Marshall & Sanow's stats - believe it or not? State your case here.
- Thread starter WebHobbit
- Start date
- Status
The room only goes silent because you close your ears and scream LALALALALALA at the top of your lungs, Pat, reverting back to a common debating tactic on your part, it would seem.
END
Yep I find that pointing out obvious flaws with the IWBA Facklerite religion is a very effective debate tactic.
Lets us not forget the FBI also brought us the weak down loaded 40 sw as well. 165 grain jhp at 950. The only cartridge they have not casterated is the 45 acp.
PAT
END
Yep I find that pointing out obvious flaws with the IWBA Facklerite religion is a very effective debate tactic.
Lets us not forget the FBI also brought us the weak down loaded 40 sw as well. 165 grain jhp at 950. The only cartridge they have not casterated is the 45 acp.
PAT
I thought the FBI went to the 10mm after the Miama shootout, than watered it down.
WebHobbit, Like we talked about yesterday, I believe the 2 key things are, shot placement and keep shooting until the threat is over.
Unless your lucky enough to hit your attacker in the brain, there is no guarantee of a one shot stop, your attackers willingness to do grave harm to you is as much a factor in a gun fight as the caliber you use.
WebHobbit, Like we talked about yesterday, I believe the 2 key things are, shot placement and keep shooting until the threat is over.
Unless your lucky enough to hit your attacker in the brain, there is no guarantee of a one shot stop, your attackers willingness to do grave harm to you is as much a factor in a gun fight as the caliber you use.
LeonCarr
Member
What does Sanow do for a living?
If memory serves me right, and sometimes it does, Sanow is a part-time cop and part-time police car restorer. Marshall's background is pretty solid as a retired Detroit Police Officer, but what background does Sanow have?
By the way, the Scientific Method I use is the LeonCarr - 3F method. Fire till the Felon Falls.
Just my .02,
LeonCarr
If memory serves me right, and sometimes it does, Sanow is a part-time cop and part-time police car restorer. Marshall's background is pretty solid as a retired Detroit Police Officer, but what background does Sanow have?
By the way, the Scientific Method I use is the LeonCarr - 3F method. Fire till the Felon Falls.
Just my .02,
LeonCarr
It's a GUIDE and better than nothing.
The majority of gun owners have little first hand experience with stopping power -- meaning that MOST of us have never shot anyone or been shot owerselves. For those few that have been in a shooting (either shot someone or have been shot themselves), even that experience is a limited one.
As a result, we really don't know what a bullet will do to a person. What Marshall & Sanow attempt to do is gather all of our collective experiences (or, as much as they are able to) and see what sort of trend exist.
If you have X shootings with Y caliber, you will begin to see a pattern develope especially as the number of shootings goes up. Your individual results may varry by plus or minus 100% but the "average" should match up with the results being reported ESPECIALLY as the number of shootings goes up.
Marshall & Sanow can report that their findings show that a certain bullet has a 99% one shot stopping power. Guess what? your shooting might be that 1% that the round failed to stop the attacker. That doesn't make their results wrong.
Is it scientific? It depends! Is forecasting the weather scientific? The way that the weather is forecasted for tomorrow is that they look at various atmospheric conditions that exit (temperature, high pressure over here, low pressure over there, barameter at this leve and rising or falling or whatever) and go back and look at recorded weather history and see when these conditions were present in the past and what happened the following day. If these conditions were found to exist 10 times and it rained 9 out of those 10 days on the following day, they will predict that there is a 90% chance of rain and if you look at the odds, it is very likely that it WILL rain but it may not because there is that 1 out of 10 chance that it will be sunny.
What happens if 99 out of 100 days it rained on the following day? Then your chances are even better that you will need an umbrella but there is still that 1% chance that it will be sunny.
