[Newton]

We've all heard about the One Shot Stop (OSS) statistics, Marshall and Sanow's work, right ?

Top dog in all the world is the Remington Golden Sabre 165 grain .40S&W at 95%, second is the Federal 155 grain Hydrashock at 94% etc etc.

The question is simple, are they false, are they partially true but manipulated ?

I confess to placing a lot of faith in them in the past, but I'm not so sure anymore. They seem to indicate that JHPs are better in ANY caliber than FMJ, even .25ACP, is that true.

Anyone know the truth.

[Jeff OTMG]

The truth is that shot placement is the most important factor in OSS's. That said you have to carry what you have the most faith in. Mindset will get you a long way in a gunfight and having confidence in your equipment is very important.

[Preacherman]

No, they're not completely false. The Facklerites make all sorts of claims that M&S's data is statistically invalid, etc. However, being an LEO myself, I have access to a bunch of after-action reports, and guess what? The rounds M&S recommend usually do rather better in actual shootings than other rounds! This can't be tested statistically, of course, but I find their recommendations are a good basis to work with.

Personally, I look for a round that is judged to be good by both Fackler and M&S. If both sides of the issue like it, there must be something right! :D

[Nightcrawler]

Remember, there are just too many variables involved to calculate, to a percentile, the odds that a human being will be incapacitated with one shot. There are six billion of us, after all, each different. You've got to take into account:

-The constitution of the person
-The mindset of the person
-Where the bullet enters
-Its course/trajectory inside the body
-How deep it penetrates
-what it hits along the way
-whether or not it exits, and if so, where it exits
-blood loss
-shock
-damage from hydrostatic shock/shattered bone/"splash effect"

You show me a formula that takes all of these into account, and we'll start calculating OSS percentages.

[gbran]

I always hear "shot placement", when someone is defending a particular, usually lesser caliber. I agree shot placement is paramount, but I have to believe a similarily placed .45 ACP trumps a .22 lr every time. It seems all this shot placement talk assumes the larger caliber will have poorer placement.

[Mad Man]

Recommended reading: http://firearmstactical.com/wound.htm

If you scroll down, there's some articles about the Marshall & Sanow data that I won't even attempt to summarize here.

[Shmackey]

My guns hold more than one shot anyway.

[James Bondrock]

I do not believe the results are false, but I do think they are flawed in several ways, not the least of which is that multiple hits are totally discounted. This artificially inflates the real OSS percentage, which is more likely about half or a third of the test results. Is anybody going to shoot someone once, then stand there waiting for him to fall? Not likely. Still, it is a good attempt to introduce at least some scientific methods (e.g., requiring full documentation from police and hospital/autopsy reports), instead of purely anecdotal reports, which are often full of gunshop commando hokum. Bottom line: don't choose a gun or load based on small differences between OSS percentages. Choose it instead for reliability and accuracy, then concentrate on improving your shooting ability. The best load in the world will not help a bit if it does not hit the target!

[Mike Irwin]

Oh lord, everyone duck...

This is going to get interesting fast... :)

[marauder220]

I've never had much choice in ammunition honestly. My dept tells us what to use for both on duty and off duty carry. I've read a variety of information from marshall\sanow, fackler, etc, etc. I'm not sure I'd say that the marshall\sanow info is totally false, but it doesn't quite seem to add up very well from a scientific standpoint. Not sure exactly what that means though. We've had several officer involved shootings with our current duty load, the 180grn Gold Dot in .40cal. And it always did its job with good shot placement, i.e. center mass\head, etc. I've read a few places that said that load didn't work well at all? I guess everyone's info may vary some.

[Hal]

You show me a formula that takes all of these into account,
Simple:
Higher velocity = flatter trajectory/more momentum.
Higher sectional density = deeper penetration.
Greater frontal area = more damage.

Hard part is making them all work together instead of fighting each other.

[9x19]

My take....

One day, Evan Marshall went looking for apples, and he found quite a few… then he came out and told everyone… "There are red apples, green apples and yellow apples."

Martin Fackler saw Evan's report on apples and said: "I like oranges. You won't tell us where you found your apples, or let us eat your apples, but since none of your apples look like any of my oranges, I've decided your apples aren't as good as my oranges."

Which leaves it up to us to decide whether we prefer apples or oranges.

Make mine apples, please.

I don't think Evan expects you to draw conclusions of "better" or "best". I think he just expects you to look at his findings and go "hmmmm".

Personally, given the coice between 85% and 95%, I'd take which ever one proved most reliable/accurate in my chosen pistols, as I don't think there is enough difference between the two to worry about.

For me its food for thought, not proof of absolutes.

[c_yeager]

I really dont put much stock in any of these things. In my opinion its best to carry as many of the biggest/fastest rounds you can comfortably manage. Using the FPE of a certain projectile is a decent if imperfect method of determining its utility. Personally if its .38+p or more then im OK with it.

[Mad Man]

Higher velocity = flatter trajectory/more momentum.


momentum = mass x velocity (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum)



9mm (SB31045): 7.5 grams x 390 meters/second = 2,625 gm*m/s
115 grains x 1,280 feet/second

.45 (SB31125): 14.9 grams x 260 meters/second = 3,874 gm*m/s
230 grains x 853 feet/second

bullet weight and velocity from Sellier and Bellot's handgun ammo ballistic tables (http://www.sellier-bellot.cz/pistol.htm)

Even thought the lighter 9mm bullet is travelling 1 1/2 times as fast as the heavier and slower .45 bullet, the .45 has more momentum (approximately 1 1/2 times as much).

Note that the 9mm has half as much mass as the .45. To give it a momentum equal to the .45, it would have to be travelling twice as fast as the .45.

[WT]

Read Darrell Huff's book "How to Lie with Statistics" printed by W. W. Norton Co. A must read for anyone trying to analyze statistics.

[Sean Smith]

M&S are by and large worthless. Their supporters seem to come in two groups: those who slavishly follow them because they don't understand math, and those who admit that they are flawed but still have some value... because they don't understand math. M&S continue to exist because people are scared of statistics, or anything involving math.

Oh, and some folks appeal to their "street cred," which last I checked is no guarantee that they can do math... let alone not be dead wrong.

M&S used invalid methods and got invalid results, but act like they mean something. They either are as ignorant of math as their followers, or dishonest hucksters preying on the low quality of math education among the general public in the U.S.

[Sarge]

then expansion. The bullet always has to go deep enough to interrupt vital functions or you're just betting your life on a really noisy ice cream scoop.

