Archives[edit]

Greg Glover 23:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutrality - Overpenetration[edit]

This whole article is rather poorly written and has an utter lack of references to back its strong claims, but the Overpenetration section is clearly and immediately biased, so I added a NPOV template there. A sweeping claim of "exaggera[tion] by those who advocate shallow-penetrating "rapid energy transfer" bullets" without any evidence whatsoever is first made, then later a single NYPD study is used as evidence that bystanders are not injured by overpenetration. This study is more relative to police tactics than to bullet dynamics. Honestly the whole article should be re-written without the subtle bias present everywhere, but perhaps this is a good starting place.

I agree - the overpenetration + energy transfer section have in total 1 citation, a Washington Post article about subduing PCP users that does not even contain the word "energy". Is there really no scientific source for the (widespread) claim the exiting projectiles do in general less damage? Btw, it actually never made sense to me because e.g. a bullet with an entry-velocity of 500 m/s that exits with 100 m/s deposits 50% more energy in the target than the same bullet with 400 m/s entry velocity that does not exit the body. Call that "original research" but most 10th graders should be able to calculate that. --Felix Tritschler (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Third-hand original research[edit]

Everything here is based on what people think, without citations to sources. I'm going to start ruthlessly cutting every single unsourced statement out of this article to get baseless speculation out of wikipedia. Until this article has sources, it should be effectively blank. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternately, you could at least do quick searches to find sources and leave a reliable article instead of a blank one. (No criticism intended, just suggesting)Gzuckier 16:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good luck finding any research and I hope you do. I spoke to a fellow in the FBI about 10 years ago. He was very candied about the research; a very nice guy. They don’t publish it. The FBI only publishes stats. The Arms Forces shut me out because I had no Press credentials. I have come a cross research from a group of Doctors. The group makes no-bones about its agenda.
Ya, this article is bad. It would probably make a great magazine article. I have read far worse articles. Some of the articles I have read are pure fiction. However, this article dose not pass the stink-test as far as I’m concerned.
Okay I didn’t read the whole article. When I got to the part about, Dynamics of a Bullet, I knew immediately that someone didn’t know what they were talking about. How do I know? I spent a lot of time on the phone interviewing ballistics engineers from several major bullet manufactures.Greg Glover 17:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FBI Document[edit]

I had seen a few months ago this document: http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf It seems to be a serious FBI document about stopping power in police shootings. If only 1 or 2 solid torso shots can be expected on the entire shooting (as the document says), then obviusly the missed shots are much more dangerous than the shots that have completely penetrated the target (which are less in quantity, and have loss a great deal of velocity).

That document even is in the Links section, it's called "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness". I think that warning should be removed, the information is there to support it.

I just finish reading the report from the above link. I feel bad that this law Enforcement agent that missed the entire point of the date he was reporting on. His conclusion while correct was only a fluke and based on the “Ballistics Work Shop report of 1987. The Special Agent showed through his conclusion the he didn’t understand the data, because his conclusion is based on a test between a 9mm Lugar and .45APC. To draw a conclusion based on two cartridges (both not appropriate for humanly dispatching the human species) and applying to all bullet-cartridge combinations is ignorant at best.
I can assure you with out any research, if a human is hit anywhere on the body (including a hand) by a 41.9g (647gr) bullet out to and including 300m (328) by a .50BMG, he or she will go down. No amount of study concerning the 9mm Lugar will ever show its ability to kill a human (one shot) less a brain shot. And that’s a fact.
But to make my point more salient without the hyperbole, it is not the job of law enforcement to use firearms to “stop” people. Therefore any report form law enforcement concerning “stopping power” is immediately suspect in my never to be humble opinion. The use of small arms within the law enforcement community is for the use of deadly force only and when a law enforcement agent feels his or her life is in immediate danger of life or death.Greg Glover 18:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I take back what I said. The Special Agent’s conclusions were wrong. Saying ‘kinetic energy has nothing to with stopping power”, is like saying temperature can not cause a burn. What was this guy thinking?
Oh, for those of you who are not following my analogy? The measurement of temperature is the measurement of molecules in motion. The faster molecules move the higher the temperature. And what is the movement of molecules? Yep, its kinetic energy.Greg Glover 23:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no one definition for stopping power[edit]

The defense industry has a definition for stopping power. The law enforcement community has a definition for stopping power. The home defense industry has a definition for stopping power and the hunting community has a definition for stopping power.

I think the creator or major contributors to this article failed to see that not so fine point.

I am a hunter. If I need a firearm to stop a predator or charging animal I will pick the biggest firearm I can handle. Probably that would be a .416 Weatherby Magnum. For stopping intruders as a home defense weapon I would use my 12 gauge Over and Under with bird shot. The longest short from any room in the house is 25 feet. The pattern a that range is about 4 inches in diameter. As a former Marine I would like to see our troops carrying nothing less than a .260 Remington. Better yet lets got back to the 7.62 NATO round and top them off with 9.7g (150gr) Barnes Triple Shock’s. Our law enforcement community should carry any side arm he or she feels comfortable with.

When it comes to firearm projectiles, there are three scientific factors that determent a fatal wound: transitional kinetic energy; sectional density and bullet construction. All three factors must be in play and must combine to provide the proper wound channel for the specific intended target.

If you want to punch holes in non-yielding material such as steel only one factor need be in play: translational kinetic energy per square centimeter. The amount needed depends on the thickness and alloy of the metal. This is of courses perpendicular impact along the z axis to the metal target.Greg Glover 20:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revisionist Science[edit]

I checked out the link provided 01 JUL 05, to, “impressive-sounding yet meaningless terminology” within the “Stopping power” article. The response given, “Energy does not correlate whatsoever with wounding ability” is incorrect and I believe based in the same misunderstand of bullet behavior that most people have.

The report as illustrated by the graphs is impotent. The authors failed to take into consideration a bullet construction. Bullets are constructed to perform many different tasks. By thinking that all 9mm bullets perform the same and then lumping them in with all other handgun and rifle bullets is rather silly; don’t you think? Bullets even when within the same caliber are as varied as automobiles.

If we have five different bullets: Full Metal Jacket; Cast lead; Pointed soft point; Monolithic Solid and Truncated Solid, each weighing 11.7g (180gr) and having a muzzle velocity of 823m/s (2700ft/s). Do you think all these bullets will behave the same upon impact?

The answer is no.

