Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Fight Stopper ??

Is there a general consensus as to the relative stopping ability of :
<br>357 magnum
<br>40 S&W
<br>45 ACP
<br>Given same length barrel and all the usual qualifiers being the same.

Nope like Fords and Chevys. What you like is what you believe in. With your question we get the "what is true today at this instant may cost your life tomorrow" thing. No one has ever been able to say what causes a bullet to be a fight stopper in any given instence with a center-mass killing hit, to many variables, any of the three is better at sometime. That is why there is NO 100% bullet or caliber that is generally carried. I'm sure that if you carred a BFG in 45-70 you'ed have a 100% gun but of the three you listed you take your shot and bet your life.

This topic has been beaten to death for decades.
<br>IMHO it is the operators proficiency with the weapon that counts more than the round in the gun. Add to that how does the operator react under extreme stress? If the operator freezes or screws up in the heat of a dangerous encounter it won't matter what kind of gun he has.
<br>Of the rounds you listed, in the hands of a trained operator they are very close in performance, so close that I wouldn't try to pick one over the other. It would boil down to training and practice.
<br>
<br>ZM
<br>

The degree of efficiency is considerably more reliant on bullet design rather than the caliber. A .32 ACP out of a short barreled pocket defense piece like my KelTec P32 back-up, can do more damage than a .357 Mag hollowpoint, if you're using Glaser's.
<br>
<br> Also, if the bullet exits the primary target,the rest of it's energy is expended on travel, rather than changing a situation.
<br>
<br> I would say that bullet design and shot placement are much more relative to stopping power than caliber, regardless of the firearm in use. All three you mention have a penchant for overpenetration, even the venerable .45ACP, unless specific ammo is selected for a particular purpose.

http://www.powernet.net/~eich1/sp.html
<br>
<br>Here are some stats. you might find this informative.
<br>
<br>MM

This is one area that I'm delighted to have no experience in. A cop friend who has a lot of field experience in it (and has done a lot of field and literature research on it) tells me that bullet diameter, weight, and design are less crucial than the minimum effective velocity of (IIRC) about 1,200 to 1,300 ft/sec.

I'd put my money on the .45 ACP 230 grain hollow point. As far as just stopping power goes, all of the ones you mentioned are so close, that the difference doesn't make a difference. The .45 is easiest to handle in fight stopping loads though, in my opinion.

You listed three of the best. Choose the one that fits in the hand gun of your choice and remember to shoot twice. I made the same decision last year. I went with the 40 S&W. Ruled out the 357 Mag. Did not want to pack a revolver. Ruled out the 1911, wanted a double action and more mag capaticity. I bought the Beretta 96 in .40 S&W. Good caliber, 10 round mags, and the gun fitts me well. After a Briley trigger job I can shoot it very well too.
<br>Bullet choice would be more improtant than any difference that might exist between those three calibers.

It is hard to say what is going to work. Bizarre things happen in shootings. Sometimes a 22 will do the job and sometimes a 44 mag won't. It usually and that is the best qualifer there is, makes more difference where the bullet is and how big it is. I would differ with Dr. Howell's friend in his assesment. If velocity made the greatest difference why are not the 7.62 X 25 Tokarev or the 30 Luger known as man stopers. They certainly make the velocity window. However, they shoot little bitty bullets and metal cased at that. On the other hand street reports give the nod to the 125 gr out of the 357 as the best one shot stopper. Go figure. The old forty five colt has always had a good reputation. Big heavy and slow but effective.
<br>Wading through all the above underbrush I go with the 45 ACP with a good 230 hp bullet. Provided of course that center of mass hits can be done consistently.
<br>
<br>BCR

Gene,
<br>
<br>You've received much good info so far on this thread.
<br>IMHO the best fight stopper is to not get into a situation where you'll have a fight to stop. The best self defense is situation avoidance.
<br>
<br>Staying away from places where trouble has a greater chance of starting: Bars, dark alleys, etc.
<br>
<br>Staying away from people who are known troublemakers, etc.
<br>
<br>Leaving an are if trouble appears imminent.
<br>
<br>Looking away instead of making eye contact.
<br>
<br>If you must use deadly force the item of primary importance is hitting the target with multiple rounds in the boiler room before the target can do it to you.
<br>
<br>I am as happy carring my .38 snub with glaser as I am carrying my .357 Sig M33 Glock with Cor-Bons.
<br>
<br>Norm

" ... if the bullet exits the primary target,the rest of it's energy is expended on travel, rather than changing a situation."
<br>
<br>Give this popular but illogical misconception more thought before you buy it.
<br>
<br>(a) If the bullet comes to rest within the body, it has caused less and less tissue damage up to the point where it has caused virtually none and has too little energy left to penetrate farther.
<br>
<br>(b) If the bullet penetrates the entire body, it has caused great tissue damage along its entire path through the body -- enough to plow through tough skin again -- irrespective of how much more energy it still retains.
<br>
<br>(c) Carried to its logical (but stupid) conclusion, the theory that you've just repeated argues for LESS power, not more, in the cartridge, its bullet, and its velocity. IOW, it blesses anything that enters but doesn't exit.