It is the same thing with Marshall & Sanow's data. They are telling you what will happen ON AVERAGE. It's better than nothing because it is a gathering of everyone's collective experiences but it can not tell you what will happen FOR SURE in your particular case. A .357mag has a 97% one shot stopping power but you might find yourself in that 3% where even multiple COM hits failed to do the job.
Folks, it's a guide. If you took every member here and put them in a shooting and gathered the results, that too would be a guide. It would be better than nothing but it could still not predict what would happen in your particular instance.
The majority of gun owners have little first hand experience with stopping power -- meaning that MOST of us have never shot anyone or been shot owerselves. For those few that have been in a shooting (either shot someone or have been shot themselves), even that experience is a limited one.
As a result, we really don't know what a bullet will do to a person. What Marshall & Sanow attempt to do is gather all of our collective experiences (or, as much as they are able to) and see what sort of trend exist.
If you have X shootings with Y caliber, you will begin to see a pattern develope especially as the number of shootings goes up. Your individual results may varry by plus or minus 100% but the "average" should match up with the results being reported ESPECIALLY as the number of shootings goes up.
Marshall & Sanow can report that their findings show that a certain bullet has a 99% one shot stopping power. Guess what? your shooting might be that 1% that the round failed to stop the attacker. That doesn't make their results wrong.
Is it scientific? It depends! Is forecasting the weather scientific? The way that the weather is forecasted for tomorrow is that they look at various atmospheric conditions that exit (temperature, high pressure over here, low pressure over there, barameter at this leve and rising or falling or whatever) and go back and look at recorded weather history and see when these conditions were present in the past and what happened the following day. If these conditions were found to exist 10 times and it rained 9 out of those 10 days on the following day, they will predict that there is a 90% chance of rain and if you look at the odds, it is very likely that it WILL rain but it may not because there is that 1 out of 10 chance that it will be sunny.
What happens if 99 out of 100 days it rained on the following day? Then your chances are even better that you will need an umbrella but there is still that 1% chance that it will be sunny.
It is the same thing with Marshall & Sanow's data. They are telling you what will happen ON AVERAGE. It's better than nothing because it is a gathering of everyone's collective experiences but it can not tell you what will happen FOR SURE in your particular case. A .357mag has a 97% one shot stopping power but you might find yourself in that 3% where even multiple COM hits failed to do the job.
Folks, it's a guide. If you took every member here and put them in a shooting and gathered the results, that too would be a guide. It would be better than nothing but it could still not predict what would happen in your particular instance.
Mike Irwin
Member
"Yep I find that pointing out obvious flaws with the IWBA Facklerite religion is a very effective debate tactic."
Pat, your ability to fantasize simply amazes me.
You've attempted to minimalize Fackler's work by lying about his background, then failing to acknowledge his background when it's been pointed out to you. Repeatedly.
You had NO clue, until I pointed it out to you over on TFL, that Fackler was a medical doctor, had served as a trauma surgeon in Vietnam, and then was in charge of the Army's wound investigation program.
You had no clue that Fackler, as a medical doctor and combat trauma surgeon, has likely seen more live or dead people with gunshot wounds than Marshall and or Sanow has seen autopsies.
You've also conveniently ignored (or simply failed to comprehend) repeated requests by numerous people to explain just HOW Fackler's work is scientifically flawed, or even how it's scientifically less valid than Marshall and Sanow's work.
You've claimed to be a police officer, but you've conveniently overlooked or ignored the fact that Marshall and Sanow's work hasn't been used by a single police force as a guide in picking its carry ammo, while trying to explain away the reality that Fackler's work is accepted world wide as a cornerstone in the science of understanding wound mechanics.
You've had the audacity to claim that you have the ability to somehow stifle the supporters of Fackler's work by somehow "exposing" its flaws, yet you've never shared those flaws with us.
You've never been able to explain how Marshall and Sanow's obviously flawed, or fraudulent, data somehow provides the basis for cogent scientific endeavors.
It's obvious that you're simply not capable of thinking about this issue critically, and have no capacity for understanding just how Marshall and Sanow's "data" can't pass even the simplest independent examination, which is obviously what they fear, as well.