Each of the five bullets will penetrate differing distances. Each bullet will create a different size “hole”. Therefore each bullet will create a differing volume for the wound channel. Also each bullet will arrive at the target a differing down range velocity. This is due to there differing construction which dictates a differing aerodynamic profile. Each of the five bullets will have a different Ballistic coefficient (BC). The scientifically proven and daily exercised equation for BC is a bullet’s sectional density (sd) divided by its coefficient of form (i) also know as the form factor. This equation was developed by Wallace H. Coxe and Edgar Beugless, Ballistic engineers of E.I. du Pont, Burnside Laboratory, Wilmington, Delaware ca.1936.

Kinetic energy correlates 100% with wound ability. The proven scientific fact and daily exercised equation of translational kinetic energy is derived from Sir Isaac Newton’s second law ca.1665 and proven by Marquise du Châtelet Gabrielle-Émilie le Tonnelier de Breteuil (Émilie du Châtelet) using Willem 'sGravesande research ca.1740. Just check out the artical on Émilie du Châtelet here at Wikipedia.

In conclusion the stuff you people are arguing about is a college survey class known as physics 17. This is high school level physics. It has been settled and proven science for the last 267 years. Can we please stop with the revisionist science?

Greg Glover 14:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fallacy is to assume that high school physics can explain such a complex field as terminal ballistics. --84.163.209.65 (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No fallacy, with a few necessary assumptions, elementary physics can explain it.207.191.12.134 (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ethical discussion?[edit]

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

This is a technical article, and no place for ethical conundrums, that can be debated in a more fitting context. Moreover, ethichs should come into play WELL before terminal ballistics. When you come to terminal ballistics, you have already decided that armed response with deadly force was the choice to make, and you are well past ethics into life-or-death realm. You don't shoot people to make them happy, you shoot them to stop them making whatever they are doing, and it's called "deadly force" because death usually ensues. The sooner moralists and liberals will come to grasp this elementary concept, the better. Ethics should come into play well before this. 212.239.53.196 (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a euphemism[edit]

The article describes the term as euphemistic. That may have been written by someone who mistakenly thought it meant "lethality", but it is in fact a specific and technically accurate description of the phenomenon under discussion. I'd like to remove this characterization if no one objects. MrRK 19:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification[edit]

Rifles commonly propel bullets at at least 2-3 times the velocity of the most powerful pistols. Such bullets have more kinetic energy (kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the speed). Bullets not intended to expand such as the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO, M855 Ball Round, may cause much more tissue damage as a result, of expansion or fragmentation.

Does this not seem like a contradiction? "Bullets not intended to expand such as the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO, M855 Ball Round, may cause much more tissue damage as a result, of expansion or fragmentation? Regardless, I find this paragraph very unclear. -- Jmlane (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paragraph changed to provide clarity, "Rifles commonly propel bullets to speeds of at least 2-3 times the velocity of the most powerful pistols. Such bullets have more kinetic energy (kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the speed). Bullets not intended to expand such as the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO, M855 Ball Round, may cause much more tissue damage than fragmenting or expanding handgun bullets due to the much higher transfer of kinetic energy."Greg Glover (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greg Glover, your edit was incorrect, the original sentence was making a distinction between "fragmentation" in rifle bullets and "expansion" in handgun bullets. "Expansion" is what happens with hollowpoint, ballistic-tip, lead-nose bullets, etc. "Fragmentation" occurs with certain bullet designs, almost all of them FMJ designs not designed for expansion, travelling at high enough speeds...speeds usually available only from rifle cartridges. It depends on a bullet having a far-back enough center of gravity that it yaws on impact, and having a very thin jacket liable to disintegrate under the stress. The fragmentation effect is also generally considered to be much more destructive than expansion...hence the original statement, that a bullet not designed to expand can, under the right circumstances, inflict more damage than one that is. Certain bullets used in 5.56x45mm cartridges, most typically the ones used in the M193 and M855 cartridges, are the most common examples. 99.172.41.123 (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quality sources[edit]

I've again removed the following paragraph:

Courtney & Courtney, in self-published reports, make an exceptional claim that a ballistic pressure wave produces instant incapacitation, however no data exist to show it's a reliable incapacitation mechanism. Indeed there are many examples in which a ballistic pressure wave failed to produce instant incapacitation. One disturbing example is a video clip, produced by LeMas Limited, distributor of RBCD ammunition, of swine being shot by light-weight, high energy handgun bullets (in which LeMas was subsequently fined by the US Dept. of Agriculture): http://www.stopanimaltests.com/f-lemasPigs.asp . Another example is the 1989 shooting of drug dealer Jamie Martin Wise who was shot in his unobstracted upper torso by an Alexandria police department SWAT sniper firing a .223 Remington rifle. Wise was not instantly incapacitated by the bullet's ballistic pressure wave and, after being shot, he killed one SWAT officer (Corporal Charles Hill) and wounded another (Andrew Chelchowski).

The source appears not to pass WP:RS and WP:VER but I've taken it to the reliable sources noticeboard for those who wish to discuss. Arthurrh 18:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Submitting a paper to arXiv can hardly be described as "self-publishing." The arXiv electronic print server is the largest and most highly respected electronic publication venue for original scientific papers. It is owned by the Cornell University library and funded, in part, by the National Science Foundation. Submitting papers to arXiv requires endorsement by other scientists in a given field, and numerous submissions have been rejected or removed from the arXiv server. References to scientific works published via arXiv are widely accepted in the scientific literature, so it would be surprising if a web encyclopedia would reject them.

It is an example of the strawman fallacy to say that Courtney and Courtney assert that pressure waves create "instant incapactiation." The pressure wave hypothesis states "other factors being equal, bullets with higher pressure wave incapacitate faster (on average) than bullets with lower pressure waves. In addition, nowhere have Courtney and Courtney suggested the BPW mechanism occurs 100% of the time.

It is well known that short of a direct hit to the CNS, no handgun bullet produces reliable incapacitation in the short time span of most gun fights. Since there is no guarantee that a handgun will produce the desired effect, understanding BPW effects is valuable in design and selecting ammunition to produce the most rapid incapacitation possible.

