Are the OSS statistics completely false ?
- Thread starter Newton
- Start date
- Status
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
Um, you are missing the point. The study itself is invalid by design... somebody repeating the same junk experimental design M&S used would get results just as worthless as the M&S results.
Think about it: the study can't reliably tell the difference between a .40 S&W load, a .308 rifle load, and a 12ga slug load. If it can't resolve those differences, it is logically impossible for it to reliably resolve piss-ant differences between pistol calibers. At best, it's like having a ruler incremented only in yards, but claiming you can measure inches with it.
Okay, folks. I wrote this a long time ago on an email list, and I'll repost it in part here.
Most of the following arguments are taken indirectly from sources like:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm
and
http://www.kuci.uci.edu/~dany/firearms/stoppers.html
and
http://www.recguns.com/Sources/OutIV.html
and
http://yarchive.net/gun/ammo/marshall_sanow.html
... in other words a few aricles found on the first page of Google if
you search for: Marshall Sanow
There are a few problems with their data beyond my own personal doubts.
How are One Shot Stops (OSS's) calculated?
1) Only torso shots were used;
2) Multiple hits were also discarded. "Again, I didn't consider it a
true indication of any round's performance to include instances where
the victim took three hollowpoints in the chest and collapsed. ... If I
included multiple hits this study could legitimately be attacked on the
grounds that multiple hits are not a reliable indicator as to any
round's stopping power.";
3) A stop was defined as: "if a victim was assualting someone, he
collapsed without being able to fire another shot or strike another
blow. If he was fleeing, he collapsed within 10 feet.";
4) "In order to include a shooting in this study, I insisted on either
having or being able to review some of the folowing: police reports,
evidence tech-nician reports, statements by the victim (if he survived),
homicide reports, autopsy results and photos. Whenever possible, I also
talked to the emergency room doctors and attending physicians";
5) Recovered bullets were either personally examined or photographed by
Marshall or photos were provided by a second party. He noted that there
were several stops where the hollowpoints failed to expand convincing
him that bullet placement is the real key to stopping power.
6) A minimum number of five shootings was required for the load to be
included in the study.
The problem lies with the second criterion. He discards all data where
more than one hit was recorded. But if it takes three shots, shouldn't
that technically count as a failure of the load to be a "One Shot
Stop"? Instead, they're ignored.
Next, try subtracting the data in Petersen's 1988 report from the 1992
"Handgun Stopping Power" and the 1992 HSP dataset from the "Street
Stoppers" 1996 data.
(http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume3/number1/TABLE2-1.PDF)
Since they are all ostensibly continuations of the same data set, this
procedure should give you three time periods, each distinctly reporting
the time period over which it was collected. With me so far?
Now, look at each data set.
Some cartridges in the second data set (supposedly collected between
1988 and 1996) come out with 100% or greater effectiveness rating. As
in, there were more "stops" attributed to a specific cartridge recorded
between those dates than there were shots fired using that same
cartridge.
An example of some possible discrepencies?
Let's look at the .380 ACP Federal 90- grain JHP. It scored 59% in the
1988 publication, 63% in the 1992 publication and 69% in the 1996
publication. Reasonable to assume that the ammunition is improving,
maybe? Work the numbers out and you find that between 1992 and 1996
this round jumped to 100% effectiveness. Hmmm ... well, sometimes
that's just the way the cookie crumbles, eh? I guess over the 4 years
between 1992 and 1996, the 15 shots that were counted here with the
Federal .380 JHP were all perfect OSSs. Could just be good luck, right?
How about the .45 ACP CCI 200-grain JHP?
In the 1988-1992 data set it scored 19 stops in 16 incidents.
That means that if you're carrying CCI 200-grain JHP in your pistol
you're more likely to stop a baddie by shooting him than you are to be
assaulted by one and end up shooting him.
There about 16 instances of this kind of glaring sample error.
