Stopping Power by Caliber Part 2

[warped]

I disagree, my family has only been serving in militaries as far back as 1600 or so, in the USA as far back as the early 1770's

[LRRPF52]

warped,

I'm still tracing my lineages with military service in the US back from the mid-1800's, as well as the Swedes and Finns from the same period. It's amazing to see yourself in your progenitors in so many ways...

SF ran into this warrior-bloodline issue when they first went to Africa in the 1950's. They thought that ensuring that they had an ODA Team Leader of US-born African descent would help build rapport with the host nations when conducting MTT's or FID. Upon arrival, they were verbally berated in the most extreme form from the senior military officers from the host nation for bringing someone who their ancestors conquered, enslaved, and sold to Dutch traders centuries ago. They wouldn't even speak with the Captain, and unleashed their oral barrage on the next in command.

"How will this mon tich us about fighteen?!!" That is the scenario they faced, and had to adjust by pinning on the poor Captain's rank on his Det Tech (WO) or Team Sergeant (E-8) in order to salvage what little credibility they had remaining, in order for the rest of the deployment to go well.

People in third world countries have a much greater sense of professional status and connection to family than in the US, where you can literally be born a welfare baby like Oprah Winfrey, and scale the entire socioeconomic class to billionaire in one lifetime. That ain't happenin' in too many places I know of...outside this country.

Sorry for hijacking this thread from the Miami shootout...stopping power caliber stats. I deserve to be flamed for my sins...Maybe these belong in "mental training/marrying into the right families" thread...

LRRPF52

[JASmith]

Back to the OP topic for a moment: Bill, thanks for posting ... Getting a good hit jumps out as the common denominator, allowing a .22 Long Rifle to trump a 30-06 when the latter is poorly used. This should influence our discussions about Grendel and other cartridges in military and law enforcement roles.

NOW LRRPF52 TOPIC:

To the best of my knowledge, there is no military tradition in my family. I can also claim no enduring success in the endeavor in spite of doing some interesting things in the Vietnam arena. There were too many things, principally working with others, that my upbringing did not prepare me for.

I have, however, noticed that success in business, politics, military affairs, etc., tends to run in families.

A few random thoughts:

LRRPF52 calls our attention to what might be called the Oprah effect. I suspect that the anti-nepotism culture in the US makes the reverse true. All too frequently a seriously successful person in the US environment has children who struggle, at best, to keep food on the table.

That may be a good thing since history suggests that not all offspring are capable of reaching the heights attained by mom or dad. It also tends to put an extra challenge on those offspring who can do well but are otherwise blocked by concern over appearances or by outright policy.

Nature or Nurture: How much is success in a line of work dependent on body build and fundamental wiring? How much does it depend on exposure of the young person to Dad's or Mom's business through discussions, routine tag-along, etc.?

Regardless of Nature or Nurture, it is good to have a good enough relationship with your offspring that you and they few comfortable talking about what you and they do...

[LRRPF52]

JASmith,

In Russia, they have a little saying about this:

An excited Colonel's son who is getting ready for officer training asks him:

"Father, after service as a Lieutenant, will I be a Captain?"

"Yes, of course you'll be a Captain."

"Father, if I do well, will I then be a Major?"

"Yes of course, you'll become a Major.

"And a Colonel...?"

"Yes, even a Colonel one day."

"Father, could I then become...a General?"

Sadly, the father replied..."No son. You will NOT become a General..."

"And why not father?"

"The Generals have sons too, young lad."

LRRPF52

[LRRPF52]

Back to stopping power...

In summary, stopping power is your internal will to prevail in the fight. Any questions?

LRRPF52

[warped]

Yeah, are we there yet?

[JASmith]

...stopping power is your internal will to prevail in the fight...

An important and true statement.

The point we are trying to get to is what it takes to prevent a determined adversary from prevailing.

The summary Bill brought to us gives important insight into what, on average seems to work. Even more important, the statistical survey tells us that relatively inconsequential calibers seem to have a fair bit of success.

