"Handgun Stopping Power" - article in the latest issue of American Rifleman

[Zhukov]

I was interested to see this article in the latest issue, but didn't have very high hopes. It promises to show the data for 100 different handgun bullets being fired into ballistic gelatin. Unfortunately, most of my fears were confirmed.

The article, in my opinion, is very poorly written. Instead of giving a concise background for what does and doesn't work, it runs the gamut of tying how much pain a person will feel as a factor in stopping an assailant, discussing Marshall and Sanow's completely discredited work, kinetic energy, and finally penetration and expansion. He even brings up the Strasbourg goat tests! While Marshall and Sanow's works are labeled "controversial", they are referenced three times and cited in his supported literature, giving implicit approval of the data. The penetration and expansion aspect of a bullet is given slightly more emphasis (backed up by referring to Aargard's African hunting experience), but not convincingly so.

Discussing the methodology, the author mentions that 10% ballistic gelatin was used, but fails to reveal if any of the gelatin was properly calibrated. No mention is made of block size, how many shots were made of each round (I assume just one), nor how many times a block was shot before being discarded. The latter, in particular, can have a huge bearing on the data collected as a bullet can show significantly more penetration once a block has been shot too often.

Finally, there's the data itself. The author has chosen very few rounds which are on Doctor Roberts recommended list. Ranger-T, HST? Forget about it. The only notable exception is the Speer Gold Dot which is tested across various calibers. Furthermore, the author has chosen to stick with mostly lightweight bullets in each caliber. When I look at the penetration data obtained for some of the bullets for which known good gelatin data exists, it appears that the information by the author is roughly on par, albeit with a bias toward more penetration depth than Doctor Roberts tests show. There's not enough data to make a statistical analysis worth it.

Ultimately, I'm pretty disappointed. Virtually ALL bullets hit the 12" penetration depth, which gives the uninformed reader a false sense of security when it comes to choosing defensive ammo. Only bare gelatin data is shown and bullet performance after barrier penetration is not shown.

The author could have saved himself a lot of time and done a better service to the readership by referencing Urey's work and pointing to Doctor Roberts data.

[481]

I was interested to see this article in the latest issue, but didn't have very high hopes. It promises to show the data for 100 different handgun bullets being fired into ballistic gelatin. Unfortunately, most of my fears were confirmed.

The article, in my opinion, is very poorly written. Instead of giving a concise background for what does and doesn't work, it runs the gamut of tying how much pain a person will feel as a factor in stopping an assailant, discussing Marshall and Sanow's completely discredited work, kinetic energy, and finally penetration and expansion. He even brings up the Strasbourg goat tests! While Marshall and Sanow's works are labeled "controversial", they are referenced three times and cited in his supported literature, giving implicit approval of the data. The penetration and expansion aspect of a bullet is given slightly more emphasis (backed up by referring to Aargard's African hunting experience), but not convincingly so.

Discussing the methodology, the author mentions that 10% ballistic gelatin was used, but fails to reveal if any of the gelatin was properly calibrated. No mention is made of block size, how many shots were made of each round (I assume just one), nor how many times a block was shot before being discarded. The latter, in particular, can have a huge bearing on the data collected as a bullet can show significantly more penetration once a block has been shot too often.

Finally, there's the data itself. The author has chosen very few rounds which are on Doctor Roberts recommended list. Ranger-T, HST? Forget about it. The only notable exception is the Speer Gold Dot which is tested across various calibers. Furthermore, the author has chosen to stick with mostly lightweight bullets in each caliber. When I look at the penetration data obtained for some of the bullets for which known good gelatin data exists, it appears that the information by the author is roughly on par, albeit with a bias toward more penetration depth than Doctor Roberts tests show. There's not enough data to make a statistical analysis worth it.

Ultimately, I'm pretty disappointed. Virtually ALL bullets hit the 12" penetration depth, which gives the uninformed reader a false sense of security when it comes to choosing defensive ammo. Only bare gelatin data is shown and bullet performance after barrier penetration is not shown.

The author could have saved himself a lot of time and done a better service to the readership by referencing Urey's work and pointing to Doctor Roberts data.

I can't say that I was expecting much. I gave up after the first mention of M&S and the goat tests.

I've heard of the "goat tests" for years, but have never seen any documentation of them. Sometimes I wonder if I am the only one who hasn't seen 'em.

[BufordTJustice]

I read it, Zhukov. Gee-ZUS, it's a hot mess.

It's gonna be on my list of articles to ignore...especially for my buddies who try to use shit like this to justify purchasing underperforming (yet cheaper) defensive ammunition.

Thanks for posting this. If you don't mind, can you give some examples of the worst "data offender" regarding the info int he article? I'll probably be referring people to what you write here in this thread (and Doc if he opines) if they ask me about it.

[Grytpype]

I can't say that I was expecting much. I gave up after the first mention of M&S and the goat tests.

I've heard of the "goat tests" for years, but have never seen any documentation of them. Sometimes I wonder if I am the only one who hasn't seen 'em.

I have a pdf copy if you're interested.

[Mag360]

I was really disappointed by that article. They only tested one crappy 10mm and only a couple good rounds in every other caliber.

The only worthwhile rounds they tested were gold dots, xtp, and barnes tac xp.

No HST, or ranger-t, or bonded ranger. Why the hell dis they even test the garbage glaser crap and multi projectile bs.

[Eliakim]

The article is disappointing to be sure, but they did list results for the .45 ACP 230gr HST load on page 55.

The American Rifleman has a wide readership. Unfortunately a lot of shooters may make SD ammo decisions based at least in part on the info shown in this half-baked article.

[Straight Shooter]

American Rifleman, Guns & Ammo and a few more of these "gun rags" have been total crap for years. Ive read the same damn articles over and over since 1975.
I know...why dont they do ANOTHER article about "the venerable ole
1911", we've only seen that 5000 times. Or, better yet, give another glowing review to another TAURUS..after shooting "over 100 rounds of various ammo".
Even better...tell us all AGAIN how good that Bushmaster/DPMS/Olympic AR was, cause "it ate everything I fed it for over 200 rounds!"
These mags, and several more, have been complete and utter SHIT for years. SAME articles over and over. NEVER seen a gun they didnt like, "and would recommend".
of course, thats just MY opinion.

[gunnut284]

I sort of glanced over it expecting it to be terrible. I was at least encouraged that they actually considered expansion and penetration as performance indicators instead of just comparing energy numbers. I guess my expectations were so low I was actually pleasantly surprised. They did leave out most of the good rounds.

[TXinfidel]

Got it in the mail today, saw the Ruger SR22 on the front, shot through it on my way back to my apartment, saw the "Stopping Power" segment and the magazine went straight in the trash after reading their "scientific" results which didn't even provid load numbers.

[WillBrink]

I was really disappointed by that article. They only tested one crappy 10mm and only a couple good rounds in every other caliber.

The only worthwhile rounds they tested were gold dots, xtp, and barnes tac xp.

No HST, or ranger-t, or bonded ranger. Why the hell dis they even test the garbage glaser crap and multi projectile bs.

Because they advertise in their magazine? Quickest way to figure out why anything gets tested is follow the $$$ trail to advertising. If those goofy rnds did well in the tests (didn't read the article) then there's your proof right there.