Any submission of supposed "cases" in an attempt to disprove the pressure wave hypothesis should include sufficient information to determine whether the specific case meets the criteria Courtney and Courtney suggest for easily detectable BPW effects. Specifically, the relevance of specific cases depends on whether the bullet can be demonstrated to have penetrated at least 10" AND imparted a BPW of at least 1000 PSI. In addition, since BPW effects are probabilistic (occur less than 100% of the time), isolated instances of the absence of immediate BPW effects is consistent with the BPW hypothesis, as is the lack of "instant" incapacitation. BPW effects can take up to 5 seconds to cause incapacitation, though the average delay is reduced as the BPW magnitude is increased. Michael Courtney (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Michael CourtneyReply[reply]

Whether this source is reliable or not is not the primary issue here as I see it; rather the first issue is one of conflict of interest. Michael Courtney quoting material by Michael Courtney is clearly and unambiguously a conflict of interest, and should be removed from the article. If other editors read the source material and determine that it is both reliable and notable, then they can add it to the article. scot (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The conflict of interest guidelines explicitly allow for an editor to quote sources of his own authorship. Therefore, the simple fact of an editor quoting sources he co-authored is not a conflict of interest. Scientific publications often contain similar self-citations. The examples where Courtney and Courtney are quoted maintain a neutral point of view, are directly relevant to the topic of discussion, and similar content has been approved and the same papers cited in peer-reviewed contexts. If you believe the text that I added fails to maintain a neutral point of view, then suggestions of how it could be worded more neutrally would be appreciated. However, since the points being made are also well-supported by citing third party sources, removing the citations themselves is unwarranted. Michael Courtney (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To quote: Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion. Five of the 11 cites in the current article are from your own work; even given acceptance of it's reliability, the issue of your work's notability has not been addressed. What I suggest, to eliminate the conflict of interest concerns and completely sidestep the notability issue, is to go through and wherever possible replace the cites of your own work with direct citations of the original works ("since the points being made are also well-supported by citing third party sources"). Any original research of yours can then be discussed regarding notability. Support for its notability will also address concerns about the reliability, because if other reliable, notable sources reference your work, that provides support for both its reliability (if they are positive mentions) and notability (pro or con). I would very much like to pick your brain over this stuff, because I'm sure you have a large body of reference material built up. scot (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added a number of other references, so that self-citations only account for 5 of 13 references in the neurological section. The article as a whole is under-referenced, so the proportion of the total articles citations is meaningless. "Notable" simply means "worthy of notice." "Notable" does not require that other "reliable, notable sources" cite a given work. Being relevant to the discussion, being authored by qualified scientists, and being published in an accepted scientific venue should be sufficient to meet the requirement of "notable." Just about anything relevant to the discussion co-authored by a faculty member at USMA-West Point should probably be considered "notable." Finally, since "notability" is a topic guideline rather than a content guideline, it should only be used to decide whether an entire topic ("stopping power") in this case) is suitable for Wiki, it is not an appropriate guideline to consider whether a small bit of content creates a conflict of interest. The relevant content guidelines are neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. These guidelines are adhered to since the assertions are supported in cited scientific references.

Michael Courtney (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the WP:COI issue is important. Re: notability, it reads specifically "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies." So in fact notability DOES apply. Further, it reads "When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion.". The guideline does allow latitude, but I think everyone would be more comfortable if we could do as the policy suggests: "If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back, reassessing your edits, and discussing your intentions with the community." Just my two cents. I don't think WP:COI is automatic exclusion, but where it's making people uncomfortable it should be avoided if at all possible. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How many editors have contributed to the stopping power article since Courtney and Courtney were first referenced over six months ago? One or two suggestions of COI definitely does not represent a consensus among the editors. I have had a number of private exchanges with other editors who have been quite favorable in suggesting that Courtney and Courtney be cited here. I am following the advice and discussing these edits with the community. Can you make any case that the work is not relevant or worthy of notice? I assert that being relevant to the discussion, being authored by qualified scientists, and being published in an accepted scientific venue should be sufficient to meet the requirement of "notable." Those who disagree need to support their position rather than hide behind a claim that "discomfort" itself is sufficient cuase to exclude the citations. In addition, parties claiming COI should describe how the citations serve the aims of the individual editor over the aims of Wikipedia. The editor is not selling anything. Being cited at Wikipedia confers no professional advantage in scientific careers. The work is scholarly and meets the Wikipedia criteria for verifiability.

[User:Michael Courtney|Michael Courtney]] (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe that the Courtney and Courtney citations and contributions are important, and should remain in some form. I believe they describe some valid contribution to fast incapacitation. The Courtneys themselves emphasize that round selection needs to be based on a number of parameters of which ballistic shockwave is not the only, nor even the first in priority. Bobn1955 (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should be reverted to the original article[edit]

I think this article should be reverted to the original text dated 29 december 2004 :

Stopping power', also called terminal ballistics, generally refers is the much-debated topic of how bullets kill or incapacitate people and animals, usually in the context of self-defense, military, or hunting... Unfortunately, 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 reality. It is unusual that such strange and elaborate theories have formed around firearms alone. People do not often claim that a particular knife or club has an "80% chance of a one-hit stop," or "transfers 400 foot-pounds of energy to the target."
"...I spoke to a fellow in the FBI about 10 years ago. He was very candied about the research; a very nice guy. They don’t publish it. The FBI only publishes stats."
If data is not available from FBI or any other official source, that is likely.. because the information is confidential or classified ! Wikipedia is not the place to disclose confidential or classified information ! And if no information is available, Wiki is not the place for assumptions or guesses on what they are.

Happy new year to everyone !

--M Deby (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The original article (dated 29 Dec 2004) is problematic in a number of areas. While the current article is not perfect, it is much better in meeting the Wikipedia standards for NPOV, citation of sources, and not pretending to have a consensus among experts when no consensus really exists. The original article presents the Fackler/IWBA viewpoint as if it is a general consensus, and it fails provide citations either showing the lack of consensus or supporting the Fackler/IWBA view. If there is legitimate scientific debate regarding a field, then Wikipedia entries discussing that field must present the differing views to maintain a neutral point of view.
  • Energy transfer is well-defined in the literature, and links between energy transfer and wounding mechanisms can be supported with references to the peer-reviewed literature. In addition, describing the probability of given outcomes is also common in medical literature. For example, the probability that a certain level of sound exposure for a certain duration will lead to tinnitus or hearing loss or the probability that a smoking a certain number of cigarettes per day will lead to lung cancer or the probability that a certain treatment will be effective.
  • With regard to the arXiv papers, it is a false dichotomy to claim that a paper is not scientific because it addresses a topic of legitimate scientific debate. Debate, discussion, and demanding that theories reference data and that conclusions adhere to the scientific method are common in the scientific process and literature. Many scientific papers were originally presented in the context of scientific debates: the heliocentric solar system, atomic theory, evolution, global warming.
  • Though not all arXiv papers are submitted to prior peer review, prior peer review is not necessary to meet the Wikipedia standard of verifiability. Most Wikipedia citations do not refer to sources that have been subjected to prior peer review. Many important papers in wound ballistics were not published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. For example, "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness" and "What's Wrong With the Wound Ballistics Literature and Why."
  • The lack of prior peer-review is not considered a hinderance by those who use arXiv, and some very influential papers remain purely as e-prints. Citing arXiv eprints is acceptable and commonplace in the scientific literature, so it would be suprising if it was not acceptable at Wikipedia. Two of the arXiv papers cited here were also cited in a peer-reviewed paper in the journal Brain Injury. The editors and peer-reviewers of that esteemed neurology journal did not object to arXiv citations.
  • The neurological effects of the ballistic pressure wave are supported both in the peer-reviewed literature and with citations to arXiv.
The current Stopping Power article is work in progress and can benefit from improvements in organization, verifiability, and citations. However, it represents a NPOV much better than the original article. Michael Courtney (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Micheal, Thanks for your reply. If you allow me this expression : "this article is too much of Michael Courtney by Michael Courtney refering to Michael Courtney". It is really bad in terms of conflicts of interests.
At least, if the article was short, straightforward, cautious and understandable for the average people than this would have been acceptable.
I'm not going to improve it, the only thing I could do is to cut.
While on your side, if it is still a work in progress (which is obvious seeing the various papers and web stites) then it is a signal it is not the kind of data to be published in an encyclopedia. Put it on your draft page or you web site, and we will pick up the undisputed facts.

