Stopping Power by Caliber Part 2

[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