The whole argument in general (not this thread) has gotten ridiculous in view of the fact that we have so much good bullet technology at our disposal these days. I have visited with Dr. Fackler at length on some of these issues, and he is not some nutty little lab rat who's never seen a GSW. He is also not "anti-HP", or anything like it. I believe his contention is simply that there are absolutes of terminal performance, and that you can't change them just because it's Thursday.

When you're talking about gunshot wounds as a mechanism of injury, penetration is the foundation stone of the "wall". You might improve performance by doing something neat with the stones at the top of the wall- but you cannot yank the foundation stone out and cut it up to make "pretties" with. The wall will collapse when you need it, and all the fancy doo-dads in the world won't keep it standing.

Put another way- "Gee guys, let's cut 4 feet off the bottom of this ladder, so we can take it up and use it at the top- where we really 'need' it." Huh?

Conventional handguns do not consistently generate significant hydrostatic shock or compound tissue damage (simultaneous stretching/tearing caused by combined hydrostatic shock and explosive fragmentation) at their typical velocities. Most of the frangibles sacrifice penetration in an attempt to achieve this. If your BG has a folded up "Rolling Stone" under his jacket, or maybe something taped to his abdomen, wouldn't you like to be able to do better than just ruin his wardrobe?

None of this is to say that HP's are 'bad', or 'don't work'. They work better than they ever have, provided that we use some common sense and select a load that will always penetrate the torso with enough retained energy to disrupt the spine, should we be lucky enough to hit it. Moderate bullet weight per-caliber is required to do this. Now, get ready for a shock- this kind of performance often results in an exit wound. Two holes are better than one. Over-penetration is not something to obsess about. If taking the shot creates a greater hazard to the public than the lunatic you want to shoot, you simply don't take the shot. This can suck sometimes, but it's better than shooting into a covey of little old ladies.

There's really nothing left to argue about, because you can finally buy HP's that penetrate AND expand. Just make sure they are of sufficient weight to continue to penetrate when they do expand, and yes, gelation is the best medium we currently have to establish penetration/expansion in tissue. Gelatin is a pain in the a$$ to mix, cook, refrigerate, calibrate, etc. and you can rest assured that when something better comes along, we "jello junkies" will be among the first to lose it. The replacement medium is going to have to essentially do evertyhing that gelatin does, though, so I don't expect that "cheese in a can" is going to replace it this week. We'll just have to see what can be done over time.

This is not to say that Evan Marshall is "full of it" either, or that his work is irrelevant. He set out to do great things, but it seems that work he did has become commercialized to the extent that it compromised the credibility of the work itself. (I wonder who caused him THAT problem??) This is too bad, because a lot of Marshall's early findings are fairly consistent with what I have observed over 25 years of sorting out human mayhem. The .40/180 is not the end-all, be-all of defensive handgun loads. It works as well as a lot of other handgun rounds and that's all you can ask of it. If I was shopping for .40 ammo today, I'd give the 165's a hard look. It seems to be a good balance point for this cartridge offering decent penetration, along with some expansion.

None of them are the Hammer of Thor, and we would do well to remember that. Thor, to the best of my recollection, seldom missed or needed a 'follow up' shot!

[SirVette]

It is just additional info. for comparison which should not lead one to believe that their gun/ammo gives XX% stops, nor is a small % difference significant. A different set of events or events included would give a different set of data.
Some think just because they have a 9mm or 357 even though w/ a very short barrel that it is equal to one w/ a proper length barrel for the cartridge.

[The Mighty Beagle]

Sean,

Being new to this debate I'm wondering what mathematical secrets you possess that M&S et. al. haven't figured out.

Do you have a link you want to post? Perhaps you've done some research on street effectiveness and would point us to where it's published so we could critically analyze it?


Also feel free to explain how your condescending tone, namecalling and complete lack of explanation for your position elevates your credibility over M&S.

My personal problem with M&S data involves transferring these results over to civilian shootings; I would think that criminals would be more intimidated by the police than by a civilian shooting at them, since the police have manpower and authority going for them. I would think I need more gun than the average cop to subdue someone. But hey, that's just my opinion.

I've also wondered why the .357 Magnum is so effective on criminals, yet when talking deer hunting people come out of the woodwork to denounce it. It just would stand to reason that if the .44 Mag. is effective on deer, it would be effective on people too. I just don't buy this "too much power for people" argument, and wonder if M&S thought they were somehow upholding the public safety by downplaying such a good penetrator as the .44 Mag.

Not that it supports my .44 mag. superiority theory, but I've also noticed that nobody in a shootout ever came out of it wanting "less gun".

[9x19]

T'M'B',

Thats just it... noone has ever offered a credible refutation of M&S.

To me a credible refutation means they do their own study, of the same types of shootings, using the same methodology (ie, excluding multiple shot encounters (Duh! It is a study of ONE SHOT STOPS!), which arrives at vastly different results.

Until then, its just sour grapes whining, IMO... and one of my college degrees asserts that I am good at math! :D

[George Hill]

Not that it supports my .44 mag. superiority theory, but I've also noticed that nobody in a shootout ever came out of it wanting "less gun".
For some reason this made me laugh out loud over here. That's funny...
It's very true... your right.

[Black Snowman]

The problem with with most studies including ones involving OSS is that there is not mathmatical way to calculate something subjective.

There are such a massive number of variables involved there is no way to take everything into account.

What these studys do show is trends and tendencies. From that you can infer things. But even in a closed system it's almost mathmaticly impossible to calculate things that seem straight foreward. Internal balistics are a prime example.

In the Hodgdon Annual loading manual they do an experiment test OAL on a cartrige where the results are that pressure increased as the OAL was increased until it hit the lands and then it dropped, which is the opposite of the conventional wisdom and what's intuitive.

There is no way to equate velocity, mass, energy, momentum, diameter, sectional density, or any other balistic property to a cartriges effectiveness.

What does all this mean? Cartridge choice is not as critial as many other factors, but it doesn't hurt to have a big one ;)

I myself put my faith in energy. If there is more energy availabe to transfer then if it's transfered less effectively there is still as much/more transfered. It takes energy to do work. The work I want done is moving tissue in case of defensive shooting. Because of this I like light fast bullets. My personal sellection is 135 gr .40 S&W or 10mm loaded full power for pistols and .223 for rifles in close quarters.

[Sean Smith]

Being new to this debate I'm wondering what mathematical secrets you possess that M&S et. al. haven't figured out.

College probability and statistics, plus an ability to think critically.

