"One Shot Stops": testing the effectiveness of handgun rounds

[Dr_2_B]

I'm one of those guys who believes that in the next 20 years, this debate will actually be resolved. More evidence will parse this out now that we've really decided what we want to study.

 

[DougDubya]

It hasn't been resolved since 1970 to 2009, it won't be in another 20 years. Better to spend the time shooting better with what you got.

 

[JohnKSa]

There are two things to point out here: One, the folks who made these allegations did so in the early and mid 1990s, over a decade ago. This was when the Fackler and M&S debate was at it's height and allegations were flying back and forth. The heat died down from that fight some years back. Two: None of the "enemies" of M&S are here at present so fighting them, rather than replying to the critiques, is fighting a "straw man".

While the heat may have died down, those allegations are alive and well. I've seen them repeated frequently just in the last few months.

There may have been some specific enemies that are no longer around, but there are still a lot of M&S opponents on the web making some pretty nasty allegations. Maybe no one's posting them on this thread yet, but I believe that anyone interested in the caliber question who's spent a reasonable amount of time on the web has seen them and has them in mind while reading this thread.

I think it's reasonable to assume that some newer shooters do take M&S at face value just as it is reasonable to assume that some newer shooters take all the wild allegations about M&S at face value.

For that reason it's useful to point out, calmly and logically, the problems with them.

See, here's where all those allegations stop being "beside the point".

Where did you get your information on the problems with the M&S OSS numbers? My guess is you got it (indirectly) from something one of the M&S opponents alleged. Just because it's not as wild as some of the allegations doesn't mean it's automatically correct. On the other hand, for example, if you were to have some personal insight into statistics and how they relate to studies like the M&S work that would be pretty interesting.

 

[Gryffydd]

Where did you get your information on the problems with the M&S OSS numbers? My guess is you got it (indirectly) from something one of the M&S opponents alleged.

Nope. I got it from a junior level statistics class and a little common sense.

 

[JohnKSa]

Nope. I got it from a junior level statistics class and a little common sense.

Ok, now that's something to work with.

What was it about their study that initially led you to believe that their statistical methods were flawed?

What objections did you have to their statistical methods based on what you learned in your statistics class?

 

[rbernie]

What was it about their study that initially led you to believe that their statistical methods were flawed?

Rather than retype the same stuff that's been circulating for the last decade and a half, or better, I'm going to borrow content that's freely available and find-able via Google search.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs31.htm

Closing the Book on Marshall & Sanow's One-shot Stopping Power Fraud

Over the past couple of years we've published several articles presenting evidence that discredits the Marshall & Sanow one-shot stopping power system of rating "bullet effectiveness". Our purpose in beating this dead horse was to present our criticisms from many different angles so that our message could be understood by the widest audience possible. The final chapter is now being written. We're closing the book on Marshall and Sanow by making several reference articles freely available on the Internet, where they'll be available to anyone and everyone who's interested in the details. As we put the Marshall - Sanow fraud to rest, we offer the following final commentary. Immediately following our remarks are links to reference articles that have never before been made available to you on the Internet.

The professional wound ballistics community believes that both Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow have intentionally misrepresented Marshall's "one-shot stop data" as a valid statistical sampling of "actual street results". Valid statistical samplings always report a plus or minus percentage of sampling error, which is based on consideration and evaluation of all factors that affect statistical certainty. This vital statistical process allows researchers to determine how meaningful or meaningless the findings are. Fackler's article, Too Good to be True, discusses, among other things, the significance of determining statistical certainty.

Marshall & Sanow have never performed a statistical certainty analysis of Marshall's one-shot stop data. They present raw "data," which is totally meaningless in context even if it was honestly collected and examined as claimed. Marshall's sampling methodology and the manner in which his data is presented are no more accurate or credible than any other nonscientific (for entertainment only) survey, and this generously assumes that Marshall is being completely honest.

Anyone who still believes the Marshall "findings" to be true should submit one of Marshall's "one-shot stop" books or articles to a professional statistics organization that has absolutely no interest in ballistics or the outcome, like http://www.westat.com. An unbiased organization such this is fully qualified to analyze and critique the validity of Marshall's methodology and "findings".