Ken,
<br>
<br> You mean a 38spl 125gr HP load that stays in the body DOESN'T do more damage than a .44Mag 180gr HP at 1800fps that leaves a fist-sized exit wound???
<br>
<br>Regards,
<br>
<br>MM

Ken, I think Glockblaster was referring to two rounds of the same caliber, travelling at the same rate of speed, but of different designs. The one designed to expend all its energy inside (e.g., a hollow point) should do more damage than the one designed to hold together (e.g., a FMJ), passing all the way through doing relatively little damage. If it did a lot of damage, it would have to expend destructive engergy, which hinders through and through penetration.

That is a very informative link.Doubtless there will be different conclusions drawn but my two are:
<br>
<br>1. Ken's friend seems to be on track in believing velocity should be a prime consideration.
<br>
<br>2.The 45acp deserves its' defenders.
<br>
<br>I was really surprised to see how well the 9mm compares.
<br>I have owned or still own the three cartridges I mentioned,as well as the 9mm .I will stick with the 41 mag however.It just feels comforting!!! I see what it does on game.
<br>

TRH,
<br>
<br> You are correct in that I was comparing bullets of the same caliber, but the degree of damage of a larger caliber can be accomplished with a smaller caliber if the bullet is designed to expand properly and dissipate kinetic energy, causing hydraulic pressure damage( temporary and permanent crush cavities) within the body.
<br>
<br> If the bullet retains enough energy for travel through the body, it may generate some degree of cavitation, but not enough shock trauma to stop the situation.
<br>
<br> You will not, however, find me calling someone's theories(misconcieved or not) "stupid" or other derrogatory terms. I work with an individual with a very extensive medical background and I always research my theories before I relate or expound them. Derrogatory remarks tend to reveal that an individual is unwilling to learn or re-examine possibly false information that they have been given previously.
<br>
<br> I always carefuly analyze and extrapolate information with external reinforcement to avoid passing along "stupid" ideas.
<br>

Take a closer look at my post and note carefully what (specifically) I called stupid. Is it not stupid?

Ken is absoulty correct in his assement. Take a look at the construction of the human body, we are bipedal, we stand upright on two legs. We as humans are thinskined, our structure presents a different alingment of vital organs than found in quadrapeds, four legged animals. Most shots taken at a human torso have a greater chance of damaging internal organs, soft tissue, than that of say a deer or bear, Breaking a human sholder will be painfull but not necessarly debilitating. A sternum shot will kill almost instantly if the bullet penetrates the soft tissue and if it has the energy to pass all the way through the body chances of survival drop dramatically. As all the human organs hang down in the chest cavity with out the protection of sholder blades or any massive bony structure it is easier to damage them. The best bullet in my opinion would be the "Flying Trash Can" 45APC hollow point at max velocity. This combination just eats up flesh and bone and spits them out of the exit wound. If you want all the energy expended in the body you need to use fragible bullets and not hit bones on the way in.
<br>
<br>Bullwnkl.

"If the bullet retains enough energy for travel through the body, it may generate some degree of cavitation, but not enough shock trauma to stop the situation."
<br>
<br>Duhhhhh -- huh?
<br>
<br>Please tell this stupid ol' phardt how a bullet can "generate some degree of cavitation" (like blowing a hellish hole through living tissue, clear on out the other side?) and NOT generate "enough shock trauma to stop the situation," while another bullet can come to a full stop without going that far and be more effective. I thought tearing big holes through live flesh WAS "generating trauma," in essence. And no, I'm still not talking about mere arrow-like penetration -- but about bullets that hit hard but run out of energy at significantly different points. I have a hard time understanding how a bullet that blows a big hole only halfway through a body can be more deadly than one that blows a big hole all the way through and keeps going. I'm interested in what damage the bullets do in and to the flesh, not in some neat ballistic accounting that's concerned with the percentage of the bullet's potential energy that's "wasted" on farther travel.
<br>
<br>I look forward to being enlightened.
<br>

MUCH more important than the gun, the cartridge, the bullet,or its characteristics is the FULL ability of the person holding the gun. Your "full ability" must comprise far more than good control of sight picture (which may not enter the specific equation at all) and trigger release. "Full ability" includes also the readiness and willingness (well short of eagerness) to shoot another person, IF NECESSARY, without undue hesitation, and the swiftness of thought and controlled action necessary to do so.
<br>
<br>I like the very real and pertinent distinction drawn by my old Arizona neighbor and friend Colonel Jeff Cooper -- the technical and the moral components of firing a weapon in self-defense. This thread is concerned, so far, with one part of the technical component -- but all is for naught if the person responding to deadly threat lacks the necessary ability to make the necessary moral decision IMMEDIATELY. If you have that ability, the technical is almost moot.
<br>
<br>BTW, that gorgeous retired FBI agent who wrote of her career in the Bureau confirmed a long-held theory of mine -- that pointing a gun obviously at a [male] perp's genitalia is a more-demoralizing threat than pointing at his head or torso. An older agent put her onto the notion, and she wrote that when she had occasion to follow his advice, the perp practically disintegrated before her eyes.

Ken, you have touched on something that way too many folks don't think about until too late when (God forbid) they are involved in a shooting. Almost all defensive shootings are going to be quick, close and highly emotion charged. There really isn't time to do any involved thought process at the time. Stoping to think will get you killed, you just react.
<br>Somehow everything we have been taught about gun safety and being careful and the sancity of human life etc must go out the window in an instant. The normal cautious and safety consious person must immediately turn into a cold eyed killer. It is hard to do. The aftermath is even worse usually.
<br>Its been said that the only sure way to win a gun fight is not to get in one. Truer words were never spoke.
<br>
<br>BCR