what organs are hit. The lungs are especially resilient. As far back as the 18th century, people who were hit through the lungs with muskets (provided that the ribs were not hit) had a very good chance of survival, so long as the bullet missed the heart and major blood vessels. People who were struck in the abdomen, however, almost always died of peritonitis.

And even today, peritonitis is one of the greatest threats to survivability, after CNS damage and bleeding. If you go to the hospital with any type of penetrating abdominal injury (including internal, such as a ruptured appendix, or perforated bowel), you can expect to be literally disemboweled, with your guts dumped out on a table, and have every milimeter of your intestines inspected for damage, and all your organs and abdominal cavity thoroughly scrubbed and washed. This is the only method for preventing peritonitis which modern medicine has come up with.

Even damage to the CNS is no guarantee of death or incapacitation. There was one case where a woman was shot in the forehead with a .357 magnum 158 gr jacketed hollowpoint (9x33mm 10.25 gram). The bullet passed between the lobes of her brain, splitting them apart and doing no other damage. It failed to even knock her unconscious. Similarly, there are numerous cases of suicide attempts where the person blew out part of their brain, yet survived. Arrkhal 07:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you know a reference to this particular case (that of the woman with "split" lobes of the brain) or any other background information (or keywords to search for)?--SiriusB 09:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All I can remember at the moment is that it was in a magazine article online. Arrkhal 19:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, the statement that heart shots were survivable in about 50% appears very unbelievable to me. I would expect that less than 5% (if any) will survive this; assumed that standard police ammunition is used. A heart shot with .22 or a powerful air rifle maybe much more survivable. A heart shot by expanding ammunition should be lethal in nearly 100% of all cases. However, I think it makes little difference if a balloon is shot by a .50 machine gun or pierced by a needle. Even if it does not burst it will deflate rapidly. And similarly I would expect penetrating heart injuries to be lethal even if there is only a millimetre sized hole (remember that a little cut at the wrist may cause lethal blood loss within a couple of minutes!). And again, you mentioned that muscle tissue cannot regenerate. The heart consists almost entirely of muscle, so a heart shot will leave necessarily permanent damage and most probably will make a transplantation necessary. So who has published numbers mentioned in the article?--SiriusB 14:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That figure would be a lot more believable if you'd study some anatomy. Roughly, the upper third of the heart is made of delicate valves and chambers, the middle third is two larger, more robust chambers, and the lower third is solid muscle. A bullet of any caliber which strikes the upper third is likely to cause irreparable, fatal damage. Damage to the middle third is survivable as long as medical aid is rendered soon enough, and the hole isn't too large. A hole in the lower third, however, is quite unlikely to have any short-term effect at all.

In other words, only in the middle third of the heart does caliber or expanded diameter have a pronounced effect. A .22 in the upper heart is just as effective as a .45 in the same spot, and a .45 in the lower heart is just as ineffective as a .22 in the same area. With that in mind, 50/50 is not too surprising.

Similarly, the superior and inferior aortas pump enough blood that caliber is irrelevant. There was an incident awhile back when a police officer in the USA was shot sideways through the shoulder with a .22 revolver which had a 28.6mm long barrel. Despite the puny size of the bullet and the pathetic velocity, the bullet was able to strike the officer's superior aorta, and he collapsed after 5 or 10 seconds, dying before medical help could arrive. Shot placement and penetration matter much more than the size of the hole, in most cases.

And by your logic regarding muscle not regenerating, a torn muscle due to a sports injury requires a "leg transplant." But that's obviously not the case, because muscle is quite capable of joining damaged ends together. Same goes for cardiac muscle. A couple sutures and it's fine, provided the damage is not to the valves of the upper heart.

Maybe; but even if the damaged ends are successully joined together there is still a certain amount of lost tissue. A .45 expanding round (expanding to roughly twice the initial diameter) will leave a hole with a cross section of approximately 5 cm². The human heart is about 8 cm across, thus up to 40 cm³ (or approx. 40 g) of tissue (if solid muscle is hit) will be destroyed. This is about 13% of the total weight of the heart (300 g). A permanent loss of tissue of more than 10% (and even more, if additional necrosis occurs, e.g. due to infections or lack of oxygen) should very likely cause a significant loss of physical performance. And since the heart is much smaller then the whole torso the temporary cavitation should have a significant damaging effect, especially if the bullet strikes through one of the main chambers full of blood. Remember that a water melon can be completely disrupted by such a bullet, so the total damage may be even larger. And even a torn muscle due to a sporty injury will leave a permanent loss of tissue. But mayby <<1%, so it can be neglected.--SiriusB 08:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By my math, 5 cm^2 = 1" diameter. Do you really believe a .45 caliber hollowpoint can make a 1" hole?