Marshall, Sanow, Massad Ayoob and other "one-shot stop" advocates either ignorantly or intentionally mischaracterize and attempt to discredit the professional wound ballistics community as lab coat wearing nerds who never step foot outside the confines of a controlled laboratory setting. These uninformed or dishonest gunwriters attempt to portray wound ballistics professionals as incompetent dunces who are unwilling to consider "real world shooting results," lest the "real world laboratory of the street" contradict cherished "laboratory gelatin results" and "laboratory theories." One need only peruse a few issues of the IWBA journal, Wound Ballistics Review, to learn otherwise. Many of the articles are written by law enforcement officers or other professionals who work closely with law enforcement agencies.

Marshall & Sanow are preparing to publish a third book, Street Stoppers II. Until recently, we had planned to obtain a copy and publish a book review. But unless Street Stoppers II contains startling new information, we're moving on.

But before we close the book on Marshall & Sanow -- hopefully for good -- we'd like to express our appreciation to IWBA and the authors below, who've kindly granted us permission to re-print the following articles.

Maarten van Maanen's article, Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow "Data Base": An Evaluation Over Time, was the subject of Calibre Press' Street Survival Newsline (No. 419, dated 11/16/99), a law enforcement newsletter that's distributed to thousands of law enforcement officers worldwide. Calibre Press is a major law enforcement training organization. They produce and present the highly acclaimed Street Survival Seminar as well as publish the award winning books Street Survival, The Tactical Edge and Tactics for Criminal Patrol. The staff of Calibre Press reviewed van Maanen's article and found van Maanen's evidence of fraud and deceit so convincing as to warrant alerting the law enforcement community to his findings. If there's any one organization that has its finger on the pulse of what's going on in the "real world laboratory of the streets," it's the folks at Calibre Press.

(In 1993, Calibre Press permanently removed Marshall & Sanow's first book, Handgun Stopping Power, from their catalog after law enforcement members with the International Wound Ballistics Association presented them with compelling evidence that the book was teeming with falsehoods. Since then, Calibre Press has refused to carry Marshall & Sanow's books.)

Note: The founders of Calibre Press, Charles Remsberg and Dennis Anderson, recently retired and sold the business to another company. Mr. Remsberg personally made the decision to reject the Marshall/Sanow books because he did not want to offer flawed information to law enforcement officers. We applaud Mr. Remsberg's integrity and high regard for officer safety. It is unknown if the new owners of Calibre Press are aware of the problems with Marshall/Sanow, but current editions of the Calibre Press catalog contain the latest Marshall/Sanow book.

Reference Articles

Fackler, Martin L., MD.: "Book Review: Street Stoppers: The Latest Handgun Stopping Power Street Results." Wound Ballistics Review, 3(1); 26-31: 1997.

MacPherson, Duncan: "Sanow Strikes (Out) Again." Wound Ballistics Review, 3(1): 32-35; 1997.

van Maanen, Maarten: "Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow 'Data Base': An Evaluation Over Time." Wound Ballistics Review, 4(2); 9-13: Fall, 1999.

Fackler, Martin L., MD.: "Undeniable Evidence." Wound Ballistics Review, 4(2); 14-15: Fall, 1999.

MacPherson, Duncan: "The Marshall & Sanow 'Data' - Statistical Analysis Tells the Ugly Story." Wound Ballistics Review, 4(2); 16-21: Fall, 1999.

 

[rbernie]

What objections did you have to their statistical methods based on what you learned in your statistics class?

The second article, in particular, is an interesting answer to this question.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm

http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-statistical-analysis.htm

 

[rbernie]

An interesting review by Doc Roberts, from back in 1992:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/afte.htm

Selected excerpts:

Throughout the text, Marshall and Sanow offer "street results" which purport to show the "stopping power" and percentage of "one-shot stops" that particular handgun bullets have produced in actual shootings.
....
Their "field data" appears to be based on anecdotal "war stories" which are incomplete and unverified, as illustrated by the example below.

Additionally, Marshall’s and Sanow’s "street results" and "one-shot stop" statistics fail to address what anatomic structures are disrupted and damaged by the bullet. They also ignore the crucial fact that many adversaries are incapacitated due to psychological rather than physiological reasons: they decide to stop, but are not forced to stop.

Mr. Wolberg never provided Marshall or Sanow any of the reports, test results, photos or evidence which they insist the inspect prior to including a shooting in their data base. As a result, the veracity of their entire data base is questionable. The verisimilitude of the author’s "street result" data is also in doubt since they violate basic principles of scientific research by not publishing their original data and by claiming "secrecy" when asked to identify their source documentation so that independent researchers who investigate wound ballistics could inspect their original information and verify their results.