Still seem sound? If there are errors that big, how accurate can the
rest be?
But for the sake of debate, let's just say that these were typos or
something else relatively dismissable (a typo that you may be staking
your life on, mind you).
Remember the criteria for a OSS? Remember the one about Marshall says
"I insisted on either having or being able to review some of the
folowing: police reports, evidence technician reports, statements by the
victim (if he survived), homicide reports, autopsy results and photos.
Whenever possible, I also talked to the emergency room doctors and
attending physicians";?
And remember the bit about
"Recovered bullets were either personally examined or photographed by
Marshall or photos were provided by a second party."
There were 20,742 cases listed in the 1996 "Street Stoppers" book. That
was an increase of 14,606 cases from the 1992 data. If we say he spent
no more than an average of two hours on every case (reviewing police
reports, evidence technician reports, statements by surviving victims,
homicide reports, autopsy results and photos and interviewing ER doctors
and attending physicians) and threw no cases out (i.e. assuming every
case that he found ended up fitting his criteria) than he spent 29,212
man-hours on this book (just updating it from 1992, remember).
A person who works 8 hours a day and takes no vacation beyond weekends
puts in about 2,088 hours each year. That means he either had 14 people
working full-time (no over-time, but no vacations either) on this
project for four years or he did nothing else for 20 hours each day,
every day. Even given so many benefits of the doubt (that he was able
to fully evaluate each case in two hours including processing all
evidence requests, photos, interviews and everything, that he only found
suitable cases, etc), there is simply too much data here for me to
believe he was able to process it.
I think I've said enough on this.
Most of the following arguments are taken indirectly from sources like:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm
and
http://www.kuci.uci.edu/~dany/firearms/stoppers.html
and
http://www.recguns.com/Sources/OutIV.html
and
http://yarchive.net/gun/ammo/marshall_sanow.html
... in other words a few aricles found on the first page of Google if
you search for: Marshall Sanow
There are a few problems with their data beyond my own personal doubts.
How are One Shot Stops (OSS's) calculated?
1) Only torso shots were used;
2) Multiple hits were also discarded. "Again, I didn't consider it a
true indication of any round's performance to include instances where
the victim took three hollowpoints in the chest and collapsed. ... If I
included multiple hits this study could legitimately be attacked on the
grounds that multiple hits are not a reliable indicator as to any
round's stopping power.";
3) A stop was defined as: "if a victim was assualting someone, he
collapsed without being able to fire another shot or strike another
blow. If he was fleeing, he collapsed within 10 feet.";
4) "In order to include a shooting in this study, I insisted on either
having or being able to review some of the folowing: police reports,
evidence tech-nician reports, statements by the victim (if he survived),
homicide reports, autopsy results and photos. Whenever possible, I also
talked to the emergency room doctors and attending physicians";
5) Recovered bullets were either personally examined or photographed by
Marshall or photos were provided by a second party. He noted that there
were several stops where the hollowpoints failed to expand convincing
him that bullet placement is the real key to stopping power.
6) A minimum number of five shootings was required for the load to be
included in the study.
The problem lies with the second criterion. He discards all data where
more than one hit was recorded. But if it takes three shots, shouldn't
that technically count as a failure of the load to be a "One Shot
Stop"? Instead, they're ignored.
Next, try subtracting the data in Petersen's 1988 report from the 1992
"Handgun Stopping Power" and the 1992 HSP dataset from the "Street
Stoppers" 1996 data.
(http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume3/number1/TABLE2-1.PDF)
Since they are all ostensibly continuations of the same data set, this
procedure should give you three time periods, each distinctly reporting
the time period over which it was collected. With me so far?
Now, look at each data set.
Some cartridges in the second data set (supposedly collected between
1988 and 1996) come out with 100% or greater effectiveness rating. As
in, there were more "stops" attributed to a specific cartridge recorded
between those dates than there were shots fired using that same
cartridge.