I remembered that expanding bullets can expand to nearly twice their initial diameter and that tissue will be disrupted at about 1.5 times the bullets (final) diameter or cross section (but I don't remember the source). Hard to believe that soft tissue can survive the high accelerations that occur. If the tissue is pushed away with 100 m/s within 1 cm this is equivalent to 50,000 Gs (1 G would require 500 m) or a force of 50 kiloponds per gram of tissue. Grazing shots still leave a cut or scratch in the skin (mainly due to friction rather than crushing), even there is only a very slight grazing contact (and even if the bullet is an air rifle diabolo with <7.5 Joules). So I thought, that at least all tissue within the bullet's cross section would be destroyed by crushing or at least by friction. Maybe this guess was wrong.--SiriusB 09:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Disrupted" and "destroyed" are not the same thing. The best analogy would be a knife wound. If someone is stabbed with a knife, tissue is disrupted by whatever volume the knife blade occupies. The actual amount of tissue destroyed, however, is negligible.

Bullets are the same way. Tissue which the bullet hits can be crushed (destroyed), depending on the shape and velocity of the bullet, or merely displaced (disrupted). The amount of tissue which the bullet crushes is never larger than the diameter of the expanded bullet. I don't know what the acceleration involved is, but muscle tissue has a tensile strength of roughly 1 to 4 MPa. Nonfragmenting roundnose and flatnose bullets (expanding or not) do not cause much tearing of muscle until impact velocity exceeds 1000 to 1500 m/s. The temporary displacement of tissue with expanding pistol bullets is typically 2 to 4 inches (5.1 to 10.2 cm), which is not enough to cause tearing or stretching damage to elastic tissues.

High velocity, partially fragmenting rounds, however, can indeed cause very large holes. One anecdote I remember is when a violent criminal was shot in the chest once with a 55 gr .223 hollowpoint (5.56x45mm 3.56 gram). Even though the bullet did not strike the central nervous system, it caused very rapid incapacitation because the hole created was roughly 2" wide just beneath the surface. This is due to the synergistic effect of fragmentation combined with massive temporary cavitation, and is covered in the article. Arrkhal 07:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, friction. A stab wound analogy probably will work here also. If a person were to be stabbed with a knife blade that has sandpaper on the sides, the friction from the sandpaper will not "scoop" out very much tissue, no matter how much force the stabbing is conducted with. On the other hand, if sandpaper is quickly drawn across the skin, it can cause a painful, though minor, injury. Arrkhal 07:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most .45 hollowpoints expand to between .70 and .75 inches (1.78 to 1.90 cm), and crush significantly less tissue than their expanded diameter. Spheres at any velocity below 2000 fps (610 m/s) crush a hole roughly 43% of their diameter, so a rounded edged expanded hollowpoint is unlikely to crush more than 75% of its expanded diameter. That makes for a 1.6 cm^2 hole at the very most.

At velocities below 2000 to 2500 fps (610 - 762 m/s), very little tissue distruption due to stretching and temporary cavitation occurs, and tearing does not occur until the 1070 m/s mark is broken, at the very least. http://www.btammolabs.com/fackler/wounding_mechanism_projectile_shape.pdf

This reference, however, does not confirm your statement that a sphere below 610 m/s would not crush more than 43% of diameter (= 18.5% of cross-section). The lowest velocity in the tests was 764 m/s and in tis case the hole (within tissue) was 6-8 mm from a 6mm sphere, i.e. 1.0 to 1.3 times the sphere diameter. But maybe this is only the displacement and not the path of disintegration. Do you know the reference for the 43% figure, and was it really 43 of diameter and not cross-section? Because, 43%=0.43 is close to the c_D value of a sphere, and that is related to cross-section.

Furthermore, I still don't know how the permanent cavity (i.e. the ~1.5 cm wide path left by a .45 hp) is closed prior to recovery. Because you can fix a hole in a surface-like structure (skin, the "walls" of the heart etc.) with stiches but hardly a ~30 cm long path through solid muscle (or lung, liver etc.) tissue. I even can't imagine how to get the instruments inside the hole without cutting the whole muscle. The only thing I could imagine is to close the hole by external pressure. But as far as I read the "emergenca war surgery" article this is wrong. But I didn't find any other hint in this reference. Maybe because it is only about the immediate measures and not about the actual treatment of the wound in a hospital.--SiriusB 12:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reference is from MacPherson, though I can't find a specific reference. I believe it's from his book, Bullet Penetration. It says something like that spheres crush 43% of their diameter at the midpoint of the wound track.