Regards, --M Deby (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The major part of the Stopping power article is not my work. Other than a contribution to the "Neurological effects" section, my only contribution to the Stopping power article is two sentences in the energy transfer section and minor edits. The rest of the Stopping power article represents contributions of other editors. Only three sentences of the entire Stopping power article refer to the research of Courtney and Courtney. Therefore, your assertion that "this article is too much of Michael Courtney by Michael Courtney refering to Michael Courtney" is inaccurate. My contributions are a small part of the entire article.
The COI issue has been discussed above. No one suggested that the Courtney and Courtney papers are not sufficiently worthy of notice to be included, and other editors have supported their inclusion. Can you make any case that the work is not relevant or worthy of notice? I assert that being relevant to the discussion, being authored by qualified scientists, and being published in accepted scientific venues is sufficient to meet the requirement of "notable." Those who disagree need to support their position rather than hide behind a claim that "discomfort" itself is sufficient cuase to exclude the citations. In addition, parties claiming COI should describe how the citations serve the aims of the individual editor over the aims of Wikipedia.
None of the cited papers are a "work in progress." These are completed scientific papers whose points are well supported by the data, facts, and reasoning presented. The "work in progress" is the Stopping power article itself. Clearly, many citations need to be added, and the article would benefit from improved organization.
The Wikipedia model is to maintain a neutral point of view while presenting the differing sides to a legitimate scientific debate rather than to include only undisputed facts. In addition, the scientific support that pressure waves can reach the brain and create neurological damage has been so well supported by both ballistics and blast literature, that the point might not be disputed any longer. To my knowledge, it has been well over a decade since a scientific paper has argued against remote neurological damage, and the last papers to do so made spurious references to lithotriptors which turned out to be demonstratably wrong. As far as I can tell, when the assertion that lithotripsy does not damage tissue was conclusively disproven, the dispute in the scientific literature over whether pressure waves create remote neural damage tissue evaportated. The Suneson et al. papers have been strongly supported and widely referenced. What remains of the dispute seems limited to internet discussion forums.Michael Courtney (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Michael
I have read your reply here above but I haven't had the time to reply myself. I will prepare tonight (our time) a proposal for improving the organization and wording of this article. I think it would be better, due to you position, that someone else write this (or adapt it). I have a number of comments on the various documents provided as references but as you mention it, this is not the place to discuss it. Can you suggest me an Internet forum where these discussions could take place ?
In addition, do you have a PDF document to which we could point at either written by you or by someone else treating the ballistic pressure wave theory alone ?
Further, please excuse my rather abrupt interference in the beginning of this, it reflects only a "first bad impression" that can be corrected I believe.
Regards,
--M Deby (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
M Deby,
I agree that the discussion should take place in a different context. Please email me and I can suggest possibilities for public discussion forums and reply to your other questions. Thanks. Michael_Courtney@alum.mit.edu
Michael Courtney (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overhaul[edit]

Hum.. well, I would have preferred a forum discussion.
Let's overhaul this article.
First all all, let's remove all the references and external links and let's put the "nutshell" banner.
Other contributors, please do not interfere while I am reworking this article.
I will present the changes made and the arguments for them.
--M Deby (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References should remain until their removal is justified.Michael Courtney (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have a conflict of interest in here Michael.. ;-) --M Deby (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the spirit of WP:BOLD, I have attempted to do a massive re-write, at least to address all the obvious issues. I am sure that a lot remains to be done, but it is now at least ready for a re-write :-) Yaf (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having authored publications in the field does not necessarily imply COI. Can you make any case that the work is not relevant or worthy of notice? I assert that being relevant to the discussion, being authored by qualified scientists, and being published in an accepted scientific venue should be sufficient to meet the requirement of "notable." Those who disagree need to support their position rather than hide behind a claim that "discomfort" itself is sufficient cuase to exclude the citations. In addition, parties claiming COI should describe how the citations serve the aims of the individual editor over the aims of Wikipedia. The editor is not selling anything. Being cited at Wikipedia confers no professional advantage in scientific careers. The work is scholarly and meets the Wikipedia criteria for verifiability. Spurrious claims of COI should not be used to object to content. 63.138.255.70 (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reviewed the subject with professionals the week before and came to some conclusions. At the end I don't think this article should be changed in any way but rather, another set of good scientific articles should be built on the side with the clear, actual, non controversial and verifiable scientific data. There are indeed two things : the talks of unprofessional people and the scientific facts. However, the question is "should this be described in an encyclopedia" ? I would say no. Most of the good information is classified. So not verifiable. --M Deby (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found this page while looking for information because of an argument with a friend about handgun stopping power. I must agree with previous posters that this page is in a serious need of re-write. I would say that some parts such as the reference to "The Mozambique Drill" should be removed as its really irrelevant to the discussion. The same for the paragraph on "manstopper" or possible moved to para on bullet dynamics. The "History" section needs a re-write as I would think that arguments about bullet stopping power have been around as long as there have been guns and not some recent phenomenon. The Bullet Dynamics and Wounding Effects sections could be better. The section on "Over Penetration" could also be shortened.

These are just some of my thoughts on how the article could be better and I'm just putting this forward for discussion and for now I'm only going to make minor changes.