 

[JohnKSa]

Rather than retype the same stuff that's been circulating for the last decade and a half, or better, I'm going to borrow content that's freely available and find-able via Google search.
...
http://www.firearmstactical.com...
...
International Wound Ballistics Association
...
Fackler, Martin L., MD
...
Fackler, Martin L., MD
...
http://www.firearmstactical.com...
...
http://www.firearmstactical.com...
...
http://www.firearmstactical.com...

My guess is you got it (indirectly) from something one of the M&S opponents alleged.

No guessing required now...

 

[Gryffydd]

No guessing required now...

I think it's funny how you're doing the same thing people keep accusing the M&S critics of doing. Rather than countering the arguments made in rbernie's links, you just say "oh, Fackler" and roll your eyes. Just because it was written by somebody who was an "opponent" doesn't release you from still having to address the arguments.

 

[RDak]

I always like reading these discussions because they give me a better handle on understanding articles and/or studies I have read on this subject.

Since my mother is a surgical forensic pathologist with close to 40 years experience, I have had direct access to people who do the medical examinations and know proper medical procedures. Since I've worked in the legal field, I'm familiar with legal and HIPPA regulations plus proper procedures involved in shootings -no DA, Judiciary, police Agency, medical professional or any law firms representing anyone involved in a shooting would publicize any information. I've twice fired weapons in anger while in Asia and have never seen anyone practicing a one-shot-stop combat philosophy. I've squatted in the forests of Cambodia talking with ex-Khmer Rouge guerrillas and discussed the merits of small arms, none of the seasoned veterans have ever stopped at one-shot unless it was an execution. I've also spent considerable time & money training with SWAT, SEAL and a Delta Operator; none of them have ever come close to sharing a "one shot stop" methodology in their combatives philosophy.

But this quote sticks out to me for some reason. The bolded part, after I thought about it, is true. I read it and said to myself "well duh" CWL is correct. (I'm embarrassed that I never thought about this real world factor. )

I guess we'll never really know for sure about one stop results but I don't feel as bad because we almost always fire more than one cartridge.

But, darn it, I'd still like to know the definitive answer!!

 

[rbernie]

No guessing required now...

I also note that evidently Doc Robert's viewpoints are meaningless. Throwin' the baby out with the bathwater is hardly an intellectually rigorous exercise.

I guess we'll never really know for sure about one stop results but I don't feel as bad because we almost always fire more than one cartridge.

And this is clearly one of the big flaws in their study. By eliminating those incidents where multiple shots were fired into The Bad Guy, they eliminate a huge amount of potentially useful data and focus only on those incidents where ONE SINGLE SHOT was either physically incapacitating OR emotionally incapacitating (but we'll never know which, since we don't actually know how the bullet performed, where it hit, what tissue it disrupted, or whether The Bad Guy lived or died).

But, darn it, I'd still like to know the definitive answer!!

Doc Roberts has some really interesting wound physiology work that should be mandatory reading for anyone that claims to have an opinion in the matter. He can be found over on TacticalForums.

 

[RDak]

Thanks for the info. rbernie!

I just registered at that site but have to get approved, so I have to wait before reading Doc Roberts stuff.

 

[NoAlibi]

Question for those who have actually read M&S

I have not read M&S yet, but with so many posters advocating pulling the trigger until the magazine is empty (A philosphy that I basiclly subscibe to) I was wondering where in M&S's book, if at all, do they recommend that you pull the trigger only once?

PS - This has been a very enjoyable and interesting discussion and I commend the posters for keeping such a contoversial topic this civil. It's the practice of "Loyal Opposition", as the Brits say, that serves the community best.

 

[hardluk1]

This is get'n real good now.

 

[rbernie]

Anyone going over the TF for a look-see would be advised to be professional and polite. That is a forum for serious-minded folk and I would recommend that any interactions be done thoughtfully.

 

[JohnKSa]

I also note that evidently Doc Robert's viewpoints are meaningless.

Dr. Roberts the Navy dentist? I didn't say they were meaningless, but it's pretty obvious Dr. Roberts relies quite heavily on Fackler for his facts--about a third of his cites are to works by Fackler.