An example of some possible discrepencies?
Let's look at the .380 ACP Federal 90- grain JHP. It scored 59% in the
1988 publication, 63% in the 1992 publication and 69% in the 1996
publication. Reasonable to assume that the ammunition is improving,
maybe? Work the numbers out and you find that between 1992 and 1996
this round jumped to 100% effectiveness. Hmmm ... well, sometimes
that's just the way the cookie crumbles, eh? I guess over the 4 years
between 1992 and 1996, the 15 shots that were counted here with the
Federal .380 JHP were all perfect OSSs. Could just be good luck, right?
How about the .45 ACP CCI 200-grain JHP?
In the 1988-1992 data set it scored 19 stops in 16 incidents.
That means that if you're carrying CCI 200-grain JHP in your pistol
you're more likely to stop a baddie by shooting him than you are to be
assaulted by one and end up shooting him.
There about 16 instances of this kind of glaring sample error.
Still seem sound? If there are errors that big, how accurate can the
rest be?
But for the sake of debate, let's just say that these were typos or
something else relatively dismissable (a typo that you may be staking
your life on, mind you).
Remember the criteria for a OSS? Remember the one about Marshall says
"I insisted on either having or being able to review some of the
folowing: police reports, evidence technician reports, statements by the
victim (if he survived), homicide reports, autopsy results and photos.
Whenever possible, I also talked to the emergency room doctors and
attending physicians";?
And remember the bit about
"Recovered bullets were either personally examined or photographed by
Marshall or photos were provided by a second party."
There were 20,742 cases listed in the 1996 "Street Stoppers" book. That
was an increase of 14,606 cases from the 1992 data. If we say he spent
no more than an average of two hours on every case (reviewing police
reports, evidence technician reports, statements by surviving victims,
homicide reports, autopsy results and photos and interviewing ER doctors
and attending physicians) and threw no cases out (i.e. assuming every
case that he found ended up fitting his criteria) than he spent 29,212
man-hours on this book (just updating it from 1992, remember).
A person who works 8 hours a day and takes no vacation beyond weekends
puts in about 2,088 hours each year. That means he either had 14 people
working full-time (no over-time, but no vacations either) on this
project for four years or he did nothing else for 20 hours each day,
every day. Even given so many benefits of the doubt (that he was able
to fully evaluate each case in two hours including processing all
evidence requests, photos, interviews and everything, that he only found
suitable cases, etc), there is simply too much data here for me to
believe he was able to process it.
I think I've said enough on this.
I've always thought the chief problem with collecting statistics on shootings is that they will overate popular calibers and loads in law enforcement.
When a bad guy gets shot:
(1) He knows he can give up and not be shot again.
(2) He knows he needs medical attention and that even if "wins" the rest of the gunfight, the police either just pick him up at the hospital or his bled out corpse at his or a friends house. Might as well drop gun roll over and be rushed to the hospital.
Good guys don't have such options in a gunfight...
When a bad guy gets shot:
(1) He knows he can give up and not be shot again.
(2) He knows he needs medical attention and that even if "wins" the rest of the gunfight, the police either just pick him up at the hospital or his bled out corpse at his or a friends house. Might as well drop gun roll over and be rushed to the hospital.
Good guys don't have such options in a gunfight...
Daniel T
Member
That right there totally invalidates all of M&S's "findings". Thanks cordex.
Three LEOs fire on a perp at the same time... all 3 score hits... perp collapses, fight is over... that constitutes a OSS failure?
It's the hanging chad thing... You can't always determine WHY multiple shots were fired from an after action report, so you throw them all out...
Sean,
You're saying that Marshall's report includes one shot stop data from rifle rounds... or is that a measurement you're applying to his handgun caliber data?
If the latter, shame on you... for bringing apricots to the table, while M&S are talking about only apples. Such an argument is wholly worthless in refuting their work because YOU are the one trying to mis-apply their standard of measurement, developed for a small data set (handgun ammunition) to rationalize a larger data set (handgun, rifle, and shotgun ammunition).
