[WebHobbit]

Evan Marshall & Ed Sanow's One Shot Stop Statistics are used by many folks to help them choose which ammo to use in their SD/HD/LEO weaponry. Other's scoff at these figures dismissing them as BS.

Here is an exchange between me and a couple other THR members in another thread (which we nearly derailed):


About "One-Shot Stops":

Evan Marshall himself has stated many times in his books/articles that he DOES NOT recommend someone stop with one round. Common sense tactics call for you to shoot until the threat is no longer a threat. DUH.

He just limits instances of documented One Shot Stops as the only thing he records in his database since only that will actually help determine a rounds true effectiveness. It is a pretty narrowly defined type of shooting to make his database. He also only counts torso shots.

--WebHobbit





Web hobbit,

The problem with Evan Marshall and the focus on one shot stops is that it leads the uninitiated to believe there is some magic bullet or caliber. Just get this caliber and everything will be cool (which of course it won't).

The reality is that any of the defensive rounds of 36 caliber or greater work. And none of them should be counted on for a one shot stop.

People should focus on getting a gun thats reliable, that they can hit with and practice gradually building up speed to continuous rapid on target fire.

As I said in my earlier post and as you said, common sense would dictate that you keep firing on target until that target is no longer a threat. However, you rarely read a post on those lines. You can read a hundred posts on "I carry _____ because its better than ____ and I know it will stop the BG in one shot" or something similar.

--SurfinUSA




The problem use of S&M even as you describe is ludicrous. Their stats (and I use that term very loosely) do not even give you the information you evidently are attempting to derive from it--S&M's "data" is at best misleading, and more accurately totally deceptive.

An example of how S&M works:

They have 100 samples of Cartridge A. Of the 100 samples, 70 fail to meet S&M's rather nebulous "criteria." Of the remaining 30 samples 27 were unobstructed thoracic cavity hits that resulted in "one shot stops" by S&M. No other "torso" hits (S&M criteria) resulted in stops. According to S&M, Cartridge A is 90% effective.

They have 100 samples of Cartridge B. Of the 100 samples, 50 do not meet S&M "criteria." Of the remaining 50 samples, 27 were unobstructed thoracic hits and resulted in "one shot stops." In addition to the 27 unobstructed thoracic cavity hits, there were 13 other "torso" hits that also resulted in "one shot stops." According to S&M, Cartridge B is is 80% effective.

Which one, Cartridge A or Cartridge B, was really the most effective on the "street?" Cartridge A with 27 unobstructed thoracic cavity hits rated 90% by S&M; or Cartridge B with 27 unobstructed thoracic cavity hits and 13 peripheral hits resulting in a "stop") rated 80% by S&M?

Folks, that's how S&M work.

When you look at the raw data (which of course S&M won't let you see), I see that in reality on the street Cartridge A, which they rate a 90%, really worked only about 27% of the time, and Cartridge B, which they rate at 80%, really worked about 40% of the time.

Which would you rather have--the one S&M rated highest, or the one that worked the best?
--jc2


Thread is located here:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19837&perpage=25&pagenumber=2

Here is a link to the latest S&M book:

Amazon -Stopping Power link (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/158160128X/qid%3D1049585323/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/104-9671904-7972720)

So what do YOU think?

[JohnK]

The reality is that any of the defensive rounds of 36 caliber or greater work. And none of them should be counted on for a one shot stop.

People should focus on getting a gun thats reliable, that they can hit with and practice gradually building up speed to continuous rapid on target fire.


That's pretty much my opinion these days as well, but I'd say "35 caliber or greater". That would include the 9mm (.355"), 38 special (.357") calibers and at the bottem the 380 ACP.

Marshalls reading is entertaining, but JC2 does make a good point, I'm sure their raw data could be interpreted many otherways.

Lies, damn lies and statistics. - Mark Twain

[Sean Smith]

Food for thought: the M&S studies can't tell the stopping power difference between some .40 S&W loads... and a .308 rifle or a 12 gauge shotgun. All are within a couple of percent of each other on the OSS scale. Think what you want, but in my mind if a study can't tell the difference between the effects of a 165 grain projectile going 1,150 feet per second, and a 168 grain projectile going nearly 3,000 feet per second (or a 385 grain slug at 1,900 feet per second), it isn't much of a study.

[jc2]

When you look at the raw data (which of course S&M won't let you see), I see that in reality on the street Cartridge A, which they rate a 90%, really worked only about 27% of the time, and Cartridge B, which they rate at 80%, really worked about 40% of the time.

Which would you rather have--the one S&M rated highest, or the one that worked the best?
The methodology I described is exactly how S&M figure their "OSS" percentages. The "stats," as they publish them, are totally bogus and meaningless.

"NO, it's unscientific, convoluted BS!" is far too generous assessment.

[Tim Burke]

If you are measuring "One Shot Stops" and then you discard from your database every shooting that required more than one shot, your data becomes so skewed as to be meaningless.
They may be measuring something, but I don't have any idea what, and I don't think anyone else does, either.

[Boats]

Methods aside, there have been many instances where the alleged OSS reporting department said the shooting didn't go down like M&S said it did in their books. I second the notion that any study purporting to equate OSS percentages between pistols, rifles, and shotguns is selling something not kosher.

I also second the notion of shooting until the target is no longer a threat.

Doesn't it strike you as funny that no one in the revolver world tries to equate .38 Special +p to a .45 Colt? These equivalency arguments between medium and big bores seems to be only an autogun phenomenon or an arcane debate between 5.xxmm rifle owners and 7.62 ones. Odd how the ones who argue most vociferously are the ones with the marginal calibers.:scrutiny:

[stans]

I used to live and die by the writings of Marshall and Sanow, but I see things differently now. Ballistic gelatin is very uniform, human beings are not. Ballistic gelatin doesn't get all dressed up before becoming involved in a shooting, human beings do, at least most of the time. Ballistic gelatin does not use narcotics or stimulants, human beings often do. Ballistic gelatin does not have adrenalin, human beings do. So I now read the writings of Marshall and Sanow and use their data as a rough guide, but not the be-all-end-all gospel of firearms self defense.

[Mannlicher]

I use my own testing to determine which load I carry in a SD handgun. Publications like Sanow's are helpful in some respects, but I only carry what is accurate, and effective from my gun. No, I don't have a ballistics lab, but I do have a chrony, and some small ability to test bullet performance.

[chaim]

Yes M&S "One shot stop" percentages are flawed. Even if the methodology was sound there simply aren't that many defensive or offensive shootings in this country every year to get significant results once they use any kind of screening to screen out useless data. Then once shootings where for one reason or another (some quite legitamate) the data is useless are taken out and you then separate the data into different calibers and you can have some sample sizes that are extremely small. Sure, maybe .38spl, .357mag, .45acp, and 9mm might have enough data for statistically significant results but what about .32mag?

