Skunkape,
That is not exactly what they did. That is a vastly oversimplified version of what they did. There were many more variables to be considered other than a bit gets dull. While some of the incidents where multiple shots were fired were certainly one shot stop failures, many many others may have been because the shooter double or triple tapped or because under the stress of the moment they just emptied the gun. Those are all very common occurences but they can certainly not be construed as one shot stop failures. The firearmstactical people treat all multiple shots as one shot stop failures or "guess" that a substantial number are. Marshall and Sanow did count failures, otherwise everything would have been 100%. To prove that there numbers are fundamentally flawed someone would have to prove how many of the multiple shots incidents were one shot stop failures, and not just naively assume they all were like the firearmstactical people do. I have not seen anyone who has proved how many of those multiple shot incidents were actually one shot stop failures. I have only seen guesses, and most of those were not even good guesses. So no one that I have read has presented any basis is fact to prove the data is fundementally flawed, only conjecture. Marshall/Sanow excluded those incidents for precisely that reason, to avoid groundless conjecture. Marshall and Sanow made it very clear how they counted the incidents and made it very clear from the start that they did not include any multiple shot incidents. What they did do was count how many times a single shot of a particular caliber ended the incident. That is significant. They evaluate all the loads by the same standard. That is significant. They established that actual results defied conventional wisdom and that is where they collected a lot of critics. Both Marshall/Sanow and Firearmstactical are trying to make money off there information so everything they say has to viewed in that context, but in order for firearmstactical to make any money on their data, they first had to discredit Marshall/Sanow because it conflicted with their data. It seems that the gist of what the firearmstactical people are saying is that the only reliable way to stop someone is to compromise their CNS or for their blood pressure to drop until they loose control. While those 2 conditions will certainly end a fight, reality shows that many if not most fights are stopped long before either of those 2 things occur and that is where Marshall and Sanow numbers shine. They give us a point of reference for when a certain load brings the myriad of physiological, psychological, and circumstancial variables to the place where the fight is ended by a single shot. That is significant. To throw away all that significance because they did not include data which could never be accurately accounted for seems a little silly to me, no offense.
Basically I think you have a point, but I personally think it is overstated. I think firearmstactical has overstated it for purely financial reasons and they have not proven much. Thats just the way I see it, but I have been wrong before.
Roll Tide