If anyone is really interested in seeing the heights, and depths, of Pat's evasions, misrepresentations, obfuscations, and his penchant for ignoring what's placed right in front of him, you only have to read a few of these threads from The Firing Line.
Marshall & Sanow threads from The Firing Line
Finally, the results of the poll are also quite interesting...
Pat, your ability to fantasize simply amazes me.
You've attempted to minimalize Fackler's work by lying about his background, then failing to acknowledge his background when it's been pointed out to you. Repeatedly.
You had NO clue, until I pointed it out to you over on TFL, that Fackler was a medical doctor, had served as a trauma surgeon in Vietnam, and then was in charge of the Army's wound investigation program.
You had no clue that Fackler, as a medical doctor and combat trauma surgeon, has likely seen more live or dead people with gunshot wounds than Marshall and or Sanow has seen autopsies.
You've also conveniently ignored (or simply failed to comprehend) repeated requests by numerous people to explain just HOW Fackler's work is scientifically flawed, or even how it's scientifically less valid than Marshall and Sanow's work.
You've claimed to be a police officer, but you've conveniently overlooked or ignored the fact that Marshall and Sanow's work hasn't been used by a single police force as a guide in picking its carry ammo, while trying to explain away the reality that Fackler's work is accepted world wide as a cornerstone in the science of understanding wound mechanics.
You've had the audacity to claim that you have the ability to somehow stifle the supporters of Fackler's work by somehow "exposing" its flaws, yet you've never shared those flaws with us.
You've never been able to explain how Marshall and Sanow's obviously flawed, or fraudulent, data somehow provides the basis for cogent scientific endeavors.
It's obvious that you're simply not capable of thinking about this issue critically, and have no capacity for understanding just how Marshall and Sanow's "data" can't pass even the simplest independent examination, which is obviously what they fear, as well.
If anyone is really interested in seeing the heights, and depths, of Pat's evasions, misrepresentations, obfuscations, and his penchant for ignoring what's placed right in front of him, you only have to read a few of these threads from The Firing Line.
Marshall & Sanow threads from The Firing Line
Finally, the results of the poll are also quite interesting...
Mike Irwin
Member
Webhobbit,
The 147-gr. 9mm load existed a long time before the FBI, Winchester, and Federal started looking into it.
It was originally developed, I believe, as an open nose, non-expanding round for use in military suppressed weapons such as the HK MP-5.
For some reason, after the Miami shootout, some police forces latched onto the concept that if A) the military used the 147, and B) the initial FBI tests showed good penetration (but ROTTEN, if any, expansion), it must be the best thing since sliced bread.
By picking and choosing selectively, and without understanding the consequences, a number of police forces found out that the original 147-gr. hollow point bullets in 9mm were bad stoppers, and the 147-gr. bullet subsequently gained a very bad "street" reputation.
They would penetrate, but expansion was, at best, iffy. Essentially, performance was thus not unlike the 158-gr. LRN police load for the .38 Spl. In other words, pretty rotten.
At the same time, however, both Winchester and Federal were taking full advantage of the FBI testing protocols to develop some of the first bullets that would not only penetrate deeply, but also expand uniformly after penetrating a number of different barrier materials.
These rounds, developed for and later used by the FBI, were the first of the second generation of 147-gr. loads.
These rounds, with famous names like the Black Talon, Golden Sabre, Gold Dot, etc., showed marked improvement in "stopping power" over the first generation 147-gr. loads.
It's simply incorrect to state that the 147-gr. loads as originally tested by FBI, and as adopted by a number of large police forces (but NOT FBI), are the same as the second generation 147-gr. loads.
Well, Harold?
The 147-gr. 9mm load existed a long time before the FBI, Winchester, and Federal started looking into it.
It was originally developed, I believe, as an open nose, non-expanding round for use in military suppressed weapons such as the HK MP-5.