That said, all measures are flawed once you try to extrapolate the results into the real world. Expansion tests in playdough, phone books, ballistic gelatin, or if you have some money in brisket? Even the best media won't duplicate human flesh, and when there are shootings involving people there are dozens of other factors as well to complicate things. Muzzle energy, sure you can use it as some kind of comparison but it still doesn't tell you how a particular round will perform in real life.

Personally, I think all major comparisons are useful to a small degree to compare calibers and rounds. However, the limits of these different methods must be considered. It is interesting, it can have some value, but one shouldn't make their choice based solely on one, or all, of them.

Pick your gun first on how it fits you and how reliable it is. Then using whatever method you prefer (one or all of the above, general reputation, gut feeling, etc) pick what you think will be effective. Anything from 9mm or .38+P and up will serve just fine, .380 and .38spl will usually work admirably, and even some smaller calibers in good loadings can work for you. Also, keep in mind that a .22lr is better than no gun at all. If you may need a gun and have the money for a used .38spl revolver, or a new Bersa .380 or a Pheonix .22 get a gun, learn to use it, then if you aren't comfortable with your caliber save for something better. It is best to have something, even if it isn't the "best" as you see it. If waiting for "the best" means going months or even just weeks longer with NO GUN at all, don't wait for the "best" GET A GUN, then you can get what you think it the "best" later! It is in those kind of situations, where the numbers from one method or another convince someone that a certain caliber is poor or worse, that they do a disservice.

[Handy]

In selecting only shootings that involved a single torso hit, M&S have started off with the most corrupt data imagineable.

It doesn't even matter if some of their other methods are questionable. From a statistics standpoint, they were doomed to fail.

The fact that some of their conclusions MAY match with reality is immaterial. A monkey might make some good guesses about the stock market, but that doesn't make the monkey Alan Greenspan.

[HankB]

1. Have M&S ever published or otherwise made available their raw data for public, independent review? If not, their "study" does NOT qualify as "scientific" - at best, it's anecdotal.

2. The most savvy, skilled police officers will, in the heat of battle, shoot multiple times as a matter of course, not waiting to see if the first shot fired was a "stopper." These instances will not be included, if I'm reading M&S correctly.

3. When M&S first started reporting OSS percentages, IIRC the .357 Silvertip had a higher OSS percentage than the .44 Magnum Silvertip. So a larger diameter, heavier bullet that was moving faster . . . was inferior? I don't think so.

My conclusion? M&S make for interesting reading, but their published info shouldn't be regarded as gospel. Today, Super-Vel isn't the only company making quality self defense ammo - EVERY major maker is. And I think people who use M&S statistics to switch from, say, one brand of 125 JHP .357 to another because of a few M&S percentage point differences are fooling themselves.

[chaim]

I said:It is in those kind of situations, where the numbers from one method or another convince someone that a certain caliber is poor or worse, that they do a disservice.
HankB said:And I think people who use M&S statistics to switch from, say, one brand of 125 JHP .357 to another because of a few M&S percentage point differences are fooling themselves. You know I didn't even think about that. Let me modify what I said to

It is when people either wait to get a potentially life saving gun to save for another one because the other one has a few more points in stopping power, or when someone changes ammo for no other reason than a few points, that these measures do a disservice.

[Standing Wolf]

I think nothing short of an atomic bomb includes a guaranteed one shot stop. As well as I understand these things, the three critical factors are bullet placement, bullet placement, and bullet placement.

[Handy]

Chaim,

I dont' think you're getting the fundamental problem. Say M&S are comparing .45 and 9mm (this is just hypothetical):


They look at 100 shootings each. Of those, the heavier recoiling .45 creates 75 occasions were only one hit is scored. Of those, 55 were "one shot stops". The other 25 were two shot shootings, no stops.

The 9mm has only 6 occasions where only one hit was scored. Of those 6, only 4 were stops. The other 94 were two shot shootings, all stops.

So now we're comparing 75 of one to 6 of the other, and we've thrown away all the other shootings. The .45 has a better "one shot stop" record. Is it a better stopper?

[surfinUSA]

Web hobbit, Thanks for quoting my post.

Johnk, I was including the 9mm and 38 just rounding them up to 36.

My thinking is that a certain amount of caliber vs caliber and gun vs. gun discussions are informative and entertaining. But the underlying fact is that whether it is self defense or hunting, the tool is just a small part.

Marshall's work is flawed but not irrelevant. As an example we had a officer get in a gunfight with an armed robber. Of the 13 shots fired by the officer 11 hit the BG (unbelievably good shooting from what I've seen on police shooting scenes) ending the fight and killing him. Some said the 9mm hydrashock was ineffective, taking so many rounds to drop the bad guy. However, the lead homicide investigator showed me an autopsy photo of the guys liver with a hole in it almost large enough to put your fist through. These rounds worked just as designed.

Two things 1. some folks don't drop right away no matter what the damage and 2. This guy was probably dead before the officer stopped shooting and he hit the floor.

Just because a shooting isn't included in Marshalls work dosen't mean the round didn't work.

[WebHobbit]

Interesting points made by all. But you know there MUST be something to them as many of the rounds that have the highest S&M percentages also have an awfully good and respected street rep - like the 125 grain .357. No one doubts the effectiveness of that round. Part of their methodology is to take a round that has fantastic real world performance on the street & test it in Ballisitc gelatin. They then take all the measurements: wound channel, cavity size, penetration etc. Now they fire other rounds that don't always have much of a track record and test it in gelatin.

Is not reasonable to draw some conclusions from these comparisons?

[Sir Galahad]

If you want to read the work of people that actually KNOW what they're atlking about, check out the work of International Wound Ballistics Association, Dr. Martin Fackler, and David DiFabio and his ammolab.com site. David DiFabio has done some excellent work and you can ask him questions. If he doesn't know about a certain load, he'll say he doesn't know. He won't guess or make something up.

"One shot stop" is fable. I bet one broadhead arrow would kill a guy by massive hemorrage, but not before he could kill you. And that same arrow in the kneecap will stop a guy. But that doesn't mean a bow makes a good home defense weapon. M&S use the old P.T. Barnum method of showmanship to peddle their flawed data. "One shot stop"? No such thing. Some people will drop immediately when shot by a .22LR. Some will not drop when shot by a .45ACP. If we're talking massive tissue destruction as in a shotgun, yes, we might see "one shot stops", but we cannot state that as fact. Confidence and marksmanship are what make a good defense, not the weapon. Like the man said in the old Westerns, "Hold your fire til they get close, son, then aim plumb center. Noise don't kill rustlers."

