Picking up on part of the
'The survival situation and how you lose your gear' thread.
Evan Marshall the 'simple cop' who came up with the insight none of the scientists had: 'let's stop arguing about stretch cavity, or expansion, or whatever theory, lets simply count what rounds stopped people best in shoot outs' carries Corbon DPX in all his guns. You can read his fascinating books (recommended) but that is his personal distillation of all his research.
End of discussion as far as I'm concerned; why do all the research yourself, when its been done for you?
But guns seem to make people opinionated. I won't be contributing to this thread again. For some reason people think the user of a different calibre, or make, from them is the equivalent of a child molester. They are just bits of metal folks!
On the original thread; the author of 'Deep Survival' (amazing book) gives his personal account of how it wasn't the going 'trekking without a pack', but ending up trekking by accident that almost got him in serious trouble. He went for a few hours walked and almost missed the last boat home.
It can happen so easy. A 20 minute drive can get you further than you can walk back in a day.
qjs

Haven't read the references you cite, so please allow for that in my comment.

IMO, it is a logically fallacy to equate what the majority of "x" was caused by, with what the "most effective" is. You have to adjust for the proportions of the different types used in the analysis, and the size of the sample used.

For example, I'm sure that an analysis of 20th century firearms fatalities would show that death by FMJ rounds were overwhelmingly more prominent (thus "effective") than any other type round. But such an analysis would ignore the fact that by treaty in the early 20th century, anything except FMJ rounds were outlawed by the "laws of war." Thus, virtually all, if not all, firearms deaths in WW2 were by FMJ. By the rational of "most = best", FMJ would be the choice as it was the most "effective." I doubt many would agree with that conclusion. It was the "most" because it was virtually the only round type used. The others were outlawed, thus used much less often or not at all.

I don't know what is the most effective round. From what I've read, there is no common agreement on a measure of "effectiveness." Discussing it seems to be a quick way to start a strong debate.

I think it depends, in large part, on what you are trying to do and the situation.

One must be cautious and consider the scenarios of use, (i.e. what you are shooting at, e.g. a bear, deer, person, rabbit, duck, squirrel or rat), why (hunting, self-defense), range (in the house, or in the woods), weapon (rifle, handgun, shotgun), and other factors (range, your training etc.)

And I agree a short drive can put you in a survival situation. That is why we need to be "equipped to survive" at all times, ( and I have a bunch of stuff in my car that I hope I never have to use).

Personally, I am very distrustful of "one size fits all" solutions. . .

Can you get 84mm Charlie-G recoilless rifle ammunition in the US? That is quite effective ammunition from the late 1940s!

The are other opinions regarding the Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow data base. Be careful with how opinions are confused with facts.

In some forums this subject becomes a shouting match between the light and fast JHP crowd and those that prefer their bullets bigger. Then there are those who believe that all bullets are slow until you get into rifle velocities above 2700 FPS .

I like handgun ammo with good penetration, not necessarily the most muzzle energy. Beyond that, rifles are good, so are shotguns... With the right placement, arrows work too.

Unfortunately, we are limited to .50 caliber here (for cartridge ammo, black powder projectiles and shotgun slugs can go larger). .50 cal is a little over 12.5mm. So I would think that 84mm cartridges would be right out. Bummer!

just a personal observation... my small circle of friends are mainly USPSA pistol and multi gun shooters, possessing the skills associated with fairly advanced levels of competition... with the increase of "workplace violence" I've noticed that several of them, who have had a concealed carry permits for a long period of time, but chose not to carry....now do so daily, and several, myself included, have opted for pistol caliber carbines, and AR style pistols, suitable for very close quarter interpersonal confrontations

I think it's accurate to say that pistol rounds generally suck; the best just suck less. In almost every situation where we deploy a handgun a rifle would be superior. We carry sidearms because they're light, portable and concealable not because they're effective. I choose my ammo based on the track record it has "on the street" in police shooters (since there are better records of those shootings than civilian shootings). Years ago I was a fan of lighter bullets going faster but now I tend towards the heavier loadings. Most of the time I carry a 9mm, regardless of the activity. In daily life my EDC is usually an HK P30S although in hotter weather I might be toting my Beretta Nano or even my Ruger LCR in .38 Special. My preference for 9mm has been 147gr Federal HST. It has a very good record in police use. When I can't get that I will carry 124gr HST which also has a good record. For the .38 I haven't found anything I like better than the classic 158gr LSCW-HP +P. My main consideration is penetration; I like expansion but if I can only have one or the other I'll take penetration.

