Are the OSS statistics completely false ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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%.

:)
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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!
 
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...
 
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!!!!
 
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.
 
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.
 
ok. here it is!

the final word in stopping power!
attachment.php
 
Last edited:
1. Is scientific.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
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.
 
Attacker A is shot, drops to ground with legs paralyzed, but continues to shoot at you. NOT STOPPED.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 



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

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
 
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.
 
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!)
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Chart on different calibers and their stopping power
2
Replies
28
Views
5K
fastbolt
fastbolt
Back
Top