Lynn Brooks (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After some thought, I think two new sections need to be added; one on the importance of bullet placement (eg. the ability of the shooter in putting his/her bullets in the "center of the visible mass," and a section of stopping power myths - especially those myths popularized by Hollywood. Lynn Brooks (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Effects of ballistic pressure wave?[edit]

I was reading the section on neurological effects. The discussion of brain trauma resulting from a shot in the thigh was particularly interesting. What were the immediate physical effects to the animals? Did they lose consciousness? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 10:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In many experiments, the animals are anesthetized, so immediate effects are noted as EEG suppression and temporary cessation of breathing (apnea). One experiment in deer and one experiment in goats report results from unanesthetized animals showing more rapid incapacitation for loads with higher pressure waves.Michael Courtney (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn't take a very developed gun...[edit]

It doesn't take a very developed gun to kill someone with a head-shot, or at least that is what I think.

All the melon testing and the recording to which direction the juices spray seems ridiculous: more ridiculous than the Pacific tree octopus. I also doubt a 15 to 20 seconds of "possible" consciousness really matters when oxygen supply to the brain is cut off.

I respect your research, but I still think it obviously shouldn't be questioned whether a shot piercing the brain is fatal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.79.69 (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As sad recent events have more than proven, a shot to the head piercing the brain is not necessarily fatal. The only instantly incapacitating shot is one that destroys the medulla oblongata and cerebellum, de facto terminating any connection between CNS and body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.239.53.196 (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So what exactly causes damage?[edit]

The article is a bit unclear: it mentions the transfer of kinetic energy at one time and force of the projectile at other times. Disregarding the finer structure of the human body (so disregarding hydrostatic shock and all that), what determines how much damage is done? Is it momentum (thus force), which depends on the velocity (v), or is it kinetic energy which depends on the square of velocity (v^2)? Obviously the answer to this question is very important: if kinetic energy (1/2(m*v^2)) is the answer then it would be much more efficient to build guns with high muzzle velocity rather than high calibers (heavier projectile), while if the answer is momentum (m*v) you could go either way; it wouldn't matter if you make the projectile twice as heavy or the muzzle velocity twice as fast, you'd get the same result (again, disregarding things like overpenetration and hydrostatic shock, we're just using a concrete block for target practice).

It's not so simple as that. If you want to stop a person quickly you have to damage major organs. That's pretty much all that matters. Once a bullet gets there, yes technically it's KE that does the damage but pretty much any bullet will have enough KE to cause serious trauma to things like the heart and brain. The KE is really needed to pass through things between the time it is fired and the time it finds that organ (sin, fat, bone, various organs that you can live without for a while).
But a lot of other things are important, pressure matters, focusing the energy into a small point helps against things like body armor.
Historically we can see military use favoring small, fast bullets. However that is not purely a matter of effectiveness at killing people in a single shot. The military cares more about logistics than anything else. Guns can carry more small caliber bullets, and given the very low odds of instantly killing someone with anything less than a large caliber machinegun, that's a great advantage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.81.80 (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, bullets cut through sin but can also cause sin. Seriously though, I've seen much better results with fast light bullets than slower heavy ones. Of course there is a limit, and I won't go lighter than 115gn in my 9mm or 135gn in my .40. The 5.56mm has better stopping power than the 7.62NATO at close distances according to the 5.56 wiki page. This is due to the massive yaw and fragmentation, as velocity is turned into damaging energy. People leaning towards slow and heavy as better don't realize the significance of the KE equation where it is dependent on the SQUARE of the velocity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.233.11 (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Significant mistatement[edit]

Written in the History section:

"not the fact it was fired out of a machine gun which does not make a round stronger"

It is well established that barrel length has a significant effect on bullet velocity and energy. Is the statement a quote or someone's error? 192.77.126.50 (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although vague, they may have meant automatic-fired bullets compared to semi or manual do not make a round stronger. If talking about pistols you are right in it being (another) error. I doubt it though, and think the authors of the article are very opinionated and biased in some spots. It is quite a controversial topic to begin with, but the article is written in a disgustingly ignorant matter-of-fact way in some places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.233.11 (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Large part of subject missing[edit]

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

Big holes, alright...[edit]

I have a problem with the big hole section. Mainly, it is stated as fact and not that it is just opinion of mainly older people and those who worship Dr. Fackler. First off, they don't cite the .40S&W nor like it as a majority. The "big hole school" calls it the .40 Short and Weak (see glocktalk forums, thehighroad, thefiringline etc.) and they like 10mm and .45 calibers.

When a bullet exits the body, it means a portion of the kinetic energy of the round didn't get to disrupt surrounding tissue as much, and some of this energy goes into expanding the bullet at the same time (to make a bigger hole...).

Exit wounds do not mean more blood loss; this is ridiculous. Blood loss doesn't have to be external. If someone is shot in the chest and a cork is placed in the wound, it doesn't mean they aren't bleeding. The opinion that an exit wound is twice as likely, or any amount more likely to cause a person to bleed out, is false. The pressure in tissue is so much less than in blood vessels, it is easy for blood to fill cavities in the thoracic cage or anywhere in the body. This blood kept inside is useless at best, damaging at worst (such as when lungs fill).

The 9mm which eventually killed Platt in the FBI shootout filled his chest and lungs with 1300cc of blood which is about 6 cups. An exit wound perhaps may have given him more room to breathe, although unlikely it is possible. I'm going off my memory for all of this but stand by my research and statements. If necessary I'll put my credentials on the table and make an account. My addition to the article was "in the opinion of this school of thought" or something to that effect, but it's deleted and the article is poorly written when stated as fact like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.233.11 (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tumbling[edit]

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

Quality of article[edit]

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

Agreed it should be removed if the un-sourced, false and often self contradictory sections cannot be removed.207.191.12.134 (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thinly sourced[edit]

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

Confusing[edit]

This article need to make clear when it is referring to bullets that are legal to use in international conflicts under international law, and those used by states on their own citizens that are are unlawful in international conflicts. -- PBS (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see your point but it would require almost a complete rewrite of the article to clarify what is being discussed at each point. My general impression is that modern armies in international conflicts are not especially concerned with stopping power as discussed in this article. Maybe the best approach is indicate that the material applies to other situations unless indicated. Rezin (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Core-locked[edit]

Core-locked rifle bullets that strike a major bone (such as a femur) can expend their entire energy into the surrounding tissue, causing it to take on a gelled consistency as the cellular structure is destroyed. The struck bone is commonly shattered at the point of impact.[1]