Here is a hint for you, from an old topic on this very issue:

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.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21184&perpage=25&highlight=OSS&pagenumber=1

[Brasso]

It seems to me that the simple fact that only incidents where one shot was fired was the only ones used by M&S makes the whole thing worthless. Assume that for example a 135gr .40 tends to fragment and cause large shallow wounds most of the time. On the occasions that it does manage to penetrate enough to hit vitals when it does fragment then it would stand to reason that it would do tremendous damage. However, if for every round that manages to penetrate sufficiently, 10 other shots don't, then the round really only has a 10% OSS. The fact that the incidents where more than one shot was fired are omitted makes the whole study irrelevant.

[Nightcrawler]

Hal, knowing the type of bullet STILL doesn't take all of my varibles into account. It doesn't take into account where the bullet hits, its trajectory, etc.

Shooting someone in the stomach may have a different effect than shooting them through the sternum.

[Erik]

For the reasons already articulated, M&S "statistics" should be deemed as suspect voodoo-science, at best.

That their finding happen to correctly identify reasonable defensive loads on occassion not withstanding.

[Sean Smith]

To me a credible refutation means they do their own study, of the same types of shootings, using the same methodology (ie, excluding multiple shot encounters (Duh! It is a study of ONE SHOT STOPS!), which arrives at vastly different results.

Um, you are missing the point. The study itself is invalid by design... somebody repeating the same junk experimental design M&S used would get results just as worthless as the M&S results.

Think about it: the study can't reliably tell the difference between a .40 S&W load, a .308 rifle load, and a 12ga slug load. If it can't resolve those differences, it is logically impossible for it to reliably resolve piss-ant differences between pistol calibers. At best, it's like having a ruler incremented only in yards, but claiming you can measure inches with it.

[cordex]

Okay, folks. I wrote this a long time ago on an email list, and I'll repost it in part here.

Most of the following arguments are taken indirectly from sources like:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm
and
http://www.kuci.uci.edu/~dany/firearms/stoppers.html
and
http://www.recguns.com/Sources/OutIV.html
and
http://yarchive.net/gun/ammo/marshall_sanow.html

... in other words a few aricles found on the first page of Google if
you search for: Marshall Sanow

There are a few problems with their data beyond my own personal doubts.

How are One Shot Stops (OSS's) calculated?

1) Only torso shots were used;
2) Multiple hits were also discarded. "Again, I didn't consider it a
true indication of any round's performance to include instances where
the victim took three hollowpoints in the chest and collapsed. ... If I
included multiple hits this study could legitimately be attacked on the
grounds that multiple hits are not a reliable indicator as to any
round's stopping power.";
3) A stop was defined as: "if a victim was assualting someone, he
collapsed without being able to fire another shot or strike another
blow. If he was fleeing, he collapsed within 10 feet.";
4) "In order to include a shooting in this study, I insisted on either
having or being able to review some of the folowing: police reports,
evidence tech-nician reports, statements by the victim (if he survived),
homicide reports, autopsy results and photos. Whenever possible, I also
talked to the emergency room doctors and attending physicians";
5) Recovered bullets were either personally examined or photographed by
Marshall or photos were provided by a second party. He noted that there
were several stops where the hollowpoints failed to expand convincing
him that bullet placement is the real key to stopping power.
6) A minimum number of five shootings was required for the load to be
included in the study.

The problem lies with the second criterion. He discards all data where
more than one hit was recorded. But if it takes three shots, shouldn't
that technically count as a failure of the load to be a "One Shot
Stop"? Instead, they're ignored.

Next, try subtracting the data in Petersen's 1988 report from the 1992
"Handgun Stopping Power" and the 1992 HSP dataset from the "Street
Stoppers" 1996 data.
(http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume3/number1/TABLE2-1.PDF)
Since they are all ostensibly continuations of the same data set, this
procedure should give you three time periods, each distinctly reporting
the time period over which it was collected. With me so far?
Now, look at each data set.
Some cartridges in the second data set (supposedly collected between
1988 and 1996) come out with 100% or greater effectiveness rating. As
in, there were more "stops" attributed to a specific cartridge recorded
between those dates than there were shots fired using that same
cartridge.
An example of some possible discrepencies?
Let's look at the .380 ACP Federal 90- grain JHP. It scored 59% in the
1988 publication, 63% in the 1992 publication and 69% in the 1996
publication. Reasonable to assume that the ammunition is improving,
maybe? Work the numbers out and you find that between 1992 and 1996
this round jumped to 100% effectiveness. Hmmm ... well, sometimes
that's just the way the cookie crumbles, eh? I guess over the 4 years
between 1992 and 1996, the 15 shots that were counted here with the
Federal .380 JHP were all perfect OSSs. Could just be good luck, right?
How about the .45 ACP CCI 200-grain JHP?
In the 1988-1992 data set it scored 19 stops in 16 incidents.
That means that if you're carrying CCI 200-grain JHP in your pistol
you're more likely to stop a baddie by shooting him than you are to be
assaulted by one and end up shooting him.
There about 16 instances of this kind of glaring sample error.
Still seem sound? If there are errors that big, how accurate can the
rest be?

But for the sake of debate, let's just say that these were typos or
something else relatively dismissable (a typo that you may be staking
your life on, mind you).

Remember the criteria for a OSS? Remember the one about Marshall says
"I insisted on either having or being able to review some of the
folowing: police reports, evidence technician reports, statements by the
victim (if he survived), homicide reports, autopsy results and photos.
Whenever possible, I also talked to the emergency room doctors and
attending physicians";?
And remember the bit about
"Recovered bullets were either personally examined or photographed by
Marshall or photos were provided by a second party."

There were 20,742 cases listed in the 1996 "Street Stoppers" book. That
was an increase of 14,606 cases from the 1992 data. If we say he spent
no more than an average of two hours on every case (reviewing police
reports, evidence technician reports, statements by surviving victims,
homicide reports, autopsy results and photos and interviewing ER doctors
and attending physicians) and threw no cases out (i.e. assuming every
case that he found ended up fitting his criteria) than he spent 29,212
man-hours on this book (just updating it from 1992, remember).

A person who works 8 hours a day and takes no vacation beyond weekends
puts in about 2,088 hours each year. That means he either had 14 people
working full-time (no over-time, but no vacations either) on this
project for four years or he did nothing else for 20 hours each day,
every day. Even given so many benefits of the doubt (that he was able
to fully evaluate each case in two hours including processing all
evidence requests, photos, interviews and everything, that he only found
suitable cases, etc), there is simply too much data here for me to
believe he was able to process it.