It's the hanging chad thing... You can't always determine WHY multiple shots were fired from an after action report, so you throw them all out...
Sean,
You're saying that Marshall's report includes one shot stop data from rifle rounds... or is that a measurement you're applying to his handgun caliber data?
If the latter, shame on you... for bringing apricots to the table, while M&S are talking about only apples. Such an argument is wholly worthless in refuting their work because YOU are the one trying to mis-apply their standard of measurement, developed for a small data set (handgun ammunition) to rationalize a larger data set (handgun, rifle, and shotgun ammunition).
I haven't read all of Marshall and Sanow's stuff, but there used to be a website based on their data with tables showing relative "stopping power" which included a few rifle and shotgun loads. Not sure if that is what Sean is referring to or not.
No, in that case, M&S ignore it altogether. It is a non-event.
Nope, that shouldn't even be considered due to the way it skews the data.
However, The guy that walks out of a 7-11 and has to fire 3 rounds into a bad guy before he goes down has to be considered of the findings of the study are completely worthless. It's simple logic really.
No it isn't the hanging chad thing. You can determine why multiple shots were fired in a huge amount of instances(bad guy no fall down). Use the determinable ones to base the study on and discard all the rest that might skew the data. Unless of course your interest is in not having accurate data with which to draw your conclusions. If that's the case then do it however you wish.
Lord Grey Boots
Member
The M&S reports are what is called a "Field Observation Study". With this type of study you need to narrow what you are looking at to small subset of the universe. IE, look at single shots to the torso, and ignore multi round and peripheral hits.
Ignoring these other shoots does not "invalidate the data", it only narrows the scope of what was studied. Because the same rule is applied to all the known population, you consistently define what you are measuring.
It sucks that the study doesn't (and can't) handle multi round hits, but there is no way to do that.
Field Observation Studies are very coarse measurements, and random influences impact individual samples greatly. The larger the sample population the better as random influences start to cancel each other out and trends develop.
The study doesn't deal with feeding reliability, accuracy, range, penetration of intervening materials, and controllability either. Those are also important issues in "stopping power". Does that mean that the M&S data is bogus? No. The study is of a limited scenario, and the results mean a very limited thing.
Can anyone claim that the top M&S performers are in reality much poorer performers than indicated? Not really.
Ignoring these other shoots does not "invalidate the data", it only narrows the scope of what was studied. Because the same rule is applied to all the known population, you consistently define what you are measuring.
It sucks that the study doesn't (and can't) handle multi round hits, but there is no way to do that.
Field Observation Studies are very coarse measurements, and random influences impact individual samples greatly. The larger the sample population the better as random influences start to cancel each other out and trends develop.
The study doesn't deal with feeding reliability, accuracy, range, penetration of intervening materials, and controllability either. Those are also important issues in "stopping power". Does that mean that the M&S data is bogus? No. The study is of a limited scenario, and the results mean a very limited thing.
Can anyone claim that the top M&S performers are in reality much poorer performers than indicated? Not really.
Lord Grey Boots
Member
You can call it that because thats the percentage of the single shot to the torso incidents (samples), that resulted the suspect ceasing hostilities within a few seconds.
If the suspect remained violent, and then was shot again more than a few seconds later, its a failure and counts as such.
What you can't count are the incidents where the suspect was shot multiple times quickly, such as double taps, etc.
If we are trained properly, and follow our training, we shoot as often as necessary until the suspect falls and is no longer a threat.
I won't trust a single shot even if the OSS rating is 99%. I will shoot COM/CNS repeatedly until the attacker is no longer a threat.
If the suspect remained violent, and then was shot again more than a few seconds later, its a failure and counts as such.
What you can't count are the incidents where the suspect was shot multiple times quickly, such as double taps, etc.