Ok, you want to know what I think of Dr. Roberts' comments? Ok, there is one thing that jumps out at me after briefly skimming his "review" of the M&S book. Let's look at this paragraph:

The penetration depths of test shots into ordnance gelatin listed by Marshall and Sanow in Table 17-1 are considerably deeper than those reported by other wound ballistic research facilities throughout the United States, as illustrated by the following examples: Table 17-1 lists the penetration of the Winchester 147gr JHP as 15.9 inches, while data from the Southeast Missouri Regional Crime Laboratory indicates only a 13 inch average penetration; with the Federal .357 Magnum 125gr JHP, Table 17-1 lists a penetration depth of 13.3 inches, while the FBI reports only a 10.6 inch average penetration; and Table 17-1 gives a penetration depth of 17.1 inches for the Remington .45 ACP 185gr JHP, while Letterman Army Institute of Research data shows only a 10.9 inch average penetration.3,4,5​

Unfortunately, I don't know how LAI or SE MO lab tests ammunition penetration so I can't begin to explain why their numbers might differ from the M&S figures. It would have been nice if Dr. Roberts had described their methods so we would have some idea of how to compare them...

BUT, happily, I happen to know how M&S got their penetration figures and also how the FBI got theirs. Now, the question that an unbiased and critically thinking reader would ask is: "WHY is there such a marked difference in the two results?" A biased reader is already done. Depending on his view, he's either decided that Dr. Roberts is an idiot and just trying to make M&S look bad or he's sure that M&S must be idiots (and bad liars for that matter) for not making up numbers that agreed better with the FBI's results.

But we're assuming that maybe there is a reason for the difference so let's look a little deeper.

The M&S number is derived from bare gelatin testing while the FBI figure is an average penetration figure involving multiple tests using not only bare and clothed gelatin but also such intermediate barriers as two pieces of 20 gauge, hot rolled steel, two pieces of half-inch standard gypsum board, one piece of three-quarter inch AA fir plywood, one piece of A.S.I. one-quarter inch laminated automobile safety glass placed at an angle of 45°, heavy clothing at 20 yards and automobile glass at 20 yards.

Not too surprising then that the FBI average penetration figure is a good bit different than the M&S number.

Unfortunately now we're left with only two options. Either Dr. Roberts, the esteemed dentist, and self-proclaimed terminal ballistics expert doesn't know how the FBI tests penetration or he intentionally did an apples to oranges comparison in an attempt to unjustly discredit M&S. Neither option is particularly inspiring...

Well, whichever of the two options you choose to believe, you're left with the dilemma that Dr. Roberts is FAR less critical of Wolberg and the San Diego PD who, with impunity, quote a 13.0" penetration figure for the 147gr 9mm bullet, in spite of the fact that that number differs from the FBI figures by almost exactly the same magnitude that the M&S .357Mag number does.

I was wondering where in M&S's book, if at all, do they recommend that you pull the trigger only once?

They absolutely do not make that recommendation at all!​

They gathered and presented the data the way they did in an attempt to isolate caliber differences--it was not in any way, shape, or form meant to be advice on how many times to fire in a self-defense scenario. I have no idea how people got the impression that M&S were recommending shooting only once in self-defense.

 

[RON in PA]

M&S never said to pull the trigger only once, but they did give the distinct impression in their first book that repeat shots didn't contribute to "stopping".

 

[JohnKSa]

...they did give the distinct impression in their first book that repeat shots didn't contribute to "stopping".

I'd be very interested to see a quote from any M&S work that gives the distinct impression that repeat shots don't contribute to stopping.

 

[rbernie]

Either Dr. Roberts, the esteemed dentist, and self-proclaimed terminal ballistics expert doesn't know how the FBI tests penetration or he intentionally did an apples to oranges comparison in an attempt to unjustly discredit M&S.

While your observations are not inaccurate, it is unknown whether the FBI test protocol was fully followed in the test data presented (since at the time the review was written, the full protocol was less than five years in existence and the actual date of the test is unknown). I will absolutely concur that more rigorous test data should have been included in the critique, if the point was to stand on its own merit (as it should). I am surprised that you haven't taken fault with the FBI test protocol itself, since it is largely the work of Fowler, et al. and uses ballistic gel testing as the core of its effectivity evaluations.

But why not swing at the rest of the issues presented in ANY of the papers or the comments made here, and not just at one piece of low-hanging fruit? Discrediting the body of objections to the M&S work based upon one paragraph in one paper written fifteen years ago, even when eloquently done, hardly seems intellectually rigorous.