[Handy]

Hobbit,

I refer you back to my monkey analogy.

[cratz2]

Good reading, maybe even worth sparking a couple debates with your fellow shooters, but I can't give their data analysis or reporting much credence.

[355sigfan]

Evans a good man. His work has some flaws. But its valuable as a guide. Is it the gospel no. The fact that his opposition hates him so is proof that there is something to his work. His opposition has yet to do a study for themselves correcting the flaws they feel are present with Marshalls work. Until they do some real work and leave the lab they will not have any credibility.
PAT

[Hal]

It's input and information.

Speaking of OSS and lack thereof.

Few weeks ago I was watching some footage on CNN from Iraq. 2 Iraqis were shooting at some US troops @ ~ 500 or so yards and running between 2 buildings between shots. Our guys decided to take them out with what looked to be a Javelin. The first Javelin failed to fire. ^The second one sure did the job though. Both buildings went up in a very impressive way.

Man, all I could think of later was that our guys should have showed that video of what a Javelin can do to a tank to the Iraqis, then offered them $10K each to drop their guns and catch a plane to Atlantic City to open a slurpy shop on the Boardwalk.
@ $100K for the tube, and $60K for each Javelin, we would have saved a bundle.

I guess what I'm saying is Standing Wolf is on the right track.
OSS = Thermo-nuclear
Anything else, shoot twice.

[Handy]

355sigfan-

There are people who say the holocaust didn't happen. Their "work" is universally dispised. I don't think that's proof that there is "something to [their] work".


As to doing better, the M&S study provides a case study for the pitfalls of anequedote based statistics. I think the experts realize that the number of shootings vs. the number of variables produce a situation that is beyond such analysis. M&S, having no stat background, simply didn't realize what they were getting into.

No statistical scientist would touch this one with a ten foot pole.

[Sean Smith]

No statistical scientist would touch this one with a ten foot pole.

But that's why M&S have their "street cred"! They aren't a bunch of pointy-headed lab nerds, and so what if they don't worry about doing the math right? :p

Jeez, people, THINK for a minute...

1. If the study was any good in principle, it would still be worthless because the sample sizes are so small,
2. We already know the study isn't any good in principle,
3. We know the outputs of the study, regardless of #1 and #2, are completely bogus on the face of it, since it can't tell the difference in on-target effects between .40 S&W and 12 guage slugs.

What's left in their defense? That they are "street cops" instead of "lab nerds"? Using anti-intellectualism to justify a statistical study is like using Amish theology to argue the virtues of a Ferrari.

[355sigfan]

Well were going to have to agree to disagree. The funny thing is that the 2 camps agree on most loads with the exception of the 147 grain 9mm. Which by the way you could not pay me to carry.
PAT

[Mike Irwin]

Interestingly enough, and despite the pervasive and demonstrated flaws inherent in Marshall & Sanow's work, if you look at its recommendations and those of Dr. Martin Fackler, you'll see that a lot of the same loads place highly for both groups.

With Marshall and Sanow I tend to see that as a case of the "truth" burning through the terrible flaws in their methodology.

[Handy]

Mike,

The real question is whether the "truth" is a result of the study, or just clumsy coincidence.

Given all the problems, would you really want to quote an M&S % for a load? Sure, their results seem to bear some relation to reality, but a lot of bad science does that. Look up the physics of "the ether" sometime.

Bad science, even with seemingly useful results, is still bad science and misleading.

[sm]

...and critters, windshields, side windows, car panels, sheetrock,...etc. And a big believer in pattern boards for shot type loads.

Sean right...big difference in .308 and 12 ga slug vs some materials...

not voting, but I've read it and other reports...

[Handy]

One last thought, and I'll leave it alone.


If M&S had gotten those same results by consulting a psychic or a ouija board, would we still be talking about them?

The results would still bear a striking similarity to Fackler, etc., but would just be more obviously the result of a poor study.

[buzz_knox]

The fact that his opposition hates him so is proof that there is something to his work.

If that's the case, then Sarah Brady must be correct as I loathe her with every fiber of my being. ;)

[tiberius]

They are interesting to read, but I don't consider them of any value in selecting a load.

[Mike Irwin]

"The fact that his opposition hates him so is proof that there is something to his work."

That is a completely F****** LUDICROUS standard by which to judge the veracity of someone's work!

I guess, then, that the following individuals "have something to their work" because I despise them so much.... Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Sarah Brady, Parris Glendenning, Al Gore, Marion Berry, etc. etc. etc.?

Handy,

Did I SAY that I wanted to pick a load by M&S' data?

No.

I had hoped that everyone would get the "blind squirrel finding the acorn" analogy.

[Ala Dan]

as I prefer to do my own testing!:rolleyes: :uhoh:

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

[Handy]

Mike,

You posted once in this thread, and it sounded an awful lot like you supported their findings, if not their methods. I believe you did SAY the word "truth". You'll have to pardon me if I wasn't picking up on your super fine-tuned sense of humor.


And yeah, the data is only useful for a handful of things, load selection being paramount. What else are you going to use M&S findings for?

[Mike Irwin]

Handy,

Sorry, but words like "pervasive and demonstrated flaws" ususally isn't an indication of a ringing endorsement of something.

I wasn't attempting to be humorous, either.

Marshall and Sanow's methodology is completely screwed up.

But science is rife with examples of people using horrible methods, or even blatantly false information, and still arriving at something closely approximating legitimate results.

[Nightcrawler]

Anyone who's taken any high school level senior science classes can tell you that Marshall and Sanow's data is flawed. The don't use the proper scientific method, they don't take all the variables into account, and they cannot empirically prove their results.

That they claim to be able to predict, within a percentage, the probability that a human being will be incapacitated with one torso shot of a given handgun round is simply LUDICRUS.

Folks, there are 6,000,000,000 people in this world, and each and every one of them is different. That's six BILLION variables that M&S's data fails to take into account.

Simply put, not everyone will react the same, not even when shot with the exact same round in the exact same place.

M&S alos simply use "torso hits". There are hundreds of individual locations on a human torso that a bullet could hit, with varying levels of damage it'd do. That's another variable M&S doesn't take into account.

Others? The angle of the bullet, what organs/bone structures it hits once inside the torso, whether or not it exits (thus leaving another hole to bleed out of) whether or not it hits the spine (severing the spine will almost always drop someone, regardless of the type of projectile used), on and on and on. You simply can NOT make SCIENTIFIC predictions based on a formula that fails to account for so many variables.

In short, it's IMPOSSIBLE to predict to any scientific degree how each person will react when shot. One can guesstimate or make rough generalizations, but you can't say that you're certain to a freaking percentile that this person will drop when shot and still remain in the realm of sound science.

