9mm defence cartridges

All handguns are relatively poor "stoppers" regardless of caliber or bullet used. Shot placement and sufficient penetration are paramount, all else is secondary.
With that being said, I carry 147gr bonded as I find it has a little more kick but less snap out of my S&W M&P 9c's which makes for faster followup shots.
Tomac

I was reading everything M&S published – before they published their book. I was in college at the time and I remember one article they published where they gave “One Shot Stop” percentages for a few rounds. They also made predictions about the rounds stopping power based on a simple averaging of what they decided were “One Shot Stops” I was taking a statistics class at the time. In the article, Marshall had results for a round that had 12 shootings, another round had 32, some of the other rounds had different sized data sets, but the fact that M&S took a data sample of 12 and put it up against other data samples of 30 – 40 and believed that their comparisons were valid showed me that they didn’t know anything about statistics, and to make predictions without at least using linear regression or ANOVA, seemed incompetent – or at least showed that they were way out of their field of expertise.
There seems to be an argument here that pointing out problems with Fackler’s work adds credibility to M&S – that doesn’t follow logically. There also seems to be an argument that because the Courtney’s are smart people who graduated with hard science degrees from prestigious schools and they haven’t discredited M&S work - then there must be something Marshall & Sanow’s “work”, and their stopping power theories. Well just because someone is accomplished in academia doesn’t mean that they don’t have an axe to grind. The problems with M&S’s methodologies are well documented, their data is seriously skewed.
For the Courtney’s to ignore the problems with M&S’s assertions and methodologies is unprofessional. They point out problems with Fackler’s criticisms of other studies and conveniently ignore the glaring problems with M&S
I can agree with some of what the Courtney’s are saying – yes Fackler’s referencing of Vietnam Era vets may now be irrelevant given that researchers have the tools to look at microscopic damage to nerve tissue whereas they either did not have that technology or they never did those kind of examinations on wounded soldiers during the Vietnam War. OK – so ya, but it still seems like nit picking.

I've heard that the FBI issues the Winchester 147gr PDX to the agents using 9mm.

Just off the top of my head - without verifying it, I thought the PDX penetrated between 15"-16"

I just did a little Googling and it looks like the FBI moved away from the 147gr Winchester Q4364 and are using the 147 Speer Gold Dot ?

Well - it's still 147gr

C0untZer0 said:

I've heard that the FBI issues the Winchester 147gr PDX to the agents using 9mm.

Just off the top of my head - without verifying it, I thought the PDX penetrated between 15"-16"

I just did a little Googling and it looks like the FBI moved away from the 147gr Winchester Q4364 and are using the 147 Speer Gold Dot ?

Well - it's still 147gr

Click to expand...

According to Winchester, the RA9B which uses the same bullet as the 147 gr PDX1 expands to 0.58" and penetrates to a depth of 15.8" after the FBI "heavy clothing" barrier.

No one has done more axe grinding than Fackler. Even after he misguided the FBI through 3 ammunition failures. At least M&S point out the limited numbers in a data set. If they were attempting to mislead they probably wouldn't have mentioned it.

Speaking of "hook, line and sinker", your repetitive posting of the same link suggests a that you, too, have suffered that fate.

Click to expand...

You mean the one you hope nobody will click on? What about that permanent link in your sig line? Wah, Wah, Wah!
Go away, you're becoming tiresome and repetitive.

CZ57 said:

No one has done more axe grinding than Fackler, Even after he misguided the FBI through 3 ammunition failures. At least M&S point out the limited numbers in a data set. If they were attempting to mislead they probably wouldn't have mentioned it.

You mean the one you hope nobody will click on? What about that permanent link in your sig line? Wah, Wah, Wah!

Click to expand...

More venom, huh? What a great way to make your point.

CZ57 said:

Go away, you're becoming tiresome and repetitive.

Click to expand...

So much for logical debate- now you're going with insults and demands that I leave.

Who's having a "fit" now?

Now we are seeing the "real" CZ57, aren't we? What took so long?

The problems with M&S premise, assertions, and methodologies fall apart without help from Fackler.

So Fackler is an axe-grinder - so what - that doesn't doesn't turn Marshall's pile of statistical maunure into a diamond.

The FBI is still using 147gr rounds for their nines and I don't think it's because they're under Fackler's spell. The FBI has smart people working in the bureau, it’s not like they just put on their big boy pants yesterday when it comes to ballistics and bullet performance.

The problems with M&S premise, assertions, and methodologies fall apart without help from Fackler.

So Fackler is an axe-grinder - so what - that doesn't doesn't turn Marshall's pile of statistical maunure into a diamond.

The FBI is still using 147gr rounds for their nines and I don't think it's because they're under Fackler's spell. The FBI has smart people working in the bureau, it’s not like they just put on their big boy pants yesterday when it comes to ballistics and bullet performance.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't know of any agency that M&S have guided through 3 ammo failures, do you? Since the .40 S&W Glock is standard issue for the FBI, how many nines do you think they're actually using? By all means, follow the lead of the FBI. I'll stick with the agency that has more actual gunfighting experience. After retiring their revolvers and going through a transition where the 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP were allowed for a few years, the Texas DPS is using a round that tends to agree with Courtney's research and the .357 SIG has not failed them.

More venom, huh? What a great way to make your point.

Click to expand...

Funny! I state a FACT and you call it venom.

And asking you to go away was not a demand. It was wishful thinking.

For someone who makes this claim-

CZ57 said:

For the record, I don't believe M&S to be the definitive answer either as there is no definitive answer.

Click to expand...

-you certainly seem to have a personal investment in proving M&S to be legitimate.

For all the whining that you do about axe-grinding-

CZ57 said:

Well, I don't know of any agency that M&S have guided through 3 ammo failures, do you?

Click to expand...

-you sure do your share of it.

Since you seem to find axe-grinding to be the hallmark of a poor argument, can we assume that your perspective applies to your axe-grinding, too?