I think I've said enough on this.

[Blueduck]

I've always thought the chief problem with collecting statistics on shootings is that they will overate popular calibers and loads in law enforcement.

When a bad guy gets shot:

(1) He knows he can give up and not be shot again.

(2) He knows he needs medical attention and that even if "wins" the rest of the gunfight, the police either just pick him up at the hospital or his bled out corpse at his or a friends house. Might as well drop gun roll over and be rushed to the hospital.

Good guys don't have such options in a gunfight...

[Daniel T]

The problem lies with the second criterion. He discards all data where
more than one hit was recorded. But if it takes three shots, shouldn't
that technically count as a failure of the load to be a "One Shot
Stop"? Instead, they're ignored.

That right there totally invalidates all of M&S's "findings". Thanks cordex.

[9x19]

Three LEOs fire on a perp at the same time... all 3 score hits... perp collapses, fight is over... that constitutes a OSS failure?

It's the hanging chad thing... You can't always determine WHY multiple shots were fired from an after action report, so you throw them all out...

Sean,

You're saying that Marshall's report includes one shot stop data from rifle rounds... or is that a measurement you're applying to his handgun caliber data?

If the latter, shame on you... for bringing apricots to the table, while M&S are talking about only apples. Such an argument is wholly worthless in refuting their work because YOU are the one trying to mis-apply their standard of measurement, developed for a small data set (handgun ammunition) to rationalize a larger data set (handgun, rifle, and shotgun ammunition).

[cordex]

You're saying that Marshall's report includes one shot stop data from rifle rounds... or is that a measurement you're applying to his handgun caliber data?
I haven't read all of Marshall and Sanow's stuff, but there used to be a website based on their data with tables showing relative "stopping power" which included a few rifle and shotgun loads. Not sure if that is what Sean is referring to or not.
Three LEOs fire on a perp at the same time... all 3 score hits... perp collapses, fight is over... that constitutes a OSS failure?
No, in that case, M&S ignore it altogether. It is a non-event.

[tac17]

Three LEOs fire on a perp at the same time... all 3 score hits... perp collapses, fight is over... that constitutes a OSS failure?
Nope, that shouldn't even be considered due to the way it skews the data.
However, The guy that walks out of a 7-11 and has to fire 3 rounds into a bad guy before he goes down has to be considered of the findings of the study are completely worthless. It's simple logic really.
It's the hanging chad thing... You can't always determine WHY multiple shots were fired from an after action report, so you throw them all out...
No it isn't the hanging chad thing. You can determine why multiple shots were fired in a huge amount of instances(bad guy no fall down). Use the determinable ones to base the study on and discard all the rest that might skew the data. Unless of course your interest is in not having accurate data with which to draw your conclusions. If that's the case then do it however you wish.

[Lord Grey Boots]

The M&S reports are what is called a "Field Observation Study". With this type of study you need to narrow what you are looking at to small subset of the universe. IE, look at single shots to the torso, and ignore multi round and peripheral hits.

Ignoring these other shoots does not "invalidate the data", it only narrows the scope of what was studied. Because the same rule is applied to all the known population, you consistently define what you are measuring.

It sucks that the study doesn't (and can't) handle multi round hits, but there is no way to do that.

Field Observation Studies are very coarse measurements, and random influences impact individual samples greatly. The larger the sample population the better as random influences start to cancel each other out and trends develop.

The study doesn't deal with feeding reliability, accuracy, range, penetration of intervening materials, and controllability either. Those are also important issues in "stopping power". Does that mean that the M&S data is bogus? No. The study is of a limited scenario, and the results mean a very limited thing.

Can anyone claim that the top M&S performers are in reality much poorer performers than indicated? Not really.

[tac17]

Ignoring these other shoots does not "invalidate the data", it only narrows the scope of what was studied. Because the same rule is applied to all the known population, you consistently define what you are measuring.
How can you arrive at a valid percentage of one shot stop potential if you ignore the times that it took more than one shot to stop someone.

[Lord Grey Boots]

You can call it that because thats the percentage of the single shot to the torso incidents (samples), that resulted the suspect ceasing hostilities within a few seconds.


If the suspect remained violent, and then was shot again more than a few seconds later, its a failure and counts as such.
What you can't count are the incidents where the suspect was shot multiple times quickly, such as double taps, etc.

If we are trained properly, and follow our training, we shoot as often as necessary until the suspect falls and is no longer a threat.

I won't trust a single shot even if the OSS rating is 99%. I will shoot COM/CNS repeatedly until the attacker is no longer a threat.

[9x19]

tac17,

Oh, but it IS the hanging chad thing... most LEOs and alot of CCW holders have all bern conditioned, thru fear of post-action litigation, to always answer any question about why we fired x number of rounds with: "It took that many to stop the bad guy."

Now, some people are trained to fire double taps as a matter of course. Did it take two shots to stop the bad guy? I'll bet the shooter will say it did. Do we know that it took two shots to stop the bad guy? Nope.

Some people seem to want Marshall's data to reflect the OVERALL performance rating for each handgun load, accounting for instances where multiple shots were fired. While Marshall, on the other hand, only set out to report how many times a bad guy was stopped when only a single shot of a particular load was fired. Which is why he discounts multi-shot instances.

They can't fault his report for their wishes. If they want a performance rating on ammo that takes into account all shootings, they'll have to do get someone else to do it... or apply for the federal grant and do it themselves. :D

[cordex]

Lord GB,
If the suspect remained violent, and then was shot again more than a few seconds later, its a failure and counts as such.
What you can't count are the incidents where the suspect was shot multiple times quickly, such as double taps, etc.
As I interpreted the criteria, if more than one hit was scored, the case was ignored.

No one has addressed the inconsistancies in the data that I pointed out. In other words, how can you trust data that gives greater than 100% "One Shot Stop" percentages in a given time period? Don't believe that it's there? Check it out for yourself. I gave very specific examples.

Plus, I still have my doubts that he could even do the research he claims to have done in the allotted time.

[tac17]

Oh, but it IS the hanging chad thing... most LEOs and alot of CCW holders have all bern conditioned, thru fear of post-action litigation, to always answer any question about why we fired x number of rounds with: "It took that many to stop the bad guy."
Fine your own comments have proven the invalid nature of unscientific studies.

While Marshall, on the other hand, only set out to report how many times a bad guy was stopped when only a single shot of a particular load was fired. Which is why he discounts multi-shot instances.
And how can you do that without also factoring how many times someone wasn't stopped with only a single shot?