We never define what a "core-locked rifle bullet" is. Searching Google the best I can find is a proprietary cartridge: Remington Core-Lokt. It sounds like it's a partially jacketed bullet with controlled expansion. It's not clear how it'd effect a bone differently from other bullets, either fully jacketed or unjacketed. It seems like it could be simplified to something like, "Bullets that strike a major bone (such as a femur) can expend their entire energy into it, causing it to shatter." But without a source I'm hesitant. Any ideas? Rezin (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Core-lockt is a trademark name from Remington. Virtually all bullet makers have a similar bullet design. It's a controlled expansion bullet designed for hunting. It's improper to use a trademarked name and if it's on this page should be removed ASAP. Digitallymade (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stopping power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Knockback" is a fallacy.[edit]

It is a point easily proven on the range, and through mathematics. The section states that it is a myth, but then states that it often occurs, then states that it cannot exceed the recoil. That means the subject impacted cannot be "knocked back" significantly more than the shooter was unless there is a significant difference in the weight of the shooter vrs the subject. If a 200 pound man would be "Knocked back" 1 foot back by any projectile, a 10 pound block of ballistic gel would be "Knocked back" 20 feet by the same blast.207.191.12.134 (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Take into account what surface contacts the ground. Also, standing is a continuous exercice of equilibrium, for bipedals. --Askedonty (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes - I over simplified for the sake of understanding. If we were to be entirely scientific we should account for static friction, the composition of the two contacting surfaces, angles of projectiles and surfaces. However, these are tiny contributions to the equation. If you arranged for every variable in the most optimal situation to create "knockback", the result would be very unspectacular. My point was to illustrate the clear fallacy of the concept of "knockback". Also, I don't see how the act of balance has any contribution.207.191.12.134 (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That last was only about the common image. It is in fact stated in article that "an actual knockback effect is however observed in real-life shootings" and that it's a "psychological reaction". There is also the pursuit of heavy calibers. It would be still about the proper self-propelling force of the projectile, relative to its mass. It sure seems strange at first sight that a bullet hit is globally that much less "powerfull" than a heavy blow like from an axe - give us the math if I'm misleaded again - but I'm somewhat reminded of relativistic figures like the limit to the width of the string that would break under its own weight. So it's entirely the local trauma (blunt force trauma) which is effective in terms of stopping power. Blunt force trauma explains quite well what it is about, and so much for the power feelings of the healthy. Last what about the theory of a knock-back from slug rounds ? I tend to think it's so much the same that a very basic armor (see Bulletproof vest) would be efficient for protection. --Askedonty (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The few actual shootings I have witnessed amazed me by how quickly the victim fell straight down, like the body went limp and submitted to gravity. - (see youtube) - but I have not seen many people shot. 

Simplified: To understand force you have to consider 2 basic ideas, Mass(simply weight) multiplied by Velocity (speed).. so a 2 oz (.125 lb) slug travelling at 1300 ft/sec would have 162 lbs of force.  In a situation where you had "total elasticity" (no energy lost during the impact) 162 lb object impacted would not be moved.  The 2 forces would be equal and cancel.  I don't know of a single example where total elasticity exists in reality.

It doesn't matter if the projectile is a shotgun slug or pellets (given the same weight X velocity) assuming that neither exit the body. Body armor creates a more elastic collision (better transfer of energy) so real "knockback" would be more likely to occur with body armor. Force alone does not directly equate to trauma. An 80 ton ship moving 2 mph won't likely create as much trauma as a 1/2 oz wad of lead traveling at 1300 ft/sec. As for "an actual knockback effect is however observed in real-life shootings......" First - that wouldn't be knock-back, it'd be jump-back, reflex-back, or scared-back. Second - No source! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WncSEUxGzNo Look under the O of the "Open" sign @ 1.19 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQK8TR6uQug No knock-back https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_TquU4CYyA @4:00 and take special note of 4:04-4:05 There are many more that show the same - no knock-back

The whole article appears to me to be an opinion-based argument similar to "the best cartridge for deer hunting"207.191.12.134 (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Dubious statement on bullets[edit]

I just tagged the following statement: "Bullets with sufficient stopping power for humans are generally large caliber, 9.07mm (.357 caliber) handgun bullets of hollow point design." When most of the world's militaries and law enforcement agencies are using slightly smaller calibers, non-magnum, and not hollow point, and US law enforcement uses a penetration standard, I think a statement like that needs a solid reference to back it up. Does anybody know of one?

Yes I do. It's the full FBI report on why the FBI returned to 9mm x 19mm Parabellum over .40S&W and 10mm (also talks about .45 ACP). The FBI states that Handgun Stopping Power is a Myth If you want to read the report it's on the web. MOST of what they say is true. Their conclusion and reasoning for returning to 9mm are valid (to a point, from their point of view).

Also, the section in question kind of ignores rifles and shotguns. I'm thinking a rewrite is in order. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went ahead and attempted a more nuanced treatment of the subject. Apologies for not citing it properly, but I used many sources, and while I don't doubt the validity of the data, they were mostly sort of un-encyclopedic looking, e.g., http://demigodllc.com/~zak/firearms/fbi-pistol.php Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're going to find that even contributing to this page will be counter productive. The reason is not simple but amounts to this. The myth of stopping power is closer to a dogma or a religious belief than to any well reasoned scientifically based discussion. By the way, since we are talking about the non-existant topic of stopping power, one of the most effective handgun cartridges is the 5.7 x 28mm (Nidal Hassan shot 33 people, killing 13, including several who tried to charge at him). It was designed to replace 9mm but was found to be "no more effective" and so was not adopted. In the context in which the 5.7 x 28mm was developed, it is superior to 9mm x 19mm Nato, just not superior enough to warrant the expense of change. Some people are impressed by the 20 and 30 round magazines, I'm not.
Historically, including today, the .22 Long Rifle is used to kill more people than any other cartridge. A head shot from this caliber is almost always instantly fatal. Ten shots to the chest also seem to be very effective. In addition to proven lethality, the .22 LR can be easily and effectively suppressed so that a person with the desire to can shoot indoors without being disturbed (except in apartments etc.) Furthermore, the only truly silent firearms ever made used .22 Short (the first product of Smith & Wesson).
Don't try to convince people who argue stopping power' by citing scientific principles or the legitimate autopsy results of the FBI and the head or the US army autopsy results. They'll have none of it.

Digitallymade (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Media myth of Stopping Power[edit]

Sacred Cow Alert! This comment will have no respect for false beliefs and bad science and especially no reverence for the work of romantic gun writers.

People have talked about Stopping Power from the time that the first humans killed each other by throwing rocks. Is a large heavier rock more of a man stopper than a light rock thrown with more speed? I'm sure the cave man didn't work this out, which is why he probably developed the throwing sticks, spears, bow etc. etc. Since that time an easy and quick method of killing larger animals (or anything we wanted to kill) has been the goal of weapons designers.

