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...
Government agencies create protocols for a reason. Speculation that the FBI may not have followed its own testing protocol is pointless in the absence of some evidence that demonstrates (or strongly implies--or even weakly implies for that matter) that they didn't.
I am surprised that you haven't taken fault with the FBI test protocol itself...
Why in the world would I care how the FBI tests ammunition?
The testing method doesn't really matter as long as it's implemented consistently and provides information that is useful in comparing one caliber to another in at least some respect. The only reason I brought up their testing methods was because Roberts obviously either had no clue about their testing methods or knew the methods but disengenuously used the figures to try to discredit M&S anyway.
Also, as pointed out, he doesn't even comment on the fact that Wolberg's penetration figures for the 147gr 9mm differ in a similarly significant manner from the FBI figures.
I do find it interesting that you choose to vocalize the fact that Dr Roberts' medical degree is dental...
Oh, come on.
...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 should re-read the thread. Some of the labels given to M&S on this thread:
- a pair of nobodies who made up their data
- the M&S fraud...intentionally misrepresented their data
- Compared to ... Dr. Martin Fackler, M&S's look like a pair of bubbas in new camos, claiming to be Vietnam Snipers...
Yeah, I'm
really stepping over the line by noting that "Doc Roberts" is a dentist.
A number of answers have emerged, and yet sadly you have neglected to respond or acknowledge those answers.
I think everyone (well almost) is missing the point.
Japle said:
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.
Yes.
Multiple hits were NOT counted
Ok, explain how counting multiple hit shootings would make it easier to compare large numbers of shootings and provide more revealing results.
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."
How would you define a "stop"? How would your definition make it easier to compare large numbers of shootings and provide more revealing results?
a)Why 10 feet? Why not 7 feet or 12? If a person is walking 10 feet can't they still be shooting?
Ok, use 7 feet or 12 feet or whatever number you think sounds good. How does that make it easier to compare large numbers of shootings and provide more revealing results?
Let's take another tack. Going back to the FBI testing, why did they choose to use "three-quarter inch AA fir plywood". Why not birch plywood? Why not A plywood instead of AA? The bottom line is that you have to pick something when you set up a study/test and no matter what you pick it's not going to be perfectly representative.
Even if M&S had restricted their data to ONLY heart shots, we'd have people asking if the bullet hit one of the ventricles, the atria or the large vessels at the top of the heart and explaining how different the results could be from that HUGE difference in shot placement. The point of picking a large data set is that you hope that some of the variables will average out and you'll be left with something that gives you a hint of what you're looking for.
The M&S data isn't rigorously scientific, but they never claim that it is. I think it's a mistake to read off the numbers and say that load X is better than load Y because it scores 1% (or 10% or maybe even 20%) better. It's a lot more complicated than that, especially when the sample sizes are tiny. On the other hand when you see that load X scores 40% or 50% better than load Y
and both load X & Y have been used in around 1K shootings each then perhaps there's some useful information in there somewhere. Is it really 40% better? I wouldn't bet on it. But is is better? I wouldn't bet against it.
Abandon the a priori assumption that it is the cartridge (and a particular loading of that cartridge) that is the important factor.
Is it really necessary to explain why people don't undertake the huge effort (and career risk if M&S' experiences are any judge) of a study of caliber performance with the starting assumption that caliber performance isn't an important factor?
For what it's worth, I agree heartily that caliber performance plays a MUCH smaller role in whether the opponent stops or not than most people seem to. Based on the responses I've seen on the web, I'm far more likely to err on the side of undervaluing caliber differences as a factor than overvaluing them. But I do believe that there are SOME differences and I also believe that:
1. People desperately want to quantify those differences, small though they may be.
2. People will keep trying until they quantify those differences or prove conclusively it can't be done.
3. No one is going to start a major work on caliber performance difference based on the assumption that it's pointless because caliber performance difference is not an important factor.