Are you on his payroll or something? :rolleyes:

[Sean Smith]

9x19,

Sean,

You're saying that Marshall's report includes one shot stop data from rifle rounds... or is that a measurement you're applying to his handgun caliber data?

If the latter, shame on you... for bringing apricots to the table, while M&S are talking about only apples. Such an argument is wholly worthless in refuting their work because YOU are the one trying to mis-apply their standard of measurement, developed for a small data set (handgun ammunition) to rationalize a larger data set (handgun, rifle, and shotgun ammunition).

I'm saying the former, that M&S published one shot stop percentages from rifle rounds (.223 and .308) and 12ga buckshot and slugs. So no shame on me, tough guy... try knowing what you are talking about before accusing me of being dishonest. ;)

Here is a re-print of the M&S figures, there used to be a cooler website endorsed by M&S that published the same M&S figures in a neat tabular format, but it went down for whatever reason.

http://www.powernet.net/~eich1/sp.html

You will note that the % figures for rifles and shotguns overlap those for handguns. In other words, the study can't reliably resolve differences in stopping power between handguns on one hand, and high-powered rifles and shotguns that are orders of magnitude more powerful on the other.

Put another way, based on the OSS % numbers M&S came up with, a 135gr .40 caliber bullet at 1,300 feet per second produces essentally identical on-target effects to a 438 grain 12ga slug at 1,600 feet per second (96% vs 98%). That's about 500 foot-pounds versus almost 2,500 foot-pounds.... fully QUINTUPLE the muzzle energy. To belive a study that produces a statistical dead heat when comparing those two projectiles is to appeal to magic. We are really at the point where basic physics doesn't allow M&S to be correct.

At this point it shoud be abundantly clear that M&S are full of crap. This would be like a study of diet pill effectiveness that can't tell the difference between 100 pound and 400 pound test subjects. :D

[9x19]

{Edited to maintain a higher standard.}

[Shawn Dodson]

Three LEOs fire on a perp at the same time... all 3 score hits... perp collapses, fight is over... that constitutes a OSS failure?

It's the hanging chad thing... You can't always determine WHY multiple shots were fired from an after action report, so you throw them all out... No. You MUST include them in the study. Why? The more data "thrown out" from a study the less likely the findings are going to accurately represent the real world.

[Hal]

Nightcrawler,
Yep, I don't dispute what you're saying. Those are the things YOU can control though. ie: placement.

[coylh]

I think you guys are misunderstanding the purpose of the book. I believe it was to contrast different bullets of a cartridge. Whether or not a particular loading is ranked 30%, 99%, B-, or 5-star is irrelevant out of context of how other loadings in the same cartridge were ranked. The important thing to take away: is load X any better than load Y in Z cartridge. That's all. The author doesn't even say to use the highest ranked load, just one in the top third.

Is the study method sound? Who knows. Read the book and see if it makes sense to you. Place your bets and roll the dice.

[Sarge]

I believe you just about perfectly stated Marshall's original midset regarding the way he wanted folks to view his work. Then he got hooked up with Ed "anything to sell a magazine article" Sanow, who promptly turned it into a traveling snake-oil show with all kinds of articles like "Top Ten Defensive Cartridges", etc.

Anybody who claims to be able to predict OSS percentages, based on anything other than street results, is worthy of your suspicion. Gelatin may be opaque, but it isn't a crystal ball. All it tells you when you're finished is how deep the bullet is likely to penetrate, and expand. The correct information to take away from such an examination is "Should work- if you shoot it well." Reading percentages into that is a joke.

[Double Naught Spy]

There are a couple big issues with the M&S data that cause problems. The first set of issues has been mentioned in some detail concerning how the data were gathered and manipulated. I agree that this is hugely problematic, but disagree that they are invalid. They are valid, but only for a very narrow set of parameters...which brings me to the second issue.

The second issue is the end-user issue. For the sake of argument, I will refer to it as the OSS Bubba Factor. Bubba bought a pistol and wants good killin' ammo like holler points and he reads about the OSS. He then goes out and buys a perceived box of death for his gun. Sadly, there is some Bubba in many of us, if not most. We fixate on the wrong or not so relevant factors when we make our choices. In the OSS Bubba Factor, Bubba Sees the OSS data, reads the interpretation from front to back, feels like a big time ammo expert, and then makes a buy decision. This is sad because of all the aspects of the report that Bubba can handle, what he can't handle is the fact that he probably will never be in a situational context to match the end results of the OSS data. Bubba does not realize that his less than amazing gun skills will not be compensated for too terribly much by wunder-ammo. Bubba probably believes that the one shot stop of Kennedy and Conally by the magic bullet in the "One Bullet Theory" of the Warren Commission was smart technology and he will continue to shop for those types of bullets until he dies.

M&S did an interesting study and tried to condense information down in a manner that had some controls. What was lost was the aspect of the information then being actually relevant to future real life shootings. There were many aspects that could not be controlled for in their sampling. There are many aspects in gun fights that can't be controlled for either. That is life. As noted, it isn't just physics and math that determine the OSS. If folks applied a whole lot less bottom line logic to the report, not having the OSS Bubba Factor, and read the report as helpful information and not some sort of God given Biblical truth to gun fight success, then they can make reasonable use of the information.

Think of it as OSS theory. It looks good on paper but cannot be proven and the results not necessarily duplicated in the real world again. That does not make the theory wrong. It is a theory because it isn't a law. Theories do not always work, can't be proven right or wrong (versus a hypothesis that can), and that is why they aren't laws.

[Sean Smith]

I believe it was to contrast different bullets of a cartridge.

No. The OSS methodology applies the exact same (defective) standard for determining one shot stops across cartridges. It isn't a relative comparison within a given caliber; it is a uniform (if uniformly bad) system applied to a wide variety of calibers. They didn't create subgroups and apply different standards to each one. In this case, a % is a % is a %, based on how they themselves describe it. So the fact that their method can't tell a 12ga slug from a .40 S&W tells us a great deal about how useful their results are.

Think of it as OSS theory. It looks good on paper but cannot be proven and the results not necessarily duplicated in the real world again. That does not make the theory wrong.

A theory based on illogical premises that produces absurd results is about as close to "wrong" as you can get. :D

[mec]

The value of any of the Instant Destroyer and Killer literature is undermined by the egos and fiduciary concerns of the participants. The early published Marshall data base was pretty small. The critics of M/S made much of some arithmatic error and pretty soon the debate degenerated to yelling "liar!" In any case, each shooting is a singular event with its own set of parameters. The difficulties with keeping the data pure are monumental

The piezo-electric tranducerized goat study is more of the same. Some of the people who received the brown envelop think it was conducted entirely on a word processor keyboard. Others, particularly those whose ammunition ranked high, claim they believe it actually happened. One prominent magazine editor cites the study and then wonders in print if it ever really happened.