This brings us back to two key issues:

1. The ability to hit within the specified range envelope -- this seems to be ranges out to 300 — 500 meters for dismounted infantry depending on who is the proponent.
   
2. The ability of the bullet to defeat nominal barriers within this range.
   

The good news is that the data suggests that we don't have to agonize over cartridge & bullet lethality. This happens to be the most difficult aspect to model and test.

[rasp65]

Good rule!

[RangerRick]

one of the big reasons for the switch from 10mm to 40 was that there was a big push to get women in the FBI and they didn't like it because semi autos with the longer 10mm were hard for them to hold and control with smaller hands.

[LRRPF52]

one of the big reasons for the switch from 10mm to 40 was that there was a big push to get women in the FBI and they didn't like it because semi autos with the longer 10mm were hard for them to hold and control with smaller hands.

Roger. I prefer the 10mm over the .40 S&W, and I'm doing everything I can to rid myself of my remaining .40, although I love the platform (M&P). The 10mm is a pussycat to shoot, and gives very hard-hitting results with some of the bullets available to it. Even firing it in a Commander-sized 1911, I was surprised at how pleasant and smooth it was in recoil characteristics.

The .40 is way too snappy for my taste, so I'm leaning to 9mm on all the guns that were in .40 S&W. Either way, .40's or 10mm would not have provided any real advantage to the FBI agents in the Miami shootout. As I said, it was a training/background match-up, and the FBI agents were dealing with a guy who was shot at least 12 times, to include severing of his brachial artery, severing of one of the main arteries in his thorax that feeds the lung, shots in his back, neck, etc.....and still continued the fight. Both Platt's and Matix's bodies were found to be free of any narcotics after forensic toxicology exams.

When you corner a badger, you better be a meaner, quicker badger if you want to prevail, but count on blood being drawn on both sides. While those FBI agents might have prevailed in gunfights with street thugs and criminal opportunists, taking on a former 11B3/Ranger with 6 or 7 years of service in Ranger and Light Infantry units is a whole different ball game. Just the facts. It's very easy for those who haven't lived a life of constant pain, brutality, and battle focus to overlook that part of the equation and zero-in on what caliber the FBI agents were using and how it failed them...tools...tools....tools, when the real issue is the killer in the fight who is at home in that environment.

Need to look into Platt's background just a little more...

LRRPF52

[warped]

This reason alone is why I wonder how some cops got the jobs they have, hearing that they hope to get into a gunfight is just insane.

If they only knew who might be at the other end they might not be so inclined.

The question is, how some of these individuals ever passed the psych test?

I guess it is nothing more than a cross section of society and there are deficiencies in every crowd.

I know some really good cops but hearing what some of the people that they work with are like it makes you cringe.

[LRRPF52]

Roger that. I will say that the level of marksmanship training we are seeing trickle down to the LE organizations has really increased significantly over the past decade, but is still up to the individual officers in most agencies to take ownership of their violent tool bag and train on personal time as much as possible.

If you'll recall the incident we had here in Salt Lake City last year, a soldier from Ft. Lewis who had just returned from deployment to Afghanistan was told he couldn't go be with his family after getting a DUI, as a punishment. He went AWOL, drove down to Arizona to be with his family anyway, then drove to SLC, suited up in his full kit (MICH, IBA, 2 pistols, ACU's, everything), with an AR15 and 21 mags. A security guard at a high rise building saw him walking around looking agitated, and obviously with the troubling wardrobe malfunction, she called it in.

The officer that responded was able to take him out immediately when it was apparent that he had an active shooter on his hands, who was prepared for some serious shooting...especially since Spc. Barrett had just blasted his cruiser with a barrage of fire, and shot him in the leg. The officer, Uppsen Downes (no I'm not making this up), fell to his side and took concealment behind his car, and shot Barrett in the face. The distance was 25yds, and Barrett died quickly, without any further shooting.

The whole thing was sad really, but I was very surprised to hear that a guy kitted-out like that with an AR was effectively dealt with by an injured cop with a handgun. I need to look into the training background of the officer.

LRRPF52

[stanc]

The summary Bill brought to us gives important insight into what, on average seems to work. Even more important, the statistical survey tells us that relatively inconsequential calibers seem to have a fair bit of success.

This brings us back to two key issues:

1. The ability to hit within the specified range envelope -- this seems to be ranges out to 300 — 500 meters for dismounted infantry depending on who is the proponent.
   
2. The ability of the bullet to defeat nominal barriers within this range.
   

The good news is that the data suggests that we don't have to agonize over cartridge & bullet lethality.

Sorry, Joe -- but I must disagree. Soldier dissatisfaction with 5.56 NATO terminal effectiveness is, after all, the primary reason behind the quest for an alternative caliber. In this, Greg's data does not seem very useful.

The percentage of one-shot stops with a hit to the torso or head is not broken down by fatal or non-fatal hits, nor by bullet type.

A CNS hit (from a high-power rifle) will most always be immediately fatal, regardless of caliber, so including those in the data tells us nothing about what differences there is in probability of incapacitation when the hit is non-fatal.

Also, all rifle calibers and bullet types are lumped together, which gives no insight into the caliber debate.

[Cartridge & bullet lethality] happens to be the most difficult aspect to model and test.

IIRC, that's what gel tests are for, to compare terminal effects/lethality of different cartridges and bullets. It seems to me that (with ordnance gelatin) it's easy to model and test.

IMO, what's difficult is to take the resulting wound profiles and say "This one is XX% better than that one."

[JASmith]

...IIRC, that's what gel tests are for, to compare terminal effects/lethality of different cartridges and bullets. It seems to me that (with ordnance gelatin) it's easy to model and test.

IMO, what's difficult is to take the resulting wound profiles and say "This one is XX% better than that one."

That's the whole point of specifying that the permanent cavity must be at least as wide on average as a specified dimension over a particular distance in the channel. This part is testable.

What is rather challenging is converting that data into percentages of incapacitations, kills, or what have you.

The Ellifritz data set, even if as shaky as you suggest, gives us the opportunity to look at this subject and develop a bit more insight. My take-away from the summary is that wounds from almost any caliber 9mm or larger fired at pistol-caliber distances will produce incapacitations on a regular basis (meaning around 50% of the time).

Shotguns produce about as large a wound channel as we can readily expect. Indeed the 12 gauge ball is very close to what was used during the war of independence and that caliber was developed by some interesting, if indirect, trial and error. Even this large a caliber does not produce 100% incapacitation.

So, his data summary really does give me some comfort in asking for a 500 meter threshold similar to what we could expect from 9mm or M-1 carbine rounds near the muzzle. Similarly, the 7.62 M80 bullet doesn't always incapacitate at any range, but few complain about its lethality, so equaling or bettering its non-fragmenting permanent cavity at any range seems to make a reasonable objective lethality statement.

[LR1955]

Sorry, Joe -- but I must disagree. Soldier dissatisfaction with 5.56 NATO terminal effectiveness is, after all, the primary reason behind the quest for an alternative caliber. In this, Greg's data does not seem very useful.

The percentage of one-shot stops with a hit to the torso or head is not broken down by fatal or non-fatal hits, nor by bullet type.

A CNS hit (from a high-power rifle) will most always be immediately fatal, regardless of caliber, so including those in the data tells us nothing about what differences there is in probability of incapacitation when the hit is non-fatal.

Also, all rifle calibers and bullet types are lumped together, which gives no insight into the caliber debate.

IIRC, that's what gel tests are for, to compare terminal effects/lethality of different cartridges and bullets. It seems to me that (with ordnance gelatin) it's easy to model and test.

IMO, what's difficult is to take the resulting wound profiles and say "This one is XX% better than that one."

Stan:

I would think that the easiest thing to do is to compare wound profiles and say that one is significantly better than the other. That is easily done quantitatively. The problem you guys are having is in providing a significance level. Not only for wound channel but also for danger space as both are strictly technical in nature.

I am not sure how to describe factors but such things as weapons weight, ammunition weight, weapons size, and recoil would become a factor or probably parts of other factors. Since you brought up Soldier dissatisfaction, the issue of confidence / trust in the weapon and cartridge would be another factor. .

But, before anyone can do anything, you got to state what represents a significant improvement. Is it 10%, 20%? State this in terms of the technical stuff and you can start reducing things.


LR1955

[stanc]

The Ellifritz data set, even if as shaky as you suggest, gives us the opportunity to look at this subject and develop a bit more insight.

Joe, I never suggested his data is shaky. I don't question the accuracy of his numbers. My objection is that I think it isn't broken down sufficiently to be of real help in the 5.56/7.62 replacement issue.

So, his data summary really does give me some comfort in asking for a 500 meter threshold similar to what we could expect from 9mm or M-1 carbine rounds near the muzzle. Similarly, the 7.62 M80 bullet doesn't always incapacitate at any range, but few complain about its lethality, so equaling or bettering its non-fragmenting permanent cavity at any range seems to make a reasonable objective lethality statement.

So, why not specify 7.62 M80 cavity dimensions @ 500 meters as threshold, instead of bringing a pistol caliber into requirements for a rifle cartridge?

[JASmith]

...So, why not specify 7.62 M80 cavity dimensions @ 500 meters as threshold, instead of bringing a pistol caliber into requirements for a rifle cartridge?

I am not suggesting a pistol caliber as a requirement. I make the observation that the rate of incapacitation for these bullets is likely high enough that a rifle producing similar results out at 500 meters would make a good threshold.

The M80 is posited as an objective because it is considered to be highly effective even though it doesn't give the same results as a .50 caliber. I know at least three people who survived hits by the .50 BMG (AKA 12.7mm). So we want to avoid asking for something that isn't possible.

Further, the principal requirement for Tony's quest is to reduce the ammunition, magazine, and link weight while getting close to the same effectiveness. Requiring that the new cartridge do the same in all aspects as the 7.62 M80 effectively causes the search to collapse into a statement that the 7.62 M80 is the round of choice.

[stanc]

I would think that the easiest thing to do is to compare wound profiles and say that one is significantly better than the other. That is easily done quantitatively. The problem you guys are having is in providing a significance level. Not only for wound channel but also for danger space as both are strictly technical in nature.

But, before anyone can do anything, you got to state what represents a significant improvement. Is it 10%, 20%? State this in terms of the technical stuff and you can start reducing things.

Gene,

Danger space is a matter of numbers. Knowing the trajectories, it is easy to determine if one is XX% longer than the other.

But, how can one compare wound profiles and say this one is XX% better than that one. If one wound profile has a 3" neck, and another has a 4" neck, does that mean the former will provide 25% better probability of incapacitation? I think that's very unlikely.

I see no point in arbitrarily specifiying a certain percent of improvement. At this stage, I just want to know what level of improvement can be achieved.

Stan

[stanc]

I am not suggesting a pistol caliber as a requirement.

I understand that. What concerned me is that you are bringing pistol-caliber performance into the requirement.

I make the observation that the rate of incapacitation for these bullets is likely high enough that a rifle producing similar results out at 500 meters would make a good threshold.

Perhaps. It just seems to me that it'll confuse the matter.

Further, the principal requirement for Tony's quest is to reduce the ammunition, magazine, and link weight while getting close to the same effectiveness. Requiring that the new cartridge do the same in all aspects as the 7.62 M80 effectively causes the search to collapse into a statement that the 7.62 M80 is the round of choice.

So why not specify 5.56 M855 @ 500 meters as the threshold?

[JASmith]

...So why not specify 5.56 M855 @ 500 meters as the threshold?

Because the 9mm M882 at the muzzle has a higher HITS score than the 5.56M885 at 500 meters.