For some reason, after the Miami shootout, some police forces latched onto the concept that if A) the military used the 147, and B) the initial FBI tests showed good penetration (but ROTTEN, if any, expansion), it must be the best thing since sliced bread.
By picking and choosing selectively, and without understanding the consequences, a number of police forces found out that the original 147-gr. hollow point bullets in 9mm were bad stoppers, and the 147-gr. bullet subsequently gained a very bad "street" reputation.
They would penetrate, but expansion was, at best, iffy. Essentially, performance was thus not unlike the 158-gr. LRN police load for the .38 Spl. In other words, pretty rotten.
At the same time, however, both Winchester and Federal were taking full advantage of the FBI testing protocols to develop some of the first bullets that would not only penetrate deeply, but also expand uniformly after penetrating a number of different barrier materials.
These rounds, developed for and later used by the FBI, were the first of the second generation of 147-gr. loads.
These rounds, with famous names like the Black Talon, Golden Sabre, Gold Dot, etc., showed marked improvement in "stopping power" over the first generation 147-gr. loads.
It's simply incorrect to state that the 147-gr. loads as originally tested by FBI, and as adopted by a number of large police forces (but NOT FBI), are the same as the second generation 147-gr. loads.
Well, Harold?
Mike Irwin
Member
Very interesting article. Once I read some years ago, but which I haven't seen since.
It lays out the FBI criteria for the original handgun testing in 1987.
Note by whom it was written.
Note that it also mentions Dr. Fackler by name, and also mentions a panel of scientific and ballistic experts.
Whom does it not mention? Marshall and/or Sanow.
Their work, while well known at the time, wasn't even considered in FBI's exercise.
Wonder why that is?
http://gopher.quux.org:70/Archives/mirrors/textfiles.com/politics/GUNS/10mmpist.txt
It lays out the FBI criteria for the original handgun testing in 1987.
Note by whom it was written.
Note that it also mentions Dr. Fackler by name, and also mentions a panel of scientific and ballistic experts.
Whom does it not mention? Marshall and/or Sanow.
Their work, while well known at the time, wasn't even considered in FBI's exercise.
Wonder why that is?
http://gopher.quux.org:70/Archives/mirrors/textfiles.com/politics/GUNS/10mmpist.txt
Harold Mayo
Member
And Irwin comes back STRONG with a one-two combination leaving the opposition reeling!
Honestly, though, Mike, Alan Fud says it best of anyone in his post. It's a guide, nothing more...just like Fackler's stuff is a guide.
You know as well as anyone here that shot placement is more important than anything else.
I don't care who says what about what bullet and load combination from what platform, you still have to be able to hit, whether with skill or luck or both, and hit in a vital area.
Does the projectile matter? Of course it does, but probably less than anyone really believes.
I believe in the M&S studies as a general guide. I haven't read any of their stuff after the first book, though. I have touched a little on Fackler but discarded it since it didn't really tell me much that I didn't already know or believe, anyway.
People can argue "stopping power" all they want but, in the end, I think it touches on the religious for most because of their various stances on what works and what doesn't. Since most of these beliefs are so dear, it really is like arguing religion or politics. People believe what they believe. In the end, I don't think that anyone has any better handle on the "stopping power" myth than anyone else, regardless of what science or voodoo that they use to arrive at their conclusion.
Curiously, Mike...what is your preferred carry gun, caliber, and loading and how did you arrive at the choice?
My own? BHP in 9mm with (usually) 124 gr +P hp's OR 5" 1911 in .45 ACP with 230 gr +P hp's. I'll carry 115 gr or 230 gr ball, respectively, in each, though, and not feel bad at all. I actually have no idea how I arrived at the common carry loads but I believe that it WAS the M&S studies, originally. It just stands to reason, though, that more velocity and/or mass will create more kinetic energy and the hollow-point ammo will allow it to be transferred to the target more efficiently. The only reason that I carry a BHP over the 1911 is magazine capacity and slightly more familiarity with the gun.