On rare occasion I carry an HK USPc in .40 cal. I carry 180gr HST in that when I do carry it.

I will stress that for woods use I am satisfied with a 9mm or .45 ACP because there are no dangerous animals here (save humans). If there were big bears I would carry something bigger. For camping and hiking I will often carry HSTs in the gun with a mag of 147gr flat-nose FMJ as a spare.

I'm not an "operator" or anything and I claim no expertise beyond being an avid shooter. Since all handgun rounds are underpowered vs even a wimpy rifle I worry more about skills than equipment.

What he said.

...which is why I went to a 12 gauge for HD...

I choose mine based on its reliability in the specific firearm it is going in. Not the brand/model of the firearm, the actual firearm itself. Only after shooting lots and determining which ammos are 100% reliable (that takes 100's of rounds of each, not just a few) do I start looking at other factors. I could not care less about the newest magic police bullet if it's not 100% reliable in the firearm it will be used in. Some of these supposed magic bullets cost $1.50 per shot. While I can afford that for carry, I cannot ("choose not" actually) to afford to buy 300 of them for initial reliability testing. I will first try last years magic bullet at half the price as my starting point. Revolvers are much simpler, significantly less testing is required. If I were ever in a shoot out, I pray that my opponent concentrated on buying expensive flying ashtray magic bullets and then did not test them or practice with them. My bigger fear would be the trained marksman with plain old FMJ. I would actually fear that marksman with .22LR more than a gangbanger with any caliber or bullet design. I'll take a .500mag to the arm over a .22LR to the heart any day.

re: reliability... years ago at an Area 6 USPSA match in Georgia, Dave Dawson (pre Dawson Precision)motioned me over and said I needed to watch a couple of unknown (to us) shooters...Matt Rierson (KIA Mogadishu, Somalia) and Larry Vickers were shooting the 50yd standards with 1911s.... shooting Match 230 grain Ball...5 "A" hits in 6 seconds....first time I met the
SFOD-D "Delta" shooters from Ft Bragg... good enough for me

I thought that part was a given. I never settle on a round for CCW until I've tested it thoroughly in my particular sidearm. My general standard for a self loader is 200 rounds without a problem. Bear in mind this is with a gun that's already proven reliable. I'll run 300-500 rounds of ball first because if it won't even run ball there's no point trying anything else. So once I have ten or so 50 round boxes through a pistol I'll switch to self defense ammo. 200 rounds of that and I am satisfied that it's going to work right and it's cleared for CCW duty.

With my HKs my regimen is slightly different. All of my HKs have proven so reliable over the years that I will run just 100 rounds through them with a given ammo.

I'm also a believer in training and practicing with carry ammo, at least a little bit. While I can't afford to do all my practice shooting with Federal HST I do think it's important to run a mag of them through my CCW sidearm every other range trip. My preference is to do that right before I pack up to go home.

One thing I love about the HST is that the round seems to run great through every gun I've ever tried.

carefully choosing the right bullet design & cartridge makes sense considering the advancements in the last couple of decades.

and having read untold number of articles/books written by both sides on the subject of "stopping power", i tend to agree with the "morgue-monsters"* (street shooting data collection crowd like marshall/sanow) vs the "jello-junkies"* (ballistic gelatin measurement fans like fackler & IWBA).

but that aside, when discussing self-defense with firearms, i believe there are a few things even more important than what a firearm is loaded with (in descending order):

1) situational awareness
2) knowledge of your legal and moral obligations in the situation
3) the ability to react instantly and decisively
4) having the tool with you
5) being able to place rounds precisely and quickly
6) reliablity of tool
7) bullet design & stopping power of cartridge
8) everything else (type of tool, capacity, reloading speed, court proofing, cost, etc)


*names used by Massad Ayoob in 2002 for the two sides

The problem I have with the Marshall & Sanow database is that it doesn't make any allowance for why a particular bullet had a one-shot stop, or rather why a particular bad guy stopped after being shot once. Did he stop because of severe physical trauma and simply could not continue, or did he stop due to a low pain threshold and non-life threatening hit to the arm that made him retreat? M&S classify both of those instances equally as a one-shot stop.