If we are trained properly, and follow our training, we shoot as often as necessary until the suspect falls and is no longer a threat.
I won't trust a single shot even if the OSS rating is 99%. I will shoot COM/CNS repeatedly until the attacker is no longer a threat.
tac17,
Oh, but it IS the hanging chad thing... most LEOs and alot of CCW holders have all bern conditioned, thru fear of post-action litigation, to always answer any question about why we fired x number of rounds with: "It took that many to stop the bad guy."
Now, some people are trained to fire double taps as a matter of course. Did it take two shots to stop the bad guy? I'll bet the shooter will say it did. Do we know that it took two shots to stop the bad guy? Nope.
Some people seem to want Marshall's data to reflect the OVERALL performance rating for each handgun load, accounting for instances where multiple shots were fired. While Marshall, on the other hand, only set out to report how many times a bad guy was stopped when only a single shot of a particular load was fired. Which is why he discounts multi-shot instances.
They can't fault his report for their wishes. If they want a performance rating on ammo that takes into account all shootings, they'll have to do get someone else to do it... or apply for the federal grant and do it themselves.
Oh, but it IS the hanging chad thing... most LEOs and alot of CCW holders have all bern conditioned, thru fear of post-action litigation, to always answer any question about why we fired x number of rounds with: "It took that many to stop the bad guy."
Now, some people are trained to fire double taps as a matter of course. Did it take two shots to stop the bad guy? I'll bet the shooter will say it did. Do we know that it took two shots to stop the bad guy? Nope.
Some people seem to want Marshall's data to reflect the OVERALL performance rating for each handgun load, accounting for instances where multiple shots were fired. While Marshall, on the other hand, only set out to report how many times a bad guy was stopped when only a single shot of a particular load was fired. Which is why he discounts multi-shot instances.
They can't fault his report for their wishes. If they want a performance rating on ammo that takes into account all shootings, they'll have to do get someone else to do it... or apply for the federal grant and do it themselves.
Lord GB,
No one has addressed the inconsistancies in the data that I pointed out. In other words, how can you trust data that gives greater than 100% "One Shot Stop" percentages in a given time period? Don't believe that it's there? Check it out for yourself. I gave very specific examples.
Plus, I still have my doubts that he could even do the research he claims to have done in the allotted time.
As I interpreted the criteria, if more than one hit was scored, the case was ignored.
No one has addressed the inconsistancies in the data that I pointed out. In other words, how can you trust data that gives greater than 100% "One Shot Stop" percentages in a given time period? Don't believe that it's there? Check it out for yourself. I gave very specific examples.
Plus, I still have my doubts that he could even do the research he claims to have done in the allotted time.
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
9x19,
I'm saying the former, that M&S published one shot stop percentages from rifle rounds (.223 and .308) and 12ga buckshot and slugs. So no shame on me, tough guy... try knowing what you are talking about before accusing me of being dishonest.
Here is a re-print of the M&S figures, there used to be a cooler website endorsed by M&S that published the same M&S figures in a neat tabular format, but it went down for whatever reason.
http://www.powernet.net/~eich1/sp.html
You will note that the % figures for rifles and shotguns overlap those for handguns. In other words, the study can't reliably resolve differences in stopping power between handguns on one hand, and high-powered rifles and shotguns that are orders of magnitude more powerful on the other.
Put another way, based on the OSS % numbers M&S came up with, a 135gr .40 caliber bullet at 1,300 feet per second produces essentally identical on-target effects to a 438 grain 12ga slug at 1,600 feet per second (96% vs 98%). That's about 500 foot-pounds versus almost 2,500 foot-pounds.... fully QUINTUPLE the muzzle energy. To belive a study that produces a statistical dead heat when comparing those two projectiles is to appeal to magic. We are really at the point where basic physics doesn't allow M&S to be correct.
At this point it shoud be abundantly clear that M&S are full of crap. This would be like a study of diet pill effectiveness that can't tell the difference between 100 pound and 400 pound test subjects.