Do you REALLY think that there's going to be that much of a difference between a 200 grain and a 230 grain .45ACP bullet, moving within 200fps of each other? This strikes me as what people who go nutso about load selection lay awake worrying about. There is no magic handgun bullet, folks. If you REALLY want a one-shot-stop, SHOOT THE BADGUY IN THE FACE. If he doesn't stop, it probably means you missed, in which case you unload into his torso. Sort of a reverse mozambique drill, but one that makes more sense to my mind.

My opinion of stopping power? I like the biggest, heaviest bullets I can get moving at the fastest speeds I can control. Forget small/fast vs. big/slow. I like BIG AND FAST. .41 Magnum! .45 Super! And properly loaded .45 Colt, for that matter. (270 grains at 1000fps, anyone?) :evil: :neener:

[OF]

The fact that his opposition hates him so is proof that there is something to his work. His opposition has yet to do a study for themselves correcting the flaws they feel are present with Marshalls work. Until they do some real work and leave the lab they will not have any credibility.Welcome back, Pat! Long time no see.

Pat, you give new meaning to the term 'stubborn'. I've never met anyone so unwilling to listen to reason. I give you credit, man, you haven't budged one iota in any of your opinions in all the years I've known you here :)

Amazing.

- Gabe

[Harold Mayo]

Flawed data and method? I suppose so, but who else has put forth the effort that they have?

M&S at least TRY to do something in a logical manner and have some statistics of SOME SORT to back up their findings. Since their findings DO correlate with the findings of some others, I feel that it is more than just coincidence.

A couple of things that you guys who want to put them down should remember:

1. M&S NEVER say (to my knowledge) that round "x" is ABSOLUTELY better than round "y". In the books that I have seen, they stress that SHOT PLACEMENT is more important than anything else.

2. Most people who have a problem with their findings are those who disagree with the findings, not the methods. I know many .45 ACP fans who think that M&S are wrong simply because their grand-daddy told them that the .45 ACP knocked down Germans better in WWII but the German Luger, using the 9mm round, wouldn't "get the job done". Simply disagreeing with a study doesn't invalidate the study.


My own OPINIONS on "stopping power", weapon choice, etc.:

1. Handgun rounds are handgun rounds. A .22 will kill you and a .44 magnum will kill you. You don't want to be shot by either one. "Stopping power" is a myth. All handgun rounds suck.
2. SHOT PLACEMENT trumps caliber and bullet configuration every time.
3. You can't compare rifle rounds with handgun rounds. There is a world of difference, not only because of the velocities involved but because of the handling and accuracy characteristics of the platforms.
4. Long guns are better than handguns. Anyone who thinks differently is sorely in need of re-education. A handgun is an expedient defensive weapon, not a good one and not a preferred one.

[355sigfan]

Harold Mayo

You see the truth clearly great post. Its nice to see someone out there with some common sence.
PAT

[Handy]

I'm a 9mm guy. My views are supported by M&S findings. They are still crappy findings. It doesn't matter what the results are.

They "put forth the effort" to do something they shouldn't have and created a phantasm that the uneducated buy into. Saluting their "effort" is just embarrasing. It gives credance to pseudo-science.

This is the same kind of junk as crystal healing and 100 mpg carburators. It's a falsehood pretending to be a study.

[355sigfan]

This is the same kind of junk as crystal healing and 100 mpg carburators. It's a falsehood pretending to be a study.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[jc2]

Flawed data and method? I suppose so, but who else has put forth the effort that they have?
Lame. Just because someone works hard does not mean the product of their work has any value. Junk is junk regardless of how much effort was put forth. Sincerity has nothing to do with it. It is possible to be sincerely wrong (and they have proved it).
1. M&S NEVER say (to my knowledge) that round "x" is ABSOLUTELY better than round "y". In the books that I have seen, they stress that SHOT PLACEMENT is more important than anything else.
Well, Harold, you are absolutely wrong on both counts in this statement. S&M have authored numerous "the best" articles over years picking the "the best" ammunition in numerous calibres--the ironic thing is, if you read their article (for laughs), as often as not their recommendations for "the best" are based the results of their laboratory testing (not "street results") or maybe as few as ten actual uses (ten is their "magic number" for validity).

As for shot placement, at least he Sanow half has stated [U]in print[/B] that shot placement is overrated and load selection is more important.
Most people who have a problem with their findings are those who disagree with the findings, not the methods. . . . Simply disagreeing with a study doesn't invalidate the study.
Very bad assumptions on your part on at least two counts. Their study is invalid and they (S&M) know it--the main reason they refuse to submit it to peer review. There are certain criteria for a professional study (even in the "soft" sciences), and S&M's work does not meet even the rudimentary criteria of a valid study. Whether I disagree or agree with their "findings," has absolutely nothing to do validity (or actually lack thereof) of their "study." I would say there are far more people who "believe in" S&M because it tells them what they want to hear than those who reject it because they don't like what it says. Many of the more vociferous critics of S&M were at one "true believers" who have since done a little research, gained some knowledge and realized they had been "had."

Pat, if a person claims to be a professional (and you do), he should have professional standards and expect (demand) professionalism from others. Your blind endorsement of a totally and unquestionably unprofessional and invalid work speaks poorly for your professionalism. You should have higher standards and demand higher standards from those you choose to use or accept as "authorities."

[mini14jac]

I don't treat the M&S data as gospel, but I do feel there is some good data there.
I tend to share their belief that a .22 round is a better stopper than a .25 acp.
I saw a squirrel take 5 hits with a .25 and not miss a beat.
(After the animal was dispatched with a .22 rifle, we counted the .25 hits. 5 out of 6.)

Myself: I find that I am slowly moving into the "use a bigger bullet" camp.

[Boats]

For those interested in working hard to produce some evidence that correlates with a presumed reality there is always this distinguished field:

History, tradition, modern following, what more could you want? (http://www.theness.com/articles/phrenology-nejs0302.html)

[Mike Irwin]

"M&S at least TRY to do something in a logical manner and have some statistics of SOME SORT to back up their findings.... Flawed data and method? I suppose so, but who else has put forth the effort that they have?"

Fine. They get an A for effort. But it's still wasted effort, which results in their getting an F for results.

Hitler's scientists worked very hard to prove, through the "science" of eugenics that Jews were inferior to pure Aryans. They also had LOTS of data to "prove" their theses.

Should their research receive credit because they worked hard at it?

Or should the end results by the true arbiter, that eugenics is fraudulent science at its worst and those responsible for its promulgation were assisting in the state-sponsored murder of millions of people?

Failure and fraud are hardly efforts that deserve to be praiseworthy.