I do find it interesting that you choose to vocalize the fact that Dr Roberts' medical degree is dental (impugning his capacity to speak on these sorts of matters, presumably) rather than address any of the wound analysis that he's conducted in the last fifteen years or any of the other objections he raised. He is no less a member of the IWBA than Marshall or Sanow, and (to his credit) he publishes work that includes source data and that is freely open to peer review. Neither Marshall nor Sanow possess medical degrees or any other formal qualification in terminal ballistics, and yet nobody in this dialog felt the need to sneer at 'the Detroit beat cop and self-proclaimed terminal ballistics expert' as a means of not-so-subtle character malignment.

You asked:

What was it about their study that initially led you to believe that their statistical methods were flawed?

A number of answers have emerged, and yet sadly you have neglected to respond or acknowledge those answers. Very specifically, the second and third of the seven criteria used to collect source data, while not ill-intentioned, seem likely to doom the results.

Handgun Stopping Power: The Definitive Study
by Evan P. Marshall & Edwin J. Sanow

Excepted from Chapter 7:
1) Only torso shots were counted
2) Multiple hits were NOT counted
3) A stop was defined as: "if a victim was assaulting someone, he collapsed without being able to fire another shot or strike another blow. If he was fleeing, he collapsed within 10 feet."
4) Having or being able to review some of the following: police reports, evidence technician reports, statements by the victim (if he survived), homicide reports, autopsy results and photos
5) Recovered bullets were examined or photographed by Marshall or photos were provided by a second party
6) A minimum of five shootings were required for the load to be included in the study

 

[christcorp]

M&S never said to pull the trigger only once, but they did give the distinct impression in their first book that repeat shots didn't contribute to "stopping".

This is another reason to question their reasoning. The "BASIC" laws of physics and biology; that ANY JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Student knows; is that the MORE holes in the human body; the more blood loss; thus the lower blood pressure; and greater chance of death. Even if slightly, it obviously contributes to "STOPPING". Plus, the MORE shots taken, the more the odds go up of hitting a vital organ or the central nervous system. I.e. If you shoot once, and only hit a lung, then you have a 0% chance of that single bullet jumping out of or around inside the body, and striking the brain stem, spinal cord, or other portion of the CNS. If you fire even just 1 more bullet, your odds of hitting the cns and creating an immediate stop, just went up 100%.

And while we're at it, we all recognize that you can manufacture and take 50 cars right of the assembly line with the same exact motor and everything, and in the Daytona 500, they will not perform exactly the same. Obviously, the DRIVER is a major deciding factor. If it wasn't for the abilities of the drivers, there'd be no reason to watch the daytona 500. It would be a tie race among many of the cars. Well, a shooting victim is exactly the same way. 2 people shot by the same exact gun; same exact ammo; same exact spot on their body (Minus the CNS); will react to this shot completely different from each other.

I know that M&S aren't intentionally trying to mislead people. I know they mean well. And I know they are trying to provide a "SCIENTIFIC" means of rating different caliber hand guns. Well guess what; the NON-Scientific attributes to a gun shooting is EQUALLY as important to the Scientific portion of ballistics, kinetic energy, diameter size, etc...

Case in point. Can there be, and have we seen reports where an individual was shot with a small caliber handgun and stopped/died in their tracks? E.g. shot in the head, heart, CNS? Most definitely... We know this has happened. And we almost all agree that just about any caliber if shot in the brain stem, heart, or other part of the CNS will drop an attacker right in their tracks. 25acp, 32acp, 9mm, 45acp, 44 mag, etc... So, the question becomes; does a larger caliber handgun actually increase the chances of stopping an attacker with just one shot? The ONLY THINGS that a larger caliber bullet does when shot at another person is:

1. Creates a larger hole; thus more blood loss; thus faster chance of passing out due to blood loss. (But much of this is up to the shooting victim and their psych at the time)

2. Because of more energy, the round will get the "ATTENTION" of the shooting victim more quickly. This can cause a quicker "Psychological" response to being shot. Again; this depends on the person. Some people will realize they've been shot, and their brain will immediately shut down and they will collapse, even though not dead. Others will keep on coming. Some people will see the sight of their own blood and they'll faint.