I'm saying the former, that M&S published one shot stop percentages from rifle rounds (.223 and .308) and 12ga buckshot and slugs. So no shame on me, tough guy... try knowing what you are talking about before accusing me of being dishonest.
Here is a re-print of the M&S figures, there used to be a cooler website endorsed by M&S that published the same M&S figures in a neat tabular format, but it went down for whatever reason.
http://www.powernet.net/~eich1/sp.html
You will note that the % figures for rifles and shotguns overlap those for handguns. In other words, the study can't reliably resolve differences in stopping power between handguns on one hand, and high-powered rifles and shotguns that are orders of magnitude more powerful on the other.
Put another way, based on the OSS % numbers M&S came up with, a 135gr .40 caliber bullet at 1,300 feet per second produces essentally identical on-target effects to a 438 grain 12ga slug at 1,600 feet per second (96% vs 98%). That's about 500 foot-pounds versus almost 2,500 foot-pounds.... fully QUINTUPLE the muzzle energy. To belive a study that produces a statistical dead heat when comparing those two projectiles is to appeal to magic. We are really at the point where basic physics doesn't allow M&S to be correct.
At this point it shoud be abundantly clear that M&S are full of crap. This would be like a study of diet pill effectiveness that can't tell the difference between 100 pound and 400 pound test subjects.
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,195
No. You MUST include them in the study. Why? The more data "thrown out" from a study the less likely the findings are going to accurately represent the real world.
coylh
Member
I think you guys are misunderstanding the purpose of the book. I believe it was to contrast different bullets of a cartridge. Whether or not a particular loading is ranked 30%, 99%, B-, or 5-star is irrelevant out of context of how other loadings in the same cartridge were ranked. The important thing to take away: is load X any better than load Y in Z cartridge. That's all. The author doesn't even say to use the highest ranked load, just one in the top third.
Is the study method sound? Who knows. Read the book and see if it makes sense to you. Place your bets and roll the dice.
Is the study method sound? Who knows. Read the book and see if it makes sense to you. Place your bets and roll the dice.
coylh
I believe you just about perfectly stated Marshall's original midset regarding the way he wanted folks to view his work. Then he got hooked up with Ed "anything to sell a magazine article" Sanow, who promptly turned it into a traveling snake-oil show with all kinds of articles like "Top Ten Defensive Cartridges", etc.
Anybody who claims to be able to predict OSS percentages, based on anything other than street results, is worthy of your suspicion. Gelatin may be opaque, but it isn't a crystal ball. All it tells you when you're finished is how deep the bullet is likely to penetrate, and expand. The correct information to take away from such an examination is "Should work- if you shoot it well." Reading percentages into that is a joke.
I believe you just about perfectly stated Marshall's original midset regarding the way he wanted folks to view his work. Then he got hooked up with Ed "anything to sell a magazine article" Sanow, who promptly turned it into a traveling snake-oil show with all kinds of articles like "Top Ten Defensive Cartridges", etc.
Anybody who claims to be able to predict OSS percentages, based on anything other than street results, is worthy of your suspicion. Gelatin may be opaque, but it isn't a crystal ball. All it tells you when you're finished is how deep the bullet is likely to penetrate, and expand. The correct information to take away from such an examination is "Should work- if you shoot it well." Reading percentages into that is a joke.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
M&S aren't the only ones...
There are a couple big issues with the M&S data that cause problems. The first set of issues has been mentioned in some detail concerning how the data were gathered and manipulated. I agree that this is hugely problematic, but disagree that they are invalid. They are valid, but only for a very narrow set of parameters...which brings me to the second issue.