"M&S NEVER say (to my knowledge) that round "x" is ABSOLUTELY better than round "y". In the books that I have seen, they stress that SHOT PLACEMENT is more important than anything else."

You need to broaden your knowledge base, then.

I edited one such article from M&S when I was on staff at American Rifleman magazine in 1993.


"Simply disagreeing with a study doesn't invalidate the study."

You're absolutely right.

That's why people have taken a much more critical look at Marshall & Sanow's data. Given that M&S refuse to release their data for peer review (what are they hiding?) the only way to examine the data is through regressive techniques, or forensically.

A number of statisticians have done so, and have pronounced the data to be either the result of an unbelievably flawed methodology, or derived through out and out fraud.

Either way, the data itself invalidates the M&S study.

[Harold Mayo]

Well, guys...

Firstly, my knowledge of M&S is limited to the first book that they put out. I haven't read anything after that BUT...

In the first book, they DID stress that SHOT PLACEMENT is more important than bullet selection. No question of that...it's right there in black and white. If one or both have since reversed that position and actually state that bullet selection is more important than shot placement, then they are flat-out WRONG with NO question of the veracity of that statement. SHOT PLACEMENT matters regardless of what magic bullet you might be using. SHOT PLACEMENT includes whether you hit or miss, not just WHERE on the target you hit.

I have no idea if they stated in print later on that bullet selection is more important than shot placement but, since you have stated that it is so, then I will (hesitantly) believe it and, again, say that they are wrong in that statement.


As for effort and methodology...

Wrong methodology? I realized that their study wasn't totally valid from the moment that I read it since their methods were/are flawed, but they are still the best of which I am aware. I place little or no faith in ballistic gelatin tests in regard to what will actually happen inside a human being. Yes, the gel tests are interesting but I am not a believer in performance in gel being a good indicator of performance in flesh.

I also don't believe that they have enough cases in several of their studies to have a good representative sample, especially since they are looking at ANY torso hit rather than something like confining it to a certain area of the torso or something similar.

Still, I am unaware of any other study that is really any better.


Overall, EVERY study that I have bothered to read by ANYONE pretty much repeats the results of the M&S study. Coincidence? Perhaps, but I don't believe so.

Do I really care? Do I take the M&S study as gospel? Not really. I normally carry 124 gr +P hollow-points in my 9mm handguns and 185 or 230 gr +P hollow-points in my .45 ACP guns just because I feel that more velocity and a hollow-point (for more effective transference of kinetic energy to the subject rather than passing through a target and wasting a bunch of it) are "good things". This happens to "jive" with what EVERY study that I've seen concludes. I sometimes have regular ball in my guns, though, and feel fine carrying that, though I'll switch to the +P hollow-points when able because I feel BETTER with those.

Am I going to shoot someone ONCE in the torso and assume that there is a 93% chance that they are going down? Hell, no! Am I going to shoot them until they go down and don't move? Of course....whether I'm running ball or hp ammo, it doesn't matter. You shoot until they stop, you don't wait to see if statistics are correct. I actually find it amusing that they found many "one-shot stops" at all because, if it were me, there would be enough rounds in the guy that I wouldn't know if the first was the only one needed or not.

YES, junk is junk, but junk may be the only thing available. The world was flat for a long time and it didn't seem to bother anyone until someone found out the truth and, even then, not a lot changed.

Is there a better study available? You guys tell me since you seem to be experts.

If such a study exists, does its conclusions contradict the M&S study? If so, then how? If not, then you can only complain about the M&S methodology and not the conclusions.

[355sigfan]

Is there a better study available? You guys tell me since you seem to be experts.

If such a study exists, does its conclusions contradict the M&S study? If so, then how? If not, then you can only complain about the M&S methodology and not the conclusions.
END

The room goes silent. If M&S detracters want to step up and do some real work I am all ears. Till then Marshalls work is the best we have.
PAT

[Mike Irwin]

The room only goes silent because you close your ears and scream LALALALALALA at the top of your lungs, Pat, reverting back to a common debating tactic on your part, it would seem.


Harold,

The "gelatin junkies" as some call them have a few things that Marshall and Sanow will never have, backgrounds in wound mechanics.

Dr. Martin Fackler was a trauma surgeon in Vietnam, working on troops wounded by bullets.

After that he served as the director of the US Army's research section that examined wound mechanics (I'll be darned if I can remember the official name of it.)

Fackler uses calibrated ballistic gelatin for his testing for one simple reason -- in his experience as trauma surgeon working on men wounded by projectiles and his experience in the Army's wound research group, he knows that ballistic gelatin is the single most applicable means of reproducing what happens when a bullet strikes human flesh.

If that wasn't the case, he wouldn't be using it. It's that simple.

Given that he has going on 40 years of experience in this field, both in the practical and the theoretical, I think it's pretty presumptious for anyone here to say that they don't believe that ballistic gelatin is a credible tissue simulant based on... what? The fact that the lime jello at lunch was watery?

It's simple, really.

Marshall and Sanow have no background in the medical sciences, obviously have no experience in developing a methodology to support a study of this type, have no grounding in statistics, won't allow independent peer reviews of their data, and yet continue to trade on their work and publish as if it has credible validity.

If M&S' work is more credible than that based on gelatin research:


Why has no major police or government agency used their work as the basis for the selection of a carry load? (Fackler has served as a consultant to numerous police and government agencies.)

Why has no major ammunition company consulted them on the development of bullet designs? (Fackler has served as a consultant to at least 1, and possibly more, ammunition companies in the development of new handgun bullets.)

Why is ballistic gelatin the ONLY testing media universally recognized by the ammunition industry, police, and military?


If Marshall & Sanow's work truly was as credible as some claim, it would seem that its usage and acceptance would be a lot more widespread, but it's not.

FBI, when retrenching from the aftermath of the Miami fiasco, didn't consult Marshall and Sanow, they consulted Dr. Martin Fackler, and used tests that he assisted in designing, to pick their new handgun round.

Additionally, if Marshall and Sanow's work was truly credible, why didn't FBI's own internal ballistics experts use it as a benchmark for the basis of selection? Again, they didn't, and as far as I have been able to tell, it wasn't even given a passing glance.

Granted, the most cynical can explain that away by claiming professional bias on the part of scientists clumping together...

But what can't be explained is the large lack of support for Marshall & Sanow's work inside the police community. As some might claim that scientists stick together, no one can say that police aren't a cohesive, gather behind your own, type of crowd.

But I've yet to meet another police officer (and I live in Washington, DC, land of the cop, worked for American Rifleman magazine for almost 4 years, and sold firearms, many to cops, for another half dozen, and currently count several police offices among my inner circle of friends and shooting companions) who place much faith in Marshall & Sanow's work.

Contrary to what has been asserted, Marshall & Sanow's work is the worst information we currently have on this subject, because it's based on cooked data that's been improperly characterized and collected.

The best data we have on this subject is, by far, Dr. Facker's and the information that has been put together by the FBI on the subject.

Those bodies of work have something that M&S' work is sadly lacking -- scientific credibility.

[LIProgun]

Mike Irwin wroteAfter that he served as the director of the US Army's research section that examined wound mechanics (I'll be darned if I can remember the official name of it.)

I believe it was the Letterman Army Institute of Research, Presidio of San Francisco.

[WebHobbit]

FBI, when retrenching from the aftermath of the Miami fiasco, didn't consult Marshall and Sanow, they consulted Dr. Martin Fackler, and used tests that he assisted in designing, to pick their new handgun round.

And what did they come up with???????? A TOTAL DOG of a round:

(drum roll)

The 9mm 147 grain!

:rolleyes:

A round that is well known to be among the worst stoppers of any 9mm. A round that has a history of not properly cycle functioning in many handguns due to not having enough velocity.

So I wouldn't rush to use the Miami aftermath as any good indicator. The round that supposedly failed (9mm Silvertip I beilive) is FAR better than ANY 147 grain subsonic load.

[Harold Mayo]

Oh, my! :eek:

It's Mike Irwin in the red corner upholding Fackler and Webhobbit in the blue corner with one HELL of a comeback!

And the bell rings, signalling the start of another round...

:what:

C'mon Mike...you can't let THAT one go....

[ElAlumno]

The 9mm 147 grain!

Don't forget the downloaded 10mm, which reduced the round to just about worthless.

[355sigfan]

The room only goes silent because you close your ears and scream LALALALALALA at the top of your lungs, Pat, reverting back to a common debating tactic on your part, it would seem.

END

Yep I find that pointing out obvious flaws with the IWBA Facklerite religion is a very effective debate tactic.

Lets us not forget the FBI also brought us the weak down loaded 40 sw as well. 165 grain jhp at 950. The only cartridge they have not casterated is the 45 acp.
PAT

[ElmoH]

I thought the FBI went to the 10mm after the Miama shootout, than watered it down.

WebHobbit, Like we talked about yesterday, I believe the 2 key things are, shot placement and keep shooting until the threat is over.

Unless your lucky enough to hit your attacker in the brain, there is no guarantee of a one shot stop, your attackers willingness to do grave harm to you is as much a factor in a gun fight as the caliber you use.

[LeonCarr]

If memory serves me right, and sometimes it does, Sanow is a part-time cop and part-time police car restorer. Marshall's background is pretty solid as a retired Detroit Police Officer, but what background does Sanow have?

By the way, the Scientific Method I use is the LeonCarr - 3F method. Fire till the Felon Falls.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

[Alan Fud]

The majority of gun owners have little first hand experience with stopping power -- meaning that MOST of us have never shot anyone or been shot owerselves. For those few that have been in a shooting (either shot someone or have been shot themselves), even that experience is a limited one.

As a result, we really don't know what a bullet will do to a person. What Marshall & Sanow attempt to do is gather all of our collective experiences (or, as much as they are able to) and see what sort of trend exist.

If you have X shootings with Y caliber, you will begin to see a pattern develope especially as the number of shootings goes up. Your individual results may varry by plus or minus 100% but the "average" should match up with the results being reported ESPECIALLY as the number of shootings goes up.

Marshall & Sanow can report that their findings show that a certain bullet has a 99% one shot stopping power. Guess what? your shooting might be that 1% that the round failed to stop the attacker. That doesn't make their results wrong.

Is it scientific? It depends! Is forecasting the weather scientific? The way that the weather is forecasted for tomorrow is that they look at various atmospheric conditions that exit (temperature, high pressure over here, low pressure over there, barameter at this leve and rising or falling or whatever) and go back and look at recorded weather history and see when these conditions were present in the past and what happened the following day. If these conditions were found to exist 10 times and it rained 9 out of those 10 days on the following day, they will predict that there is a 90% chance of rain and if you look at the odds, it is very likely that it WILL rain but it may not because there is that 1 out of 10 chance that it will be sunny.

What happens if 99 out of 100 days it rained on the following day? Then your chances are even better that you will need an umbrella but there is still that 1% chance that it will be sunny.

It is the same thing with Marshall & Sanow's data. They are telling you what will happen ON AVERAGE. It's better than nothing because it is a gathering of everyone's collective experiences but it can not tell you what will happen FOR SURE in your particular case. A .357mag has a 97% one shot stopping power but you might find yourself in that 3% where even multiple COM hits failed to do the job.

Folks, it's a guide. If you took every member here and put them in a shooting and gathered the results, that too would be a guide. It would be better than nothing but it could still not predict what would happen in your particular instance.

[Mike Irwin]

"Yep I find that pointing out obvious flaws with the IWBA Facklerite religion is a very effective debate tactic."

Pat, your ability to fantasize simply amazes me.

You've attempted to minimalize Fackler's work by lying about his background, then failing to acknowledge his background when it's been pointed out to you. Repeatedly.

You had NO clue, until I pointed it out to you over on TFL, that Fackler was a medical doctor, had served as a trauma surgeon in Vietnam, and then was in charge of the Army's wound investigation program.

You had no clue that Fackler, as a medical doctor and combat trauma surgeon, has likely seen more live or dead people with gunshot wounds than Marshall and or Sanow has seen autopsies.

You've also conveniently ignored (or simply failed to comprehend) repeated requests by numerous people to explain just HOW Fackler's work is scientifically flawed, or even how it's scientifically less valid than Marshall and Sanow's work.

You've claimed to be a police officer, but you've conveniently overlooked or ignored the fact that Marshall and Sanow's work hasn't been used by a single police force as a guide in picking its carry ammo, while trying to explain away the reality that Fackler's work is accepted world wide as a cornerstone in the science of understanding wound mechanics.

You've had the audacity to claim that you have the ability to somehow stifle the supporters of Fackler's work by somehow "exposing" its flaws, yet you've never shared those flaws with us.

You've never been able to explain how Marshall and Sanow's obviously flawed, or fraudulent, data somehow provides the basis for cogent scientific endeavors.

It's obvious that you're simply not capable of thinking about this issue critically, and have no capacity for understanding just how Marshall and Sanow's "data" can't pass even the simplest independent examination, which is obviously what they fear, as well.

If anyone is really interested in seeing the heights, and depths, of Pat's evasions, misrepresentations, obfuscations, and his penchant for ignoring what's placed right in front of him, you only have to read a few of these threads from The Firing Line.

Marshall & Sanow threads from The Firing Line (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=18352&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending)

Finally, the results of the poll are also quite interesting...

[Mike Irwin]

Webhobbit,

The 147-gr. 9mm load existed a long time before the FBI, Winchester, and Federal started looking into it.

It was originally developed, I believe, as an open nose, non-expanding round for use in military suppressed weapons such as the HK MP-5.

For some reason, after the Miami shootout, some police forces latched onto the concept that if A) the military used the 147, and B) the initial FBI tests showed good penetration (but ROTTEN, if any, expansion), it must be the best thing since sliced bread.

By picking and choosing selectively, and without understanding the consequences, a number of police forces found out that the original 147-gr. hollow point bullets in 9mm were bad stoppers, and the 147-gr. bullet subsequently gained a very bad "street" reputation.

They would penetrate, but expansion was, at best, iffy. Essentially, performance was thus not unlike the 158-gr. LRN police load for the .38 Spl. In other words, pretty rotten.

At the same time, however, both Winchester and Federal were taking full advantage of the FBI testing protocols to develop some of the first bullets that would not only penetrate deeply, but also expand uniformly after penetrating a number of different barrier materials.

These rounds, developed for and later used by the FBI, were the first of the second generation of 147-gr. loads.

These rounds, with famous names like the Black Talon, Golden Sabre, Gold Dot, etc., showed marked improvement in "stopping power" over the first generation 147-gr. loads.

It's simply incorrect to state that the 147-gr. loads as originally tested by FBI, and as adopted by a number of large police forces (but NOT FBI), are the same as the second generation 147-gr. loads.


Well, Harold?

[Mike Irwin]

Very interesting article. Once I read some years ago, but which I haven't seen since.

It lays out the FBI criteria for the original handgun testing in 1987.

Note by whom it was written.

Note that it also mentions Dr. Fackler by name, and also mentions a panel of scientific and ballistic experts.

Whom does it not mention? Marshall and/or Sanow.

Their work, while well known at the time, wasn't even considered in FBI's exercise.

Wonder why that is?

http://gopher.quux.org:70/Archives/mirrors/textfiles.com/politics/GUNS/10mmpist.txt

[Harold Mayo]

And Irwin comes back STRONG with a one-two combination leaving the opposition reeling!


Honestly, though, Mike, Alan Fud says it best of anyone in his post. It's a guide, nothing more...just like Fackler's stuff is a guide.

You know as well as anyone here that shot placement is more important than anything else.

I don't care who says what about what bullet and load combination from what platform, you still have to be able to hit, whether with skill or luck or both, and hit in a vital area.

Does the projectile matter? Of course it does, but probably less than anyone really believes.

I believe in the M&S studies as a general guide. I haven't read any of their stuff after the first book, though. I have touched a little on Fackler but discarded it since it didn't really tell me much that I didn't already know or believe, anyway.

People can argue "stopping power" all they want but, in the end, I think it touches on the religious for most because of their various stances on what works and what doesn't. Since most of these beliefs are so dear, it really is like arguing religion or politics. People believe what they believe. In the end, I don't think that anyone has any better handle on the "stopping power" myth than anyone else, regardless of what science or voodoo that they use to arrive at their conclusion.

Curiously, Mike...what is your preferred carry gun, caliber, and loading and how did you arrive at the choice?

My own? BHP in 9mm with (usually) 124 gr +P hp's OR 5" 1911 in .45 ACP with 230 gr +P hp's. I'll carry 115 gr or 230 gr ball, respectively, in each, though, and not feel bad at all. I actually have no idea how I arrived at the common carry loads but I believe that it WAS the M&S studies, originally. It just stands to reason, though, that more velocity and/or mass will create more kinetic energy and the hollow-point ammo will allow it to be transferred to the target more efficiently. The only reason that I carry a BHP over the 1911 is magazine capacity and slightly more familiarity with the gun.

[Mike Irwin]

"Honestly, though, Mike, Alan Fud says it best of anyone in his post. It's a guide, nothing more...just like Fackler's stuff is a guide."

I've never claimed that it is anything other than a guide, Harold.

Unfortunately, some people do claim that it's more than a guide, and insist on misrepresenting what Marshall and Sanow's work is, while ignoring what it is not (scientific).

Obviously from the poll results, though, those people are few, far between, and unable to understand how to critically examine the multitude of flaws that have been pointed out.

Please also take a look at my first post in this message.

My preferred carry gun?

S&W 042 2", .38 Spl., using Speer 125-gr. +P Gold Dots.

My winter carry gun? An S&W 2.5" Model 19 loaded with either the above rounds or Remington Golden Sabre 125-grs.

[jc2]

Harold -
Quoted from Ed Sanow (of Sanow and Marshall), Gun World, October 1999.

"One of the largest misconceptions on the topic of stopping power is the rhetoric tht shot placement is the key."

"Shot placement is not the key to stopping power. Load selection is."
Maybe it will help you reevaluate S&M's credibility and consistency.
Is there a better study available? You guys tell me since you seem to be experts.

If such a study exists, does its conclusions contradict the M&S study? If so, then how? If not, then you can only complain about the M&S methodology and not the conclusions.
END

The room goes silent. If M&S detracters want to step up and do some real work I am all ears. Till then Marshalls work is the best we have.
PAT
Pat -

I'm at a loss to describe your post as anything short of a blatant misrepresentation. I know from other threads that you are well aware of other professionally accepted law enforcement studies (e.g., Wolberg) that certainly do not support S&M's conclusions. These studies were professionally conducted, usually agency-wide (though sometimes wider) that are valid professionally recognized studies. The trouble is you don't find them in gunrags or the popular press.

S&M's "work" is a long, long ways from the best we have, and you know it (even if you have trouble admitting it). Unfortunately, however, S&M was the vehicle that Jan Libourel chose to boosts magazine sales and subscriptions.

[WebHobbit]

It's simply incorrect to state that the 147-gr. loads as originally tested by FBI, and as adopted by a number of large police forces (but NOT FBI), are the same as the second generation 147-gr. loads.

Mike -

I'll agree with you that the 2nd generation 147s are much better than the first BUT they still SUCK compared to the best 115 & 124 grain loads. There is simply no good reason to choose that bullet weight in a HANDGUN.

[jc2]

Actually, the current generation 147s (particularly the Ranger T-Series) are outstanding. They are probably the the best nines available (and I include the 357 Sig in this statement). In actual use, they give good solid penetration (approximately fourteen inches) and good .60 plus calibre expansion consistently, have good barrier penetration and are one of the preferred LE round in 9x19. If I had to pick a "best" urban LE round, it would be the 147-grain Ranger T. It does work and work well providing a good mix of penetration (far better than the 115-grain) and good dependable expansion.

They had the right idea with the 147-grain--unfortunately the bullet technology wasn't there at the time (and the 147-grain was never as bad as it was painted--of course, neither was the 115-grain Slivertip either). And whether we like it or not (I'm a 10mm fan), they got it right with the 10mmK (.40 S&W) in terms of an effective LE round (even in its "mid-range" loadings). The hard fact of the matter is that with current bullet technology velocity (at common handgun velocities) is just not near as important as it was just a few years ago.

And, of course, we're far off topic, but really, why try to confuse Pat and the other four faithful with reason?

[WebHobbit]

I guess we will agree to disagree because I think 14 inches is too much penetration for SD. I think 10-12 is best.

That's why I carry 110 grain .357 Magnum SJHPs...that and the recoil is more manageable than the 125 loads.

[355sigfan]

You've attempted to minimalize Fackler's work by lying about his background, then failing to acknowledge his background when it's been pointed out to you. Repeatedly.

You had NO clue, until I pointed it out to you over on TFL, that Fackler was a medical doctor, had served as a trauma surgeon in Vietnam, and then was in charge of the Army's wound investigation program
END

Its strange you should mention fantasy as that is that your last few post concerning how you set me strait were. Pure fantasy. I knew he was a medical doctor well before I met you on these boards. When have I lied about his past. He did run from a debate with Sanow that’s very easy to prove.

The fact he was a medical doctor and saw lots of wounds impresses me not at all. He did not see the shooting. Killing and stopping power are not the same. So keep worshiping at the thrown of Marty Fackler. As for me I am not buying it.

SNIP
It lays out the FBI criteria for the original handgun testing in 1987.

Note by whom it was written.

Note that it also mentions Dr. Fackler by name, and also mentions a panel of scientific and ballistic experts.

Whom does it not mention? Marshall and/or Sanow.
END

The FBI is not the end all be all authority in this matter. The INS bullet selection process seemed to be influenced by Marshall. It placed a scoring value on Stretch cavity and had a category for controlled fragmentation rounds. That’s the exact opposite direction of the FBI. Fun fact guess who gets into and wins more gunfights. Yep the INS.

Also Mark for future reference try attacking my views and not me. When I implied you might be lying on TFL it lead to my expulsion. Yet that is what you have accused me of doing here. I hope the moderators are paying attention and dish out fair equitable treatment. I plan to treat you with respect I expect the same in return.

Oh I also noticed that those that use Marshalls work as a guide are currently ahead. Thats how I voted. Nice to be on the majority side for a change.
PAT

[Mike Irwin]

Try attacking your views and not you?

You mean the same way you attacked views instead of people in this stellar example of debating technique?

"Fackler sells books. The IWBA charges a huge membership fee to get thier publications. Fackler is a whore. He is the one that popularized the 147 grian 9mm load that got cops killed and he would not pull his recomendation once he knew the truth because it would hurt his reputation. Instead he has slowing lowered his recomeded penitration range from 18 to 15 inches and his lower penitration range from 12 to 11.5.
Fackler and the IWBA are the whores. I know that Evan Marshall is a good man and an honest one based on personal knowledge. I can not say the same for his detractors. Most are cowardly and afraid to face the truth."

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=76288&perpage=40&highlight=sanow&pagenumber=1

That seems to be the sum total of your views, Pat.

EVERY statement I made is the absolute truth about how you've mischaracterized, misrepresented, and flat out misstated the facts about Fackler, his work, and Marshall and Sanow's work.

I don't recall the thread in which you implied that I was lying -- I'd be more than happy to view it again.

But you claimed that Fackler's work was drive only at selling books. That's a lie.

You claimed that Fackler "popularized" the 147-gr. load. That's a lie.

You claimed he lowered his recommended penetration. That's a lie.

You claimed that IWBA charged a "huge" membership fee. That's a lie. In fact, the list price for either of Marshall and Sanow's books was MORE than a yearly membership to IWBA.

As for books, Fackler isn't published by the popular press that I can find. He publishes in scientific journals. He may well have published a book on the subject, but I sincerely doubt that it would have had titles such as "Handgun Stopping Power: The Definitive Study."

Marshall and Sanow can't publish in scientific journals, there's nothing scientific there that can stand up to peer scrutiny.


"The FBI is not the end all be all authority in this matter."

You're right. They're not, but neither are, as you've stated in the past and infer in the quote above, Marshall and Sanow. FBI was, however, among the first to categorize performance criteria for handgun rounds in a manner that truly met the needs of police, and do so in a scientific, repeatable, and verifiable manner.

"Oh I also noticed that those that use Marshalls work as a guide are currently ahead. Thats how I voted. Nice to be on the majority side for a change."

Now that's TRULY interesting, Pat, given statements such as those quoted above it would appear that you believe Marshall and Sanow's work to be THE definitive and only valid work on the subject.

So why the equivocation now?

If you take time to read my first post in this series, or the many posts that I made on The Firing Line, you'll also see that I've categorized Marshall and Sanow's work as being useful as a guide in the loosest sense of the word, but certainly not what you've tried to claim it to be in the past.

Statements such as this:

His opposition has yet to do a study for themselves correcting the flaws they feel are present with Marshalls work. Until they do some real work and leave the lab they will not have any credibility.

also call your guide statement into question.

Apparently without understanding the work that Fackler and other SCIENTISTS do, you dismiss it wholy in favor of doctored results, suspicious conclusions, and dubious "science."


Finally, for everyone who categorizes Fackler as a jello junkie, and doubts the veracity of gelatin testing, here's the cover illustration from "Street Stoppers..."


http://lookinside-images.amazon.com/Qffs+v35ler62s75v2KBiy9G2GqIqeUnmZbnuVDmHnDI1jFalil4b63NM9OPRwMbRoHcOFbQuTU=


Oops...

Wonder if I could get some whipped cream to top my ballistic jello? :D

[Mike Irwin]

Webhobbit,

"There is simply no good reason to choose that bullet weight in a HANDGUN."

Perhaps not for you or me, but perhaps for FBI and police in general.

FBI developed their original testing criteria based on the situations that their agents, and other police, could be expected to face during armed confrontations.

If you read the article, which I've referenced, you'll see that it's really unlikely that you or I, as civilian CCW carriers, will ever face a shoot out under the majority of those conditions.

FBI's criteria really laid out what seemed to be impossible goals. It was the attempts by the ammunition companies to meet those goals satisfactorily that gave us the second generation 147-gr. 9mms.

[Preacherman]

Ladies and gentlemen, if we can't disagree politely, then there's something wrong.

Closing this thread as generating rather too much heat, instead of light!