It may be worthwhile to read a bit about Dr. Martin L. Fackler (retired Colonel in the US Army's Medical Corps) before dismissing his work as that of a "jello-junkie". But that's just my opinion...

For myself, I keep an open mind. I think Marshall & Sanow collected some useful data that's worth reviewing. I also think that measuring penetration into ballistic gelatin allows us to draw some reasonable inferences about how a bullet might perform in a defensive shooting.

One of my instructors wrapped a 2x4 with a kevlar vest and shot it with several different rounds, showing us the permanent indentation into the wood. In the (admittedly for me quite unlikely) event I'm facing a violent attacker wearing such a vest, the "back face signature" of the bullet might matter. In other words, deeper indentations into the wood may indicate a great effect on a violent attacker.

Anyone who makes their caliber/ammo/firearm choice based on some kind of "one shot stop" rating is barking up the wrong tree IMHO. Your chances of a one shot stop with ANYTHING in a chaotic self defense situation are quite low. Best to concentrate your defensive plans/training elsewhere, than to depend on the magic bullet being your savior.

I was told to find out what your local law enforcement uses.If you do have to use a sidearm to defend yourself,you will likely be sued by the "victim".(Lets not get into a disussion on that.)
It is easier for your defense lawyer to justify your ammo choice as not being inhumane. It is what the police use....

BOATMAN
John

A renowned firearms teacher who passed away a few months ago taught that any caliber commonly used by the military or police is fine for civilian self-defense. However, ammo quality matters. The last few years saw a decrease in ammo quality after a certain big company bought some of the popular brand names. Some reported defective, unfirable ammo. That's really bad.

The way I look at it it's not voodoo, it's science. There will probably always be a random/chaos element in terminal performance but that's not an excuse not to design bullets scientifically. The ancient samurai tested their swords on the bodies of prisoners. Since we can't do that nowadays ord gel is a good stand in. Just because a bullet does well in gelatin doesn't mean it will be a great fighting round but it's a rare one that does poorly in standardized testing yet excels in combat.

I'm in favor of controlled expansion and bonded bullets.

Some swords were tested, most weren't -- there were just far too many swords, and not enough bodies. They also hired specialists to do the testing, partly to avoid damaging the sword, partly because this sort of task wasn't highly regarded.

It would be funny for a samurai of old to look at all this ammo selection debate. They might have had their precious heirloom sword that was the equivalent of gun people's "safe queen" today. They also had swords they actually fought with -- if they lived during war time. If not, they probably never saw action. These swords got chipped, damaged, and broken fast -- that's just what happens when metal cuts against metal. These battlefield beaters never made it to the museum. In other words, they expected their weapons to break. Here we have the luxury of collecting data about ammo and wondering about "single shot stoppers" and weapon reliability. Back then it was "hack, hack, and hack again," hoping that your sword wouldn't break before you kill the guy.

I agree Phaedrus.
carry what I have used and what I know works. But lets be honest, ANY round will punch holes n a human body. Just keep pulling the trigger till your target goes down. That's what we were taught. The lawyers and courts and shooting review boards can work t out later.
You're also right about the Samurai. I know someone who has a nine body blade. t's a bit chilling even seeing that thing.

"dismissing"? i think not. unlike some i'm not a fanboy of either side.

while neither group has THE answer, both have their points. all i indicated was that in the end i personally have a bit more faith in the statical data of tens of thousands of street shootings than in gelatin/lab testing.

and as i noted, it was ayoob who called them "jello-junkies", who was also equally tongue-in-cheek with m&s as "morgue-monsters".