The second issue is the end-user issue. For the sake of argument, I will refer to it as the OSS Bubba Factor. Bubba bought a pistol and wants good killin' ammo like holler points and he reads about the OSS. He then goes out and buys a perceived box of death for his gun. Sadly, there is some Bubba in many of us, if not most. We fixate on the wrong or not so relevant factors when we make our choices. In the OSS Bubba Factor, Bubba Sees the OSS data, reads the interpretation from front to back, feels like a big time ammo expert, and then makes a buy decision. This is sad because of all the aspects of the report that Bubba can handle, what he can't handle is the fact that he probably will never be in a situational context to match the end results of the OSS data. Bubba does not realize that his less than amazing gun skills will not be compensated for too terribly much by wunder-ammo. Bubba probably believes that the one shot stop of Kennedy and Conally by the magic bullet in the "One Bullet Theory" of the Warren Commission was smart technology and he will continue to shop for those types of bullets until he dies.
M&S did an interesting study and tried to condense information down in a manner that had some controls. What was lost was the aspect of the information then being actually relevant to future real life shootings. There were many aspects that could not be controlled for in their sampling. There are many aspects in gun fights that can't be controlled for either. That is life. As noted, it isn't just physics and math that determine the OSS. If folks applied a whole lot less bottom line logic to the report, not having the OSS Bubba Factor, and read the report as helpful information and not some sort of God given Biblical truth to gun fight success, then they can make reasonable use of the information.
Think of it as OSS theory. It looks good on paper but cannot be proven and the results not necessarily duplicated in the real world again. That does not make the theory wrong. It is a theory because it isn't a law. Theories do not always work, can't be proven right or wrong (versus a hypothesis that can), and that is why they aren't laws.
There are a couple big issues with the M&S data that cause problems. The first set of issues has been mentioned in some detail concerning how the data were gathered and manipulated. I agree that this is hugely problematic, but disagree that they are invalid. They are valid, but only for a very narrow set of parameters...which brings me to the second issue.
The second issue is the end-user issue. For the sake of argument, I will refer to it as the OSS Bubba Factor. Bubba bought a pistol and wants good killin' ammo like holler points and he reads about the OSS. He then goes out and buys a perceived box of death for his gun. Sadly, there is some Bubba in many of us, if not most. We fixate on the wrong or not so relevant factors when we make our choices. In the OSS Bubba Factor, Bubba Sees the OSS data, reads the interpretation from front to back, feels like a big time ammo expert, and then makes a buy decision. This is sad because of all the aspects of the report that Bubba can handle, what he can't handle is the fact that he probably will never be in a situational context to match the end results of the OSS data. Bubba does not realize that his less than amazing gun skills will not be compensated for too terribly much by wunder-ammo. Bubba probably believes that the one shot stop of Kennedy and Conally by the magic bullet in the "One Bullet Theory" of the Warren Commission was smart technology and he will continue to shop for those types of bullets until he dies.
M&S did an interesting study and tried to condense information down in a manner that had some controls. What was lost was the aspect of the information then being actually relevant to future real life shootings. There were many aspects that could not be controlled for in their sampling. There are many aspects in gun fights that can't be controlled for either. That is life. As noted, it isn't just physics and math that determine the OSS. If folks applied a whole lot less bottom line logic to the report, not having the OSS Bubba Factor, and read the report as helpful information and not some sort of God given Biblical truth to gun fight success, then they can make reasonable use of the information.
Think of it as OSS theory. It looks good on paper but cannot be proven and the results not necessarily duplicated in the real world again. That does not make the theory wrong. It is a theory because it isn't a law. Theories do not always work, can't be proven right or wrong (versus a hypothesis that can), and that is why they aren't laws.
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
No. The OSS methodology applies the exact same (defective) standard for determining one shot stops across cartridges. It isn't a relative comparison within a given caliber; it is a uniform (if uniformly bad) system applied to a wide variety of calibers. They didn't create subgroups and apply different standards to each one. In this case, a % is a % is a %, based on how they themselves describe it. So the fact that their method can't tell a 12ga slug from a .40 S&W tells us a great deal about how useful their results are.