As humans, we love to hear stories. We assume that old stories are truthful. We KNOW that many stories are romanticized (rather than just calling them lies, we call them romanticized because this appeals to basic human desires to be entertained, titillated etc.) And we can easily see that professional writers often exaggerate, misrepresent, or totally fabricate their sold for profit "stories."

In the context of this discussion of "stopping power" there are several factors which contribute to massively false belief structures. They fall into certain definable categories:

You can put these in any order that you wish. Should you believe what I say in this? Only from the extent that what I will tell you is true, and I will let YOU draw the conclusion. I have seen several people DIE real time from gunshot wounds. I missed Lee Harvey Oswald being killed live on TV, but my wife didn't and I saw the replay analyzed ad infinitum. I saw a woman instantly killed in Miami, a man shot and killed by police, a man who killed himself, and I saw the aftermath of many murders and atrocities (uncensored). Many people saw the example from the Vietnam war where a man was shot point blank in the head. Firearms do have the ability to kill instantly when the projectile hits a vital area.

If you watched Oswald die, you might not think a shot to the stomach would be instantly fatal. You might not have noticed that although he had his feet on the ground, the SHOCK of the bullet caused him to jump 6" straight up (no blowback whatever). And you might not realize that he was dead in seconds from a shot placement that was not in a zone that we'd normally expect a one shot instant kill. The autopsy explained why though.

Let me dispense first and foremost with the worst of the myths. Larger caliber firearms have been PROVEN to have LESS not more stopping power. The military no longer uses 1.00" Brown Bess rifles. In our revolutionary war the most common caliber was .69. By the time of the Civil War this was down to .56 (a lot of calibers were used the most effective being the smaller ones which were more accurate, longer ranged, and harder hitting). By WWI the calibers were down in the .25 to .30 range. In Vietnam we dropped down to .22 caliber where we seem to be stuck for the moment as all attempts to go smaller have not succeed (there are several physical science observations that back this up, but none is sufficiently correct).

Handgun calibers have gone the opposite direction form rifle calibers. The first handgun caliber in a metallic cartridge was developed by Smith & Wesson and today has evolved into a higher powered version known as the .22 Long Rifle (rimfire). This caliber kills more people than any other, and has for many decades. Does it have one shot stopping ability. Robert F Kennedy was killed by a .22 LR bullet that instantly dropped him and he died in minutes. A .22 LR caliber bullet penetrated Ronald Reagan's lung and nearly killed him even though it had ricocheted from the side of the armored lincoln car.

Yet people persist in false beliefs that smaller calibers are less effective, which HAS BEEN true to a small extent, but NOT for the reasons people believe.

Today, for their reasoned purposes, the FBI has given amply reasoning for their returning to 9 x 19mm Parabellum. Those people who realized the truth of what the FBI says, tend to ignore the science which supports it because, for the most part, these people have a preference for a belief in myth, or have an economic, or emotional reason for objecting.

Let's blow up some myths through historical fact.

Anecdotal evidence:

And so on. The introduction and results from the .22 Jet and later the .223 Rem put an end to the arguments that had been created by Colonel Hatcher with his theory of relative stopping ability. Hatcher theory has no relevance compared to physically observed reality.

More anecdotes. I met a man at a shooting range in Pikesville, MD who had a peculiar indentation in his head. He explained to me that he had been shooting an M1911A1 (.45 ACP Government model) handgun and it went full-automatic on him. Even though this was a big man, he could not stop the gun was climbing after each shot until one of those shots hit him in the forehead. The bullet penetrated his frontal sinus and skipped around the left side of his skull coming out behind his left ear, in which case he was relatively unharmed and lived to tell this tale. Ordinarily a person could expect that this was an isolated incident, but it was actually (considering how unexpected this is to occur) somewhat common. Over the year I have come to believe that more than 100 men died in this fashion. There is, right now, a youtube video of a child who was handed a fully loaded UZI 9mm who could not control it and as a result of the recoil, killed the instructor who foolishly handed her the gun with a full magazine.

A friend of mine who was in the army was making some kind of delivery out west. He was getting back in his jeep when a man came out of the bar across the street and shot him. My friend, was carrying a .357 Magnum (S&W) and returned fire until the shooter dropped. He remarked that being shot with that .45 ACP hurt worse than the one that went through him.

Three other friends defended their lives with .38 Special successfully, in each case firing multiple rounds. One defended himself with a Thompson Submachine gun in .45 ACP by killing 6 North Korea army soldiers who barged into an officers tent.

Let's go to another anecdote: The North Hollywood shootout where a father and and son armed with illegal AK-47 full automatic assault rifles battled with police for quite some time. The Police issued handguns were totally ineffective. None of their handgun bullets penetrate the body armor these two were wearing. It was finally after Police Sharpshooters used CIVILIAN hunting caliber rifles that they were able to kill these attackers.

Recently in PA, an officer was killed by a Civilian Hunting rifle in .280 Win caliber. It went through the front of his bullet proof vest and exited the back. Along the way it caused massive damage.

Here is what is necessary to understand in an empirical form:

So answer these questions if you can using the tried and false beliefs so prevalent in the world of firearms fandom:

Another observation, I mentioning this because it contradicts some statements about the FN FAL used in the Arab Iraeli war of 1967 that appeared on TV recently. General Ian V Hogg noted that the major advantage that the Isreali Army had over the Arab armies in the desert combat was due largely to the superior penetrating power of the 9mm (from Uzi Submachine guns) as compared to the 7.62mm NATO caliber FN FAL rifles used by the Arab armies. The 9mm shot through the walls and and doors far more effectively than 7.62mm did.

At my disposal is the true information to complete this entire topic truthfully and using Science to describe the reasons for what actually happens as opposed to the myth that many firearms enthusiasts believe. I see no reason to make any changes here as this will simply create an edit war since those who believe in myth will not believe in the reality. I will not, at this time, explain what is wrong with Fackler's Trauma drawings either but it falls under the FBI description of improper methodology.

Digitallymade (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1) The Strasoburg Goat Tests have never been independently verified
2) .308 win compared to .223 win when both are of the same bullet design, the .308 win will do more damage.
3) Penetration of body armor doesnt necassarily equal better terminal performance on human body 2600:1700:77C0:EFF0:9C72:F581:4CDF:4AE8 (talk) 04:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Errors by Section: First Section[edit]

First of all Stopping power is a MYTH that is so poorly described that the concept has no genuine value. The FBI has stated in their recent report (after more than 2 years research) Here are a few lines from the FBI report:

These are not all the points, but they are enough.

