Are the OSS statistics completely false ?

[mec]

"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!)"

'and they never would be missed! they never would be missed!'

A perfect example of why the Europeans prefer small caliber pistols of variable velocity. One shot stops approache 100% when you are chiefly shooting unarmed people in the back of the head.

 

[Sleuth]

Coylh, That's not true.
This actually happened to me, Nov. 1970, Wash. DC, about 4 blocks from the White House, while I was attending Treasury Law Enforcement Officers School. Gun was a S&W M60, carried strong side under my jacket. I never showed the gun,he just understood from my body language that I was not an run-of-the-mill out of town tourist.

I employed fight, he employed flight! He chose wisely.


And I enjoy Monty Python, Mad Man!

 

[cordex]

The example you give would not be applicable, because you didn't use your ammunition.

So what if you fired but missed and they still ran? Or barely grazed 'em and they didn't realize it? Or nailed 'em with a through and through but they didn't know they were hit?

All have the same initial and desired effect on the perp (in this limited case) regardless of whether they do any damage at all.

 

[Sleuth]

A friend of mine with the Border Patrol arrested a group of about 20 ilegal aliens. One started to incite the others to charge him, and attacked - my fired fired 1 round, OO buck, over the alien's head, causing him to trip & fall. No hits, 100% stop of all 20. Score that one for me.

(I score it 100% stopping power, 0 (ZERO) lethality.)

 

[mec]

"under my jacket. I never showed the gun,he just understood from my body language that I was not an run-of-the-mill out of town tourist."

Funny you should mention it. I visited DC and was walking down the street with a camer tripod resting on my shoulder- more or less like a baseball bat. A dude crossed to the opposite sidewalk just because of my appearance.

 

[coylh]

Cortex: Would you like to modify the working definition to account for the examples you cite?

 

[Brasso]

Why make this so difficult? We all know that to stop a "determined" attacker you have to do one of two things. 1. Hit the cns, or 2. Bleed them out. Regardless of a rounds energy, or other mystic qualities it has to do one of these two things. Ballistic gelatin may never have attacked anyone, but it does let us compare bullet performance in a repeatable fashion. If it works better in gelatin it will work better on flesh. Simple.

Notice I said "determined" attacker. Just beause someone stops for psychological reasons, even if it is because you're particular cartridge has 100 ft/lbs more energy than mine, doesn't mean a darn thing. It's the determined attacker who doesn't care if he dies that we ultimately have to worry about. Again, if it works in gel, it works on flesh. Forget the OSS numbers. They are less than meaningless.

 

[cordex]

coylh,
It can't be done.

If it rained on a given day of the year 7 times in the last decade, can you say that there is a 70 percent chance of rain on that day of the year in the future?

You can find out what makes people break, and how to make a bullet work towards those ends (hollow points, hardball, frangible, bigger, smaller, slower, faster - whatever), but determining what a given cartridge will do when fired at an unknown location on an a person of unknown demeanor, unknown body mass, unknown protection, with an unknown level of unknown substances present in their body is impossible.

 

[BluesBear]

Cordex,

There's a 99% chance it'll leave a scar.

 

[Cellar Dweller]

only when a minimum of five instances of shooting with a particular load/calibre combination have occurred.

Statistically irrelevant. One can't formulate a "scientific" study based on a minimum of five samples, much less CHERRYPICKED samples.

One cannot disregard a large number of variables and conclude anything, much less "rate" anything.

One cannot extrapolate based on flawed data and have valid results.

One cannot discard data that does not fit the author's premise and call it a valid study (or an observation, or a trend, or "interesting" or whatever adjectives you wanna throw in).

One cannot generate a "valid" % for 9mm/115gr/JHP without breaking down revolver/pistol/carbine/SMG and barrel length for that cartridge.

If it is "scientific," then it is independently reproducible. If it cannot be reproduced, it is junk science. If a round is classified 65% OSS, then the next 100 cherrypicked shootings of that round should yield 65% +/- a couple percent, not something like 88% or 24%).

Trying to formulate a truly scientific OSS study is like trying to determine which is the best automobile color (the exact shade, not a generalized "red" or "black") or who was the one greatest President (domestic? international? all-around?).

 

[coylh]

determining what a given cartridge will do when fired at an unknown location on an a person of unknown demeanor, unknown body mass, unknown protection, with an unknown level of unknown substances present in their body is impossible

Sure are a lot of pessemistic people around here. I've left the gates wide open in asking for ideas about an ideal study. Is it so hard to imagine an experiment where we know body mass, demeanor, substances present, placement of shot, etc?

It can't be done.