A theory based on illogical premises that produces absurd results is about as close to "wrong" as you can get.
The value of any of the Instant Destroyer and Killer literature is undermined by the egos and fiduciary concerns of the participants. The early published Marshall data base was pretty small. The critics of M/S made much of some arithmatic error and pretty soon the debate degenerated to yelling "liar!" In any case, each shooting is a singular event with its own set of parameters. The difficulties with keeping the data pure are monumental
The piezo-electric tranducerized goat study is more of the same. Some of the people who received the brown envelop think it was conducted entirely on a word processor keyboard. Others, particularly those whose ammunition ranked high, claim they believe it actually happened. One prominent magazine editor cites the study and then wonders in print if it ever really happened.
A training director with a west coast police department dismisses M/S and the Goat-Killing. His department issued 9mm 147 grain JHPs at the time M/S was making all the magazines. Troops were all upset because Ayoob/Marshall/Sanow/et al said the 147 was a sub gun round and was no good out of a pistol. The training officer said that his department had killed fifty people with the round and it worked very well. The whole senario made him mad enough to do some background checking on one of the stopping power gurus. He found that the individual was not a frequenter of the morgues cited in his literature.
At the time, the FBI was using the same ammo and experiencing a lot of gun battles in the Phillipines. They were very satisfied with the performance of the 147 grain load.
It appears that the best bet is to develop your own theory of stopping power with the likelyhood that it will be just as believable as anything out there.
The piezo-electric tranducerized goat study is more of the same. Some of the people who received the brown envelop think it was conducted entirely on a word processor keyboard. Others, particularly those whose ammunition ranked high, claim they believe it actually happened. One prominent magazine editor cites the study and then wonders in print if it ever really happened.
A training director with a west coast police department dismisses M/S and the Goat-Killing. His department issued 9mm 147 grain JHPs at the time M/S was making all the magazines. Troops were all upset because Ayoob/Marshall/Sanow/et al said the 147 was a sub gun round and was no good out of a pistol. The training officer said that his department had killed fifty people with the round and it worked very well. The whole senario made him mad enough to do some background checking on one of the stopping power gurus. He found that the individual was not a frequenter of the morgues cited in his literature.
At the time, the FBI was using the same ammo and experiencing a lot of gun battles in the Phillipines. They were very satisfied with the performance of the 147 grain load.
It appears that the best bet is to develop your own theory of stopping power with the likelyhood that it will be just as believable as anything out there.
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
The silliness of using OSS figures even as a "guide" is pretty simple:
1. From reading the OSS figures, you will find that the 12ga slug figures closely overlap the .40 S&W figures. Likewise with .223 and .308 vs. the higher .40 S&W figures. In other words, the study can't detect very large differences in "stopping power."
2. Therefore, it is absurd to use the same figures as a "guide" to try to determine small differences in stopping power (e.g. choosing between handgun loads).
1. From reading the OSS figures, you will find that the 12ga slug figures closely overlap the .40 S&W figures. Likewise with .223 and .308 vs. the higher .40 S&W figures. In other words, the study can't detect very large differences in "stopping power."
2. Therefore, it is absurd to use the same figures as a "guide" to try to determine small differences in stopping power (e.g. choosing between handgun loads).
There you go, Mike...
clouding the issue with logic again.
I sure wish some of these folks would just take their pistols and go hunting. Shoot five deer, as near to the same place as possible and with the same load, and you'll probably see at least four different reactions.
They'd also be able to tell the difference between a .308/150 (or a 12 gauge slug) and a .40 135 pretty quick.
clouding the issue with logic again.
I sure wish some of these folks would just take their pistols and go hunting. Shoot five deer, as near to the same place as possible and with the same load, and you'll probably see at least four different reactions.
They'd also be able to tell the difference between a .308/150 (or a 12 gauge slug) and a .40 135 pretty quick.
- Status