3. The large bullet, not only creating a larger hole and more blood loss, also increases the odds of hitting a vital spot or CNA based on the simply law of physics. If a 25acp and a 45acp are shot at the same person, in the exact same spot, and the 25acp missed the spinal cord by 0.00001 inches; the 45acp WOULD HIT IT!!! This is simple physics.

These are the only things a bullet can do proactively to a shooting victim. Everything else leading to the "RESULT" of the gun shooting, is totally up to the psychology and mental condition of the shooting victim.

These are just some of the reasons I don't buy the research. On top of what I've already mentioned stating that the ONLY way a shooting victim was shot only once (Which is an extremely SMALL PERCENTAGE of shootings); is if the victim was shot once and ran away; or the shooter shot once and ran away. In which case, we have no idea how long it took for the shooting victim to die. Did they run down the street and died 10 minutes later. Did it hit them in the heart and they died immediately. If they hadn't ran away, or the shooter hadn't taken off running, WOULD the shooting victim has stood there and fought back for another volley of shots; which then wouldn't have been used in their study because it was more than 1 shot? But to think that a 2nd or more shot wouldn't have contributed to stopping is plan stupid.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

this debate will actually be resolved.

I do not share that opinion. In fact, I will bet my last nickel that nothing will be "resolved", other than what we already know - shot placement is everything, and if it ain't a longgun, it ain't a "stopper". I actually laughed when I read that statement.

 

[tipoc]

Where did you get your information on the problems with the M&S OSS numbers? My guess is you got it (indirectly) from something one of the M&S opponents alleged. Just because it's not as wild as some of the allegations doesn't mean it's automatically correct. On the other hand, for example, if you were to have some personal insight into statistics and how they relate to studies like the M&S work that would be pretty interesting.

Actually John I got it from reading their books. Back in posts number 55 I raised a few problems with their studies. I said...

They have published 3 books and many articles purporting to show the best bullets to use in any given caliber and, in some cases which calibers produce more "One Shot Stops" than others. There is a lot of useful information in their books. They have some strong defenders (Massad Ayoob is one). But the work on the OSS concept is wrong and flawed.

Let's just look at a few things, not the only things, but just a few to show the problem they have had. We won't get into how they gathered their information or processed it, that's something else.

1) M&S regard a OSS as any hit to the torso which completely incapacitated the attacker. Incapacitation meant the attacker was physically unable to attack anyone even with a knife. The attacker could run up to 10 feet after being shot.

It is only the above incidents that they included in their figuring. Any others were ignored. Right here are a couple of problems. a)Why 10 feet? Why not 7 feet or 12? If a person is walking 10 feet can't they still be shooting? b)All hits to the torso are weighed evenly. A shot through a love handles is the same as a shot through both lungs. Shot placement is ruled out of the picture along with the type of wound. c) Who decides they are "incapacitated" that is incapable of attacking or harming anyone? If they are dead it's clear but if they are shot by a cop and drop to the ground and play dead or are stunned or in agony, who decides to keep one in as a OSS and toss the other.

These are just a couple of problems but there are more.

It's not just a matter of their statistical problems though these have been referred to. It is a matter of method . Their method is off when it comes to the OSS statistics and in trying to show what they try to.

tipoc

 

[Japle]

Posted by NoAlibi:
I have not read M&S yet, but with so many posters advocating pulling the trigger until the magazine is empty (A philosphy that I basiclly subscibe to) I was wondering where in M&S's book, if at all, do they recommend that you pull the trigger only once?

“The key is to hit them hard, hit them fast, and hit them repeatedly. The one shot stop is a unit of measurement not a tactical philosophy.”
Evan Marshall

Also, I've taken statistics classes. What M&S published doesn't qualify as statistics. It's simple arithmetic.
They established their criteria for what a "one-shot stop" means (not everyone agrees with their criteria, but it's reasonable and they had to use something), went through as many verified shootings as they could and averaged the results.

I also find it interesting that Fackler's followers seem to slam M&S at every opportunity, yet M&S gave Fackler full credit for his contributions to the field in their books.

 

[Gryffydd]

One of my main problems with their philosophy is that they don't differentiate between psychological stops and true stops. I understand that if they had enough shootings you would start to see better numbers due to more real stops with the better rounds. However, some of their rounds have shockingly small sample sizes. So small that they really shouldn't have even been published. Second of all, that's such a huge unknown that even with a sample size in the thousands it makes the margin of error enormous.