A training director with a west coast police department dismisses M/S and the Goat-Killing. His department issued 9mm 147 grain JHPs at the time M/S was making all the magazines. Troops were all upset because Ayoob/Marshall/Sanow/et al said the 147 was a sub gun round and was no good out of a pistol. The training officer said that his department had killed fifty people with the round and it worked very well. The whole senario made him mad enough to do some background checking on one of the stopping power gurus. He found that the individual was not a frequenter of the morgues cited in his literature.
At the time, the FBI was using the same ammo and experiencing a lot of gun battles in the Phillipines. They were very satisfied with the performance of the 147 grain load.

It appears that the best bet is to develop your own theory of stopping power with the likelyhood that it will be just as believable as anything out there.

[Sean Smith]

The silliness of using OSS figures even as a "guide" is pretty simple:

1. From reading the OSS figures, you will find that the 12ga slug figures closely overlap the .40 S&W figures. Likewise with .223 and .308 vs. the higher .40 S&W figures. In other words, the study can't detect very large differences in "stopping power."

2. Therefore, it is absurd to use the same figures as a "guide" to try to determine small differences in stopping power (e.g. choosing between handgun loads).

[Sarge]

clouding the issue with logic again.:D

I sure wish some of these folks would just take their pistols and go hunting. Shoot five deer, as near to the same place as possible and with the same load, and you'll probably see at least four different reactions.

They'd also be able to tell the difference between a .308/150 (or a 12 gauge slug) and a .40 135 pretty quick.

[cordex]

Sean,
I was going to mention the same thing.

If you look at their data, they show that many defensive 9mm loads are far more likely to score a "one shot stop" than several of the 00 and 4 buck 12 gauge loads evaluated.

Does anyone here want to argue that good 9mm is equivalent or superior to a typical 12 gauge 00 buck load?

And for the readers who are playing at home, one more time, from M&S themselves:
Multiple hits have to be discarded. We are interested in the effect of a single bullet. Again it is obvious that multiple shots will be more effective, however it is impossible to determine some measure of bullet performance based on multiple shots.
In other words, if someone is carrying one of the loads that M&S claim will deliver a 90-100% (or maybe 108%, depending on the time period in question) "one shot stop" rating and they shoot someone in the torso and the person keeps coming and they shoot 'em again ... M&S dismiss the case entirely. If this happens 95 times out of 100 but in those 5 remaining cases, M&S notice that the BG stops immediately - for whatever reason - the load in question gets a 100% "One Shot Stop" rating.

I'd call it junk science, but I'd hate to use the word science in the same sentence. As Marshall and Sanow.

This doesn't mean that M&S didn't highly rate some cartridges that do quite well. There is a saying about blind pigs or stopped clocks in there somewhere.

[mec]

Bang on Sarge! I have a personal data base of mayhem but I doubt that any of it applys directly to the anti-personel arguments. - Non human recipients, you know.

[Correia]

My personal problem with all of M&S is that they are trying to quantify something that is not quantifiable.

Perp A weighs 100 pounds, is not combative, is not on drugs, and has never seen blood before. He is shot with a .32 that barely breaks the skin over his rib cage, he falls down and crys for his mommy. 100% stopper.

Perp B weighs 315 pounds of lean prison weight lifting muscle. He has been shot before. Has a tatoo of a spider web over his face, opens beer bottle with his teeth, and is currently high on elephant tranquilizer and lime Cool Aid. He is shot with a .45 that lodges in his lung. Has it removed later at a party by a friend of his who flunked out of vet college. 0% stopper.

So from this I can see that the .32 is a far better stopper than the .45 because one was 100% the other was 0%.

:)

[mec]

Now, that makes perfect sense and is pretty dang funny too.

[Sleuth]

I'll give you some reasons to discard M&S:

1. The quote about getting police reports, interviewing officers, etc. for each and every shooting. The late Gene Wolberg, Forensic Expert (Court Certified) for the San Diego PD, is quoted on some shootings by M&S. The problem is, he never met, or spoke to, or had any other contact with either of them, and in fact knew nothing about several of the shootings where the data was accredited to him! In addition, he was the sole custodian for the department of the reports on shootings. Wolberg published this information as well as discussing it with me personally.
Conclusion: M&S lied. If they lied about this data, why should anyone belive anything else they write?

2. There is no "bell curve" of results. I remember from a statistics course that no real test or "field observation study" produces clean results, there is always a bell shaped curve, with increasing confidence in the outcomes under the highest part of the bell. M&S only have exact results.
Conclusion: They manipulated the data to produce a desired result.

3. Sanow wrote an article "The Rise and Fall of the 147g 9mm" in Law & Order magazine. In the next issue, the editor published an apology, as several people had documented that Sanow had falsified data, changed facts, and lied.
Conclusion: Sanow lies
[Irony: Sanow is now the Editor of L&O!]

4. In a personal conversation with me years before this book, Marshall told me: "I have X (5? 7?) kids that I have to feed. I'll publish anything that will sell."
Conclusion: Evan will publish anything that will sell. They sold a lot of these books.

5. Science means there are repeatable results, which peers can reproduce. The Goat test is a secret? No one, other than M&S have access to the data? No one else was present?
Conclusion: This was not science.

M&S have written a piece of fiction. I challenge anyone to prove this "data" they have published to be scientifically verifiable. You could start by providing their base (raw) data for both the books and the ""goat test"".

I'm not holding my breath until you do.

[Sean Smith]

2. There is no "bell curve" of results. I remember from a statistics course that no real test or "field observation study" produces clean results, there is always a bell shaped curve, with increasing confidence in the outcomes under the highest part of the bell. M&S only have exact results.
Conclusion: They manipulated the data to produce a desired result.

In fairness to M&S, that's not really applicable here because their "data" is discrete, not continuous (you are either stopped, or you aren't). Normal (bell curve) distributions are based on continuous data (e.g. test scores of 0-100, and so forth).