Here's some more:

Studies of “stopping power” are irrelevant because no one has ever been able to define how much power, force, or kinetic energy, in and of itself, is required to effectively stop a violent and determined adversary quickly, and even the largest of handgun calibers are not capable of delivering such force. Handgun stopping power is simply a myth. Studies of so?called “one shot stops” being used as a tool to define the effectiveness of one handgun cartridge, as opposed to another, are irrelevant due to the inability to account for psychological influences and due to the lack of reporting specific shot placement. In short, extensive studies have been done over the years to “prove” a certain cartridge is better than another by using grossly flawed methodology and or bias as a precursor to manipulating statistics. In order to have a meaningful understanding of handgun terminal ballistics, one must only deal with facts that are not in dispute within the medical community, i.e. medical realities, and those which are also generally accepted within law enforcement, i.e. tactical realities.

From my standpoint, I am pleased that the FBI has come to recognize in 2017 what I have been stating publicly since 1970. Digitallymade (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stopping power is overrated. Kinetic energy is overrated. One-shot-stop is overrated[edit]

Why should i bother with purchasing 50-caliber rounds to stop a threat immediately? Why can't i use 9x19, fire 3-4 accurate and shots to his torso, with comparable effect? Americans, you're so stupid. You're obsessed with one-shotting, but you leave behind things like accuracy, firerate, reliability, ergonomics, armor penetration, recoil, etc, completely. You can't know what your enemy is made of. It may be, for instance, someone like Roy Benavidez, and destroy you even after you empty your entire magazine into his body, and then survive. It may be someone in body armor beneath his jacket. Or someone with a company of "friends".

And back to the laws of physics. There are NO law of kinetic energy conservation. There's only laws of conservation impulse and energy, separated. Let's say that i, for instance, fire a 5.56 round into titan block with mass of 2000 KG. Before impact, bullet has roughly 1700J of kinetic energy, and block has 0J of kinetic energy. After impact, bullet has roughly 0J of kinetic energy, because, well, it stopped. The question is: the block will have 1700J of kinetic energy after impact, yes? Even without friction, the answer is NO.

You can't say that bullet with an 1000J is twice as powerful than a 500J bullet, twice as stopping, twice as armor-penetrating, etc. Because light and fast bullets usually transfer their energy very, very rapidly, and the huge part of this energy becomes thermal energy, because thermal energy is a freakin' graveyard for all other types of energy. At the exit of someone's body, the bullet will be heated for a hundred or two degrees. That is the reason for 5.56 bullets with their fragmentation usually being unable to one-shot-stop a man, the bullet just heats itself, that's all. Heavy, dull and slow bullets deliver best stopping power. There is also such thing as "viscosity" that makes velocity (in terms of armor penetration) less important than mass and density of a projectile.

Hydrostatic shock is also a myth, it's just too unrealiable. You can't make a round that is small, but instantly destroys someone's all internal organs with a blastwave. If you will raise it's velocity more and more, it will became a railgun projectile, or a plasma. Plasma has nothing to do with "hydrostatic shock", but it's usually effective against both humans and tanks.

You know what "shot placement" is? Aim for the head, that's what i say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.138.94.100 (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Everything you said is wrong, start to finish. There IS a law of conservation of kinetic energy. It's called the Law of Conservation of Energy, surprise. In your example with the bullet hitting the block, most of the energy is used up in the damage of the block, not by accelerating it. It's called an "inelastic collision", and it's simple physics. Look it up. You're also wrong about light and fast bullets. They penetrate armor much better than heavy and slow bullets. What light bullets don't penetrate as well is soft targets, or tissue. As for one-shot-stop, it saves your life. By definition, it stops the guy from shooting you. That's the most important thing in self-defense, the not dying part. You could argue it's always the most important thing, as you have complete power over an incapacitated target, which means you can help them or execute them. Lastly, hydrostatic shock is not what you're saying it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinktank33 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stopping power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pain.[edit]

The word pain is mentioned 7 times in this article, as a contributor to "stopping power." From what I learned as a former medic, in the armed forces, and heard from people surviving being shot, in most cases, there is no pain at all (at least for an hour or two) because of the shock to the system.

Same goes for hunting. Animals shot with a silencer tend to continue grassing until they bleed out, while otherwise escaping because of the sound of the shot.

I feel that the references to "pain" is misleading, and should be corrected/removed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zardoch (talk • contribs) 20:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the comment, but unfortunately what you have provided is original research. Do you have any reliable sources that you can cite for this same information? - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

stopping power is not a quantifiable thing[edit]

stopping power is not a thing that can be measured, stopping power is for cars as stopping power can mean braking power which is a measurable force as stopping power is actually the kinetic power as more kinetic power means it can cause bullets to 'punch' through stuff so I suggest to change the link to kinetic energy page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:C8B:B300:6068:FC36:87C5:BDEB (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article has 22 sources, many of them from historians and scientists. Try reading it. The idea that stopping power isn't real comes from some FBI task force statement which some gun buffs gleefully repeat as part of the heritage of "things to talk about surrounding guns," including "it's not clips, it's magazines!" and other very useful insights. The debate on stopping power is more or less covered under the "schools of thought" sections. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A classic reply that ridicules the opinion, discussion and the commenter? Nice...
Clips are a thing, they are used to rapidly load most bolt & semi-automatic rifles. Magazines are used to load most modern automatic rifles & hand guns. Magazines and clips exist, stopping power does not. The article talks how stopping power was about switching to a bigger calibre, yet WW2 proved that intermediary cartridges were more lethal. Stopping power as a term does exist, but it's a stupid term that is situationally dependent and not measurable by any way. This whole article is a talk page about cartridge lethality. A good test for any term is to try and succinctly define and/or measure it. The definition of 'stopping power' is subjective and is very much non-quantifiable. It's a bad term and shouldn't be used by anyone, ever, because it doesn't mean anything. 91.155.240.113 (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not see a ridicule, whereas, clips as a thing are leading to firepower. In which it says, through the ages it has steadily increased; so that is quantifiable, but would a valuation of it make sense if focusing on one type of ammo or weapon regardless of a context (?) With Stopping power the determination of context may appear fuzzier but if you are making it dependent of lethality that's not relevant. Lethality is not prettier than a block of gelatin, the picture of one not cleaned up is giving an idea of how very much pretty, and the point besides that Intermediary had already been settled for before WWI, when they found they had to reverse to frontier era Colts because double action .38 wouldn't allow them to police the way that they wanted, but maybe say needed it done. Ugly or disputable, but reverting back to notions such as "is cannibalism accepted as a practice" in whatever neighbouring, exists. --Askedonty (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories