Stopping Power by Caliber Part 2

[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."