The other points all sound reasonable to me. :p

[coylh]

Ok, tooting our horns isn't going to get us anywhere. How about we turn this into something positive. Let's design THR Stopping Power Tests Of 2004. This is in all seriousness. Brainstorm away. You are unrestricted by law, ethics, or economics, and have access to a large number of similarly sized male "test subjects". You must design a study which:

1. Is scientific.
2. Establishes a ranking of a loading's ability to Stop an aggressor.
3. Controls for other variables besides the load.
4. Accounts for pistol, rifle, and shotgun loads in the same study.
5. Produces a theory which can be used to predict the Stopping Power of future, untested loads.

If this needs a new thread, go fo it!

[Shawn Dodson]

You must design a study...

http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume4/number2/article421.htm

[coylh]

That's an interesting link, but not what I asked for. That says how not to design a study. I'd like to see us actually design one. Let's brainstorm, and assume that, at least initially the sky is the limit. I don't have any experience in scientific studies and only a rudimentary knowledge of statistics, so I'll turn it over the more savvy forum members from here...

[jc2]

. .

[Shawn Dodson]

That says how not to design a study. Suggest you read it again, from start to finish.

[Double Naught Spy]

Given the Blatant and Well Done comment by Correia, I don't know why this thread is continuing. The comment is very damaging and not vindictive or anything like that, just BLATANT!!!!

[coylh]

Shawn: the point of the paper seems to me to be that it's not possible to do a study, therefore we must interpret our shooting results by writing them down and looking for "patterns". However, I'm looking for positive, creative ideas about how to do a study.

And I suggest you read my whole post:

1. Is scientific.

No.

2. Establishes a ranking of a loading's ability to Stop an aggressor.

Where's the ranking of your poll?

3. Controls for other variables besides the load.

Right on target. You've got lots of possibilities accounted for. That you're not controlling for them is due to the type of poll you are doing I think, not to error on your part.

4. Accounts for pistol, rifle, and shotgun loads in the same study.

You have tailored this for police. I think it could be expanded.

5. Produces a theory which can be used to predict the Stopping Power of future, untested loads.

I don't see any theory.


So, anyone else want a whack at creating a study which meets these goals? BTW, these goals are not written in stone. They were my best guess at creating an environment which would focus our attention on the higher purpose of determining the load with the best stopping power. If we can come up with better ones, more power to you. Let's do this! It would be groundbreaking.

[BluesBear]

It amazes me that several people, somewhere got all of these rare goats together. Shot them, timed how long it took them to fall over, wrote it all down, AND NO ONE THOUGHT TO BRING A CAMERA? :rolleyes:


Also, I can see discounting double taps if the shootee is stopped.
You can't tell if the first shot would have stopped them by itself.
But if you double tap someone and they DON'T stop then it is obviously a failure.
Same would apply if someone was shot once, didn't stop and had to be shot again. That would also constitute a failure.


To actually apporach being scientific you would need to consider at least a few variables such as estimated velocity at impact, body size and type of the person shot, and if there was any substance enhanced resiliance.

Let's face it, sometimes it's the pain of being shot that tells the brain to make the body fall down. While sometimes a person who isn't aware they have been shot act as if they weren't.


I would be more interested in knowing what ammo DIDN'T stop someone after multiple COM hits, than which ones will do it sometimes with only one hit.

[mec]

the final word in stopping power!
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=615869

[Shawn Dodson]

1. Is scientific. Yes. It uses descriptive statistics, which is an analysis of an entire population of shootings.
2. Establishes a ranking of a loading's ability to Stop an aggressor.

Where's the ranking of your poll? It's not intended to rank "ability," rather it's intended to determine why the bad guy stopped, by examining the variables involved. 5. Produces a theory which can be used to predict the Stopping Power of future, untested loads.

I don't see any theory. I believe this cannot be done with enough fidelity to give any value to the findings.

They'll all work about the same, because of the large margin of error.

Cheers!

[coylh]

Hum. I would agree that this is a difficult project. But, for brainstorming purposes I've relieved any practical considerations (unethical, costs too much, peta, etc) with the hope that we could design a study which would definitively answer the question. In this hypothetical environment I don't see why finding out which load works better at stopping someone is so much harder than finding out which spray stops fleas better.

So, maybe I can get the ball rolling. I think the first order of business is to define our terms. What does it mean to "stop" someone.

This definition may be contentious, because we have different perspectives. For example, I may consider the aggressor stopped if he quits attacking me and runs away. However, police may require incapacitation. So, let's lean to the stricter interpretation and say that an attacker is "stopped" if he or she:

1. ceases the threatening activity for 10 minutes
2. also looses effective mobility within 5 meters for the duration of #1

Examples:

Attacker A is shot, drops to ground with legs paralyzed, but continues to shoot at you. NOT STOPPED.

Attacker B is shot, quits brandishing knife, but runs to car and drives off. NOT STOPPED.

Attacker C is shot, quits throwing bottles at you and falls down after a few steps. STOPPED.

Attacker D is shot, quits punching you and cowers in a fetal position until the police arrive. STOPPED

Some people may feel that D is not a satisfactory stop, but I think we should not investigate why someone stops (that's a subject for a different study, although the answer to goal #5 could be its hypothesis). So if the perp recovers after 10 minutes, that's ok with me under the definition I have suggested.

[Mad Man]

Attacker A is shot, drops to ground with legs paralyzed, but continues to shoot at you. NOT STOPPED.


What about:

Attacker A is shot, drops to the ground with legs paralyzed, but continues to wave his knife at you.


The bullet had the exact same effect, but since he cannot reach you with his knife, the attack is stopped.

[coylh]

Mad Man: Under my working definition he or she is not stopped. The attacker has not ceased the threatening action.

If you want to stretch your example a little more, you could have gotten in your car and locked the doors rather than shooting. You would be safe from being harmed perhaps, but the knife wielding attacker is certainly not stopped. Fair?

[greg700]

I have always wondered whether the one shot stop statistics were skewed simply by the fact that most competent shooters will choose one of the top-rated brands. I.E. someone who is inexperienced with a firearm won't really understand the difference between FMJ and a hollowpoint, or they won't know/care enough to get one of the better brands. But a 'good' shooter who is more likely to make a critical first hit, will more than likely choose to shoot silvertip/gold dot/hydrashok, etc.

So after a particular round gets a reputation among the shooting community, and a disproportionate number of the people who use it are excellent shots, it's one shot stop percentage probably goes up.

Just my two cents. Personally I feel comfortable using any of the top brands/weights.

[Mad Man]

http://montypythondirect.com/MPYTHON/assets/product_images/large/ADPY3707.gif
(http://montypythondirect.com/product_information.asp?PRODUCT=OG013212MOCO&TYPE=Swag)

"Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!"