Does it refer to the geometry before the impact? Because it makes a difference if the tissue within 3mm radius around the future path of the bullet is crushed or if there is a crushed zone of 3mm thickness aroung a 10mm hole.

Huh? You mean the geometry of the bullet? What MacPhereson said is that holes are usually roughly conical in cross-section. At the entrance wound, the hole will be slightly smaller thna the diameter of the projectile at most velocities. At the midpoint of the potential penetration depth (if a bullet could potentially penetrate 50 cm, that's at the 25 cm mark then) the diameter of the wound is 43% of the diameter of the sphere.

I mean the geometry of the tissue that changes tue to bullet impact. There are two possibilities: 1) Imagine a path as wide as 43% of the bullet's diameter within the unperturbed tissue. Then all the tissue within this 0.43 path will be destroyed if a bullet strikes it. 2) After the bullet done its destructive work there is a hole (or channel) with a certain diameter. Around this void there is a zone of 43% of the bullet's radius where displace tissue is also destroyed.

But maybe you did not mean the zone of tissue destruction but only the width of the hole itself. Ok, the hole can of course contract or be compressed by surrounding tissue after the shot, and in recovery a contraction to zero would be ideal (see the "stitching discussion"). But that is no information about the amount of destroyed tissue. I believe that there is a zone of dead (but still mechanically attached) tissue immadiately around the hole. I don't think that this is negligible.--SiriusB 09:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So you mean tissue destruction due to temporary cavitation? Doesn't happen, except with high-powered rifles, and perhaps the very powerful handguns, like the .454 Casull, .460 and .500 S&W Magnums, etc.

This document is definitely required reading.Arrkhal 19:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

...Further, the temporary cavity is caused by the tissue being stretched away from the permanent cavity, not being destroyed. By definition, a cavity is a space18 in which nothing exists. A temporary cavity is only a temporary space caused by tissue being pushed aside. That same space then disappears when the tissue returns to its original configuration.

Frequently, forensic pathologists cannot distinguish the wound track caused by a hollow point bullet (large temporary cavity) from that caused by a solid bullet (very small temporary cavity). There may be no physical difference in the wounds. If there is no fragmentation, remote damage due to temporary cavitation may be minor even with high velocity rifle projectiles.19 Even those who have espoused the significance of temporary cavity agree that it is not a factor in handgun wounds:

"In the case of low-velocity missiles, e.g., pistol bullets, the bullet produces a direct path of destruction with very little lateral extension within the surrounding tissues. Only a small temporary cavity is produced. To cause significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet must strike that structure directly. The amount of kinetic energy lost in tissue by a pistol bullet is insufficient to cause remote injuries produced by a high velocity rifle bullet."20

The reason is that most tissue in the human target is elastic in nature. Muscle, blood vessels, lung, bowels, all are capable of substantial stretching with minimal damage. Studies have shown that the outward velocity of the tissues in which the temporary cavity forms is no more than one tenth of the velocity of the projectile.21 This is well within the elasticity limits of tissue such as muscle, blood vessels, and lungs, Only inelastic tissue like liver, or the extremely fragile tissues of the brain, would show significant damage due to temporary cavitation.22

The body probably has ways of pulling severed muscle ends together on its own, eventually. I don't think treatment would be very different from treating a muscle tear from a sports injury. Arrkhal 15:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it makes indeed a great difference because of the geometry of the wound. Remember, you can't get stitches and so on into a <1 cm wide and 20 cm long "pipe" without difficulties (or maybe not at all) but very easily on the ends of the torn-apart halves of a muscle, simply because in the latter case you can reach the wounded area from everywhere but in the former you have to reach to the narrow hole.

Not necessarily. In a muscle tear, only part of the muscle can be reached, usually. Another part of the muscle would be pushed up against bone, other muscle, or internal organs, and might not be accessible.

Clearing a motorway after a pileup is much easier if it happened open-air than if it happened in a tunnel. Mayby modern endoscopic techniques can accomplish that but in the past there was no such technology. So, what ways does the body have to close the "pipe"? Where does the required force (or pressure) come from and how is it coordinated? Remember the bridge building analogy: To connect both ends in the middle properly you need technical architectural equipment or at least your eyes to see the opposite end and approach it. Cells in the body don't have eyes or laser techniques, they are blind. Something (ore someone) else has to coordinate it. But does that really mean, that without surgery, the hole will be left a lifetime and only the rim of the whole is sealed first ba eschar and later by scar tissue? Or does a kind of coordinating mechanism exist so that torn ends need not necessarily stitched together if the distance between opposite sides is not too large (mayby <1 cm)? I really have no idea.--SiriusB 08:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't either. All of my medical knowledge comes from biology courses I've taken so far. Cells are fairly mobile though, in many cases. It wouldn't surprise me if the body has some way of pulling torn muscle ends together on its own. Otherwise there would be no recovery possible from torn muscles (without modern medicine), either. Arrkhal 20:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

People are not made of watermelon, they are made out of very resiliant, elastic muscle.

Only "reference" to the 50% figure I've been able to find so far is here. Warning; it's a photo of a human heart, still in a chest, with a hole in it due to a handgun bullet. Caliber is unknown, but my guess is 9mm or larger. Will look for another source after lunch and class. Arrkhal 17:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Energy transfer

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)

Yikes. How did I miss those paragraphs being put in? Good job. Arrkhal 00:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

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)

definition of stopping power

I think this section needs an enormous amount of revision, but I doubt I have the writing ability to pull it off. Most of my writing skill is in creating fiction, not technical stuff.

Parts that stick out are:

The first is that, no matter what the energy level or design of a bullet, if the bullet misses or just grazes the target then there is zero “stopping power”. In other words, stopping power is relative to where the bullet hits the target.

That's false. That's like saying flashbangs have zero "stopping power" because they do not produce penetrating ballistic injury. On the contrary, flashbangs do have relatively good "stopping power" because the incredibly intense blast of sound and light is enough to cause incapacitation in most individuals. Similarly, the muzzle blast and flash of a firearm can be sufficient to incapacitate a person through the same means, particularly at close range, indoors, and/or in low light. According to Dr. Roberts, in fact, the difference in muzzle blast is almost the sole reason why .357 magnum revolvers tend to be more effective than .38 special revolvers in terms of "street results;" the increased blast and flash can cause a greater degree of incapacitation due to deafness, blindness, and psychological shock.

Consider an imaginary line from the top of the head to the navel. The area four inches on each side of that line is the zone of “stopping power” since it contains most of the major organs of the body – brain, throat, spinal cord, heart, lungs, stomach, etc. Bullet penetration into any of these areas would be deadly / disabling.

Simplistic to the point of being false. The "stomach, etc." and other digestive organs are not immediately vital, and a person could live for quite some time without them. Similarly, a hole in a lung is quite survivable for a relatively long amount of time, depending on the size of the hole, and whether it's a "sucking" wound. Holes in the lower third of the heart are quite survivable in most cases; there's one incident in which an attacker was shot in the heart with a .25, and remained quite conscious for nearly an hour. [1] I could go on and on about this. The only guaranteed "area of stopping power" is the brain stem and cervical spine.

“Stopping power” is also a factor of distance from shooter to target. Does the bullet have enough energy to make a sufficient penetration of the body at a given distance? If a shooter fires a .45 cal or a .30-06 bullet at a target 20 ft (6 m) away and hits the “zone”, the wound would be deadly / disabling. But, if a shooter fires a .45 cal or .30-06 bullet at a target 300 yards (300 m) away, only the latter has the possiblity of creating a wound that would be deadly / disabling.

Flat out false. A 230 grain .45 cal JHP with a muzzle velocity of 850 and a ballistic coefficient of .141 (about typical for a bullet of that type) will retain 647 feet per second (197.2 m/s) at 300 yards. One would need to aim 20 feet over the target to hit at that distance, but a 230 grain bullet at 647 ft/s is most certainly potentially lethal.

And then the final paragraph seems to espouse the energy transfer theory, which totally does not fit with the rest of the article.

I can take a shot at revising this if no one else wants to, but I cannot by any means guarantee that the result will be readable.

What is up with all this NPOV crap?

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)

Several Problems with this article.

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)

Bad, bad article. Stopping power should be redone.

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)

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)

Psychological effects

"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)

underwater ballistics (mythbusters)

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)

I'd think terminal ballistics would be a better place. scot 19:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Confusing sentence"

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)

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[2]. scot 17:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Overpenetration

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)

"The only way to physiologically stop a person or other animal is to damage or disrupt their central nervous system (CNS)"

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)

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)

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)

Only 5% of people shot with handguns will die?

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)

Industry penetration requirements

"They also believe that penetration is one of the most important factors when choosing a bullet (and that the number one factor is shot placement);" This doesn't make sense.

Theory/Suggestion

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)

"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)

Neurological effects

Regarding the statement "Unless a bullet directly causes damage to a CNS structure, there is absolutely no physiological reason for a person or animal to be instantly incapacitated", I am afraid to say that there is a decent lack of knowledge from the author's side.

Anyone ever having watched a well-performed liver punch in boxing once will testify that this will easily bring down a trained heavyweight champion in an instant. Those among us who were "lucky" enough to ever be caught unaware and receive an epigastric punch from a 12 year old girl are able to tell how much of a "man stopping" experience even this can be.

Any person ever having seen a patient suffering from a ruptured appendicitis, a ruptured ulcer, a volvolus or any kind of similar affection can tell that there are few things on earth more incapacitating than peritoneal or intestinal pain. What makes you believe that a bullet travelling through your guts at trans-sonic or super-sonic speed is unable to achieve this effect?

Adrenaline, drugs, and even a good dose of rage can all allow the brain to suppress pain enough to shrug off all of this--remember that pain is all in your head. There have been innumerable cases where people have kept going on well after they should be dead; just a couple of examples are Rodger Young, who advanced 75 yards onto a Japanese pillbox after being shot twice by machine gun fire, and still managed to kill a number of the occupants with grenades, and Michael Platt, who killed 2 FBI agents after being shot 6 times, resulting in shattered bones in his arm and foot, and wounds to the chest, back, and thigh. He was then shot 6 more times and wasn't actually incapacitated until the final shot hit him in the spine, bruising the spinal cord. At this point he lost consciousness, and died while paramedics were treating him. Even complete destruction the heart can take many seconds to result in death, and a sufficiently motivated person can accomplish a lot in that time. scot 14:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is certainly true while considering a mere "flesh" wound. However, visceral pain not only affects the brain, but also works directly onto the cardiovascular system. Sure enough, adrenaline can compensate some in this field, too. However, a strong visceral stimulus can easily cause immediate cardiac arrest (or at the least bradycardy and relaxation of the capacity vessels. It is unnecessary to mention that this is a condition that the CNS does not support for more than a few seconds. If you believe that you can still run a dozen steps and attack someone while your circulation stands still, ask a friend who is proficient in Judo to perform a nami-juji-jime on you. Even though this technique does not achieve a complete circulation stop in the head (the vertebral artery is not compressed), I would be very surprised if you managed to stay conscious for as much as 4-5 seconds, not even thinking of actually doing anything like attacking another person.

There may be singular notable, dramatic exceptions of people running around for a while after being shot (for whatever reasons), similar to the tale of Stoertebecker walking past his men after being decapitated, or the cock-and-bull story of Edward Teach's headless body swimming seven circles around the Adventure.

We don't know where and how Young was hit and how far he really ran before tossing those grenades. The only witnesses were busy crawling out of the line of fire. Fair enough, this man saved his comrades sacrifying his life in most a heroic way. However, we don't know any real facts about it, and being a heroic story, some of the facts may as well be exaggerated or inaccurate. As a comparative example, think of King Leonidas I who supposedly held back an army of between 50,000 and 250,000 Persians with only 300 men. Undoubtly, this man was a great and courageous warrior, and he had a clear terrain advantage, but the figures are nevertheless ridiculous. Attribute it to poetic/heroic exaggeration.

Similarly, one could argue whether the report of the Miamy shootout is accurate from the point of view of a bunch of agents who were pinned down and wounded, and saw their friends die, especially the exact chronological order of events. Remember, Matix was presumably shot three times by agent Mireles at the end of the shooting, although he was clearly lying unconscious at this time. You will certainly agree that an agent who is at his wits will not fire three shots at an unconscious opponent (which would be close to lynching). Between different sources, not even the exact number of shots fired my Mireles is the same. All of Platt's "early" wounds mentioned in the forensic analysis are mere "flesh" wounds, so it is not entirely impossible that he may indeed have walked around and shot a few people after that. It is disputable how "early" those early wounds were, too, as none of Platt's blood was found in the car. We will never know the exact truth, but yes, certain singular, dramatic situations exist where people *do* walk around after being shot.

However, for Joe Normal, a "real" hit with a "real" gun means being incapacitated in seconds (or instantly), not more, not less.

Snippet about tasers

"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)