[Sarge]

I believe you've solved the 'gelatin replacement' problem. At least now we don't have to figure out what to do with the blocks after we're done shooting them. We just set them up on little portable card tables all over the garden, blast away, and then let nature take its course. Ought to make for some fine tomatos next summer, too!

I'll mention this stuff to Dr. F at the next opportunity... I hope he don't think I'm just calling to "shoot the sh*t", though... :D

[fix]

It seems to me (and maybe I'm just narrow minded) that the real focus should always be on the reliability of the ammunition rather than the supposed lethality or lack thereof. I'm not advocating the use of one or the other, but a FMJ round that goes bang is certain to be more effective than a JHP round that goes click and leaves the operator executing an immediate action drill to clear a stoppage.

[Sleuth]

How about:

Perp A sees you reach toward where most people carry a gun, throws his hands in the air, and yells "OK Man, No Problem" then runs off?
100% stop
He never saw my gun.


My version of "the test"

We line up an infinite number of people, sorted by height, weight, % body fat, and muscle mass. We also have the firearm in a Ransom Rest, with a cronograph between the muzzle and the person. Each of the first 1,000 subjects get shot in the exact same place, with the exact same round. They do not have any drugs or alcohol in their system, and are all dressed alike. They all watch a Bambi movie just before they are shot.
Next 1,000 are the same, except they watch "Old Yeller", next group watches T3, etc.
Then: Bambi with 1 can of beer, the 2 cans of beer, etc ad infinitum.
Then we start with drugs.
After we shoot the infinite number of people, of all body types, with all levels of drugs, alcohol, and drugs and alcohol, in all mental states, with all different levels of clothing, we will know what rounds work best!

I have a list of people I would offer as subjects - and there would be no complaints from PETA (why? they are on my list!)

[coylh]

Thanks for the participation Sleuth! I'll throw my lot in with the experimental approach too.

The example you give would not be applicable, because you didn't use your ammunition. That's a test of the stopping power of your Jackie Chan impersonation, not a bullet.

[mec]

"I have a list of people I would offer as subjects - and there would be no complaints from PETA (why? they are on my list!)"

'and they never would be missed! they never would be missed!'

A perfect example of why the Europeans prefer small caliber pistols of variable velocity. One shot stops approache 100% when you are chiefly shooting unarmed people in the back of the head.

[Sleuth]

Coylh, That's not true.
This actually happened to me, Nov. 1970, Wash. DC, about 4 blocks from the White House, while I was attending Treasury Law Enforcement Officers School. Gun was a S&W M60, carried strong side under my jacket. I never showed the gun,he just understood from my body language that I was not an run-of-the-mill out of town tourist.

I employed fight, he employed flight! He chose wisely.


And I enjoy Monty Python, Mad Man!

[cordex]

The example you give would not be applicable, because you didn't use your ammunition.
So what if you fired but missed and they still ran? Or barely grazed 'em and they didn't realize it? Or nailed 'em with a through and through but they didn't know they were hit?

All have the same initial and desired effect on the perp (in this limited case) regardless of whether they do any damage at all.

[Sleuth]

A friend of mine with the Border Patrol arrested a group of about 20 ilegal aliens. One started to incite the others to charge him, and attacked - my fired fired 1 round, OO buck, over the alien's head, causing him to trip & fall. No hits, 100% stop of all 20. Score that one for me.

(I score it 100% stopping power, 0 (ZERO) lethality.)

[mec]

"under my jacket. I never showed the gun,he just understood from my body language that I was not an run-of-the-mill out of town tourist."

Funny you should mention it. I visited DC and was walking down the street with a camer tripod resting on my shoulder- more or less like a baseball bat. A dude crossed to the opposite sidewalk just because of my appearance.

[coylh]

Cortex: Would you like to modify the working definition to account for the examples you cite?

[Brasso]

Why make this so difficult? We all know that to stop a "determined" attacker you have to do one of two things. 1. Hit the cns, or 2. Bleed them out. Regardless of a rounds energy, or other mystic qualities it has to do one of these two things. Ballistic gelatin may never have attacked anyone, but it does let us compare bullet performance in a repeatable fashion. If it works better in gelatin it will work better on flesh. Simple.

Notice I said "determined" attacker. Just beause someone stops for psychological reasons, even if it is because you're particular cartridge has 100 ft/lbs more energy than mine, doesn't mean a darn thing. It's the determined attacker who doesn't care if he dies that we ultimately have to worry about. Again, if it works in gel, it works on flesh. Forget the OSS numbers. They are less than meaningless.

[cordex]

coylh,
It can't be done.

If it rained on a given day of the year 7 times in the last decade, can you say that there is a 70 percent chance of rain on that day of the year in the future?

You can find out what makes people break, and how to make a bullet work towards those ends (hollow points, hardball, frangible, bigger, smaller, slower, faster - whatever), but determining what a given cartridge will do when fired at an unknown location on an a person of unknown demeanor, unknown body mass, unknown protection, with an unknown level of unknown substances present in their body is impossible.

[BluesBear]

Cordex,

There's a 99% chance it'll leave a scar. :D

[Cellar Dweller]

only when a minimum of five instances of shooting with a particular load/calibre combination have occurred.
Statistically irrelevant. One can't formulate a "scientific" study based on a minimum of five samples, much less CHERRYPICKED samples.

One cannot disregard a large number of variables and conclude anything, much less "rate" anything.

One cannot extrapolate based on flawed data and have valid results.

One cannot discard data that does not fit the author's premise and call it a valid study (or an observation, or a trend, or "interesting" or whatever adjectives you wanna throw in).

One cannot generate a "valid" % for 9mm/115gr/JHP without breaking down revolver/pistol/carbine/SMG and barrel length for that cartridge.

If it is "scientific," then it is independently reproducible. If it cannot be reproduced, it is junk science. If a round is classified 65% OSS, then the next 100 cherrypicked shootings of that round should yield 65% +/- a couple percent, not something like 88% or 24%).

Trying to formulate a truly scientific OSS study is like trying to determine which is the best automobile color (the exact shade, not a generalized "red" or "black") or who was the one greatest President (domestic? international? all-around?).

[coylh]

determining what a given cartridge will do when fired at an unknown location on an a person of unknown demeanor, unknown body mass, unknown protection, with an unknown level of unknown substances present in their body is impossible

Sure are a lot of pessemistic people around here. I've left the gates wide open in asking for ideas about an ideal study. Is it so hard to imagine an experiment where we know body mass, demeanor, substances present, placement of shot, etc?

It can't be done.