Honestly, though, Mike, Alan Fud says it best of anyone in his post. It's a guide, nothing more...just like Fackler's stuff is a guide.
You know as well as anyone here that shot placement is more important than anything else.
I don't care who says what about what bullet and load combination from what platform, you still have to be able to hit, whether with skill or luck or both, and hit in a vital area.
Does the projectile matter? Of course it does, but probably less than anyone really believes.
I believe in the M&S studies as a general guide. I haven't read any of their stuff after the first book, though. I have touched a little on Fackler but discarded it since it didn't really tell me much that I didn't already know or believe, anyway.
People can argue "stopping power" all they want but, in the end, I think it touches on the religious for most because of their various stances on what works and what doesn't. Since most of these beliefs are so dear, it really is like arguing religion or politics. People believe what they believe. In the end, I don't think that anyone has any better handle on the "stopping power" myth than anyone else, regardless of what science or voodoo that they use to arrive at their conclusion.
Curiously, Mike...what is your preferred carry gun, caliber, and loading and how did you arrive at the choice?
My own? BHP in 9mm with (usually) 124 gr +P hp's OR 5" 1911 in .45 ACP with 230 gr +P hp's. I'll carry 115 gr or 230 gr ball, respectively, in each, though, and not feel bad at all. I actually have no idea how I arrived at the common carry loads but I believe that it WAS the M&S studies, originally. It just stands to reason, though, that more velocity and/or mass will create more kinetic energy and the hollow-point ammo will allow it to be transferred to the target more efficiently. The only reason that I carry a BHP over the 1911 is magazine capacity and slightly more familiarity with the gun.
Mike Irwin
Member
"Honestly, though, Mike, Alan Fud says it best of anyone in his post. It's a guide, nothing more...just like Fackler's stuff is a guide."
I've never claimed that it is anything other than a guide, Harold.
Unfortunately, some people do claim that it's more than a guide, and insist on misrepresenting what Marshall and Sanow's work is, while ignoring what it is not (scientific).
Obviously from the poll results, though, those people are few, far between, and unable to understand how to critically examine the multitude of flaws that have been pointed out.
Please also take a look at my first post in this message.
My preferred carry gun?
S&W 042 2", .38 Spl., using Speer 125-gr. +P Gold Dots.
My winter carry gun? An S&W 2.5" Model 19 loaded with either the above rounds or Remington Golden Sabre 125-grs.
I've never claimed that it is anything other than a guide, Harold.
Unfortunately, some people do claim that it's more than a guide, and insist on misrepresenting what Marshall and Sanow's work is, while ignoring what it is not (scientific).
Obviously from the poll results, though, those people are few, far between, and unable to understand how to critically examine the multitude of flaws that have been pointed out.
Please also take a look at my first post in this message.
My preferred carry gun?
S&W 042 2", .38 Spl., using Speer 125-gr. +P Gold Dots.
My winter carry gun? An S&W 2.5" Model 19 loaded with either the above rounds or Remington Golden Sabre 125-grs.
Harold -
I'm at a loss to describe your post as anything short of a blatant misrepresentation. I know from other threads that you are well aware of other professionally accepted law enforcement studies (e.g., Wolberg) that certainly do not support S&M's conclusions. These studies were professionally conducted, usually agency-wide (though sometimes wider) that are valid professionally recognized studies. The trouble is you don't find them in gunrags or the popular press.
S&M's "work" is a long, long ways from the best we have, and you know it (even if you have trouble admitting it). Unfortunately, however, S&M was the vehicle that Jan Libourel chose to boosts magazine sales and subscriptions.
Maybe it will help you reevaluate S&M's credibility and consistency.
Pat -
I'm at a loss to describe your post as anything short of a blatant misrepresentation. I know from other threads that you are well aware of other professionally accepted law enforcement studies (e.g., Wolberg) that certainly do not support S&M's conclusions. These studies were professionally conducted, usually agency-wide (though sometimes wider) that are valid professionally recognized studies. The trouble is you don't find them in gunrags or the popular press.
S&M's "work" is a long, long ways from the best we have, and you know it (even if you have trouble admitting it). Unfortunately, however, S&M was the vehicle that Jan Libourel chose to boosts magazine sales and subscriptions.
WebHobbit
Member
Mike -
I'll agree with you that the 2nd generation 147s are much better than the first BUT they still SUCK compared to the best 115 & 124 grain loads. There is simply no good reason to choose that bullet weight in a HANDGUN.
Actually, the current generation 147s (particularly the Ranger T-Series) are outstanding. They are probably the the best nines available (and I include the 357 Sig in this statement). In actual use, they give good solid penetration (approximately fourteen inches) and good .60 plus calibre expansion consistently, have good barrier penetration and are one of the preferred LE round in 9x19. If I had to pick a "best" urban LE round, it would be the 147-grain Ranger T. It does work and work well providing a good mix of penetration (far better than the 115-grain) and good dependable expansion.
They had the right idea with the 147-grain--unfortunately the bullet technology wasn't there at the time (and the 147-grain was never as bad as it was painted--of course, neither was the 115-grain Slivertip either). And whether we like it or not (I'm a 10mm fan), they got it right with the 10mmK (.40 S&W) in terms of an effective LE round (even in its "mid-range" loadings). The hard fact of the matter is that with current bullet technology velocity (at common handgun velocities) is just not near as important as it was just a few years ago.
And, of course, we're far off topic, but really, why try to confuse Pat and the other four faithful with reason?
They had the right idea with the 147-grain--unfortunately the bullet technology wasn't there at the time (and the 147-grain was never as bad as it was painted--of course, neither was the 115-grain Slivertip either). And whether we like it or not (I'm a 10mm fan), they got it right with the 10mmK (.40 S&W) in terms of an effective LE round (even in its "mid-range" loadings). The hard fact of the matter is that with current bullet technology velocity (at common handgun velocities) is just not near as important as it was just a few years ago.
And, of course, we're far off topic, but really, why try to confuse Pat and the other four faithful with reason?
WebHobbit
Member
I guess we will agree to disagree because I think 14 inches is too much penetration for SD. I think 10-12 is best.
That's why I carry 110 grain .357 Magnum SJHPs...that and the recoil is more manageable than the 125 loads.
That's why I carry 110 grain .357 Magnum SJHPs...that and the recoil is more manageable than the 125 loads.
You've attempted to minimalize Fackler's work by lying about his background, then failing to acknowledge his background when it's been pointed out to you. Repeatedly.
You had NO clue, until I pointed it out to you over on TFL, that Fackler was a medical doctor, had served as a trauma surgeon in Vietnam, and then was in charge of the Army's wound investigation program
END
Its strange you should mention fantasy as that is that your last few post concerning how you set me strait were. Pure fantasy. I knew he was a medical doctor well before I met you on these boards. When have I lied about his past. He did run from a debate with Sanow that’s very easy to prove.
The fact he was a medical doctor and saw lots of wounds impresses me not at all. He did not see the shooting. Killing and stopping power are not the same. So keep worshiping at the thrown of Marty Fackler. As for me I am not buying it.
SNIP
It lays out the FBI criteria for the original handgun testing in 1987.
Note by whom it was written.
Note that it also mentions Dr. Fackler by name, and also mentions a panel of scientific and ballistic experts.
Whom does it not mention? Marshall and/or Sanow.
END
The FBI is not the end all be all authority in this matter. The INS bullet selection process seemed to be influenced by Marshall. It placed a scoring value on Stretch cavity and had a category for controlled fragmentation rounds. That’s the exact opposite direction of the FBI. Fun fact guess who gets into and wins more gunfights. Yep the INS.
Also Mark for future reference try attacking my views and not me. When I implied you might be lying on TFL it lead to my expulsion. Yet that is what you have accused me of doing here. I hope the moderators are paying attention and dish out fair equitable treatment. I plan to treat you with respect I expect the same in return.
Oh I also noticed that those that use Marshalls work as a guide are currently ahead. Thats how I voted. Nice to be on the majority side for a change.
PAT
You had NO clue, until I pointed it out to you over on TFL, that Fackler was a medical doctor, had served as a trauma surgeon in Vietnam, and then was in charge of the Army's wound investigation program
END
Its strange you should mention fantasy as that is that your last few post concerning how you set me strait were. Pure fantasy. I knew he was a medical doctor well before I met you on these boards. When have I lied about his past. He did run from a debate with Sanow that’s very easy to prove.
The fact he was a medical doctor and saw lots of wounds impresses me not at all. He did not see the shooting. Killing and stopping power are not the same. So keep worshiping at the thrown of Marty Fackler. As for me I am not buying it.
SNIP
It lays out the FBI criteria for the original handgun testing in 1987.
Note by whom it was written.
Note that it also mentions Dr. Fackler by name, and also mentions a panel of scientific and ballistic experts.
Whom does it not mention? Marshall and/or Sanow.
END
The FBI is not the end all be all authority in this matter. The INS bullet selection process seemed to be influenced by Marshall. It placed a scoring value on Stretch cavity and had a category for controlled fragmentation rounds. That’s the exact opposite direction of the FBI. Fun fact guess who gets into and wins more gunfights. Yep the INS.
Also Mark for future reference try attacking my views and not me. When I implied you might be lying on TFL it lead to my expulsion. Yet that is what you have accused me of doing here. I hope the moderators are paying attention and dish out fair equitable treatment. I plan to treat you with respect I expect the same in return.
Oh I also noticed that those that use Marshalls work as a guide are currently ahead. Thats how I voted. Nice to be on the majority side for a change.
PAT
Mike Irwin
Member
Try attacking your views and not you?
You mean the same way you attacked views instead of people in this stellar example of debating technique?
"Fackler sells books. The IWBA charges a huge membership fee to get thier publications. Fackler is a whore. He is the one that popularized the 147 grian 9mm load that got cops killed and he would not pull his recomendation once he knew the truth because it would hurt his reputation. Instead he has slowing lowered his recomeded penitration range from 18 to 15 inches and his lower penitration range from 12 to 11.5.
Fackler and the IWBA are the whores. I know that Evan Marshall is a good man and an honest one based on personal knowledge. I can not say the same for his detractors. Most are cowardly and afraid to face the truth."
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums...76288&perpage=40&highlight=sanow&pagenumber=1
That seems to be the sum total of your views, Pat.
EVERY statement I made is the absolute truth about how you've mischaracterized, misrepresented, and flat out misstated the facts about Fackler, his work, and Marshall and Sanow's work.
I don't recall the thread in which you implied that I was lying -- I'd be more than happy to view it again.
But you claimed that Fackler's work was drive only at selling books. That's a lie.
You claimed that Fackler "popularized" the 147-gr. load. That's a lie.
You claimed he lowered his recommended penetration. That's a lie.
You claimed that IWBA charged a "huge" membership fee. That's a lie. In fact, the list price for either of Marshall and Sanow's books was MORE than a yearly membership to IWBA.
As for books, Fackler isn't published by the popular press that I can find. He publishes in scientific journals. He may well have published a book on the subject, but I sincerely doubt that it would have had titles such as "Handgun Stopping Power: The Definitive Study."
Marshall and Sanow can't publish in scientific journals, there's nothing scientific there that can stand up to peer scrutiny.
"The FBI is not the end all be all authority in this matter."
You're right. They're not, but neither are, as you've stated in the past and infer in the quote above, Marshall and Sanow. FBI was, however, among the first to categorize performance criteria for handgun rounds in a manner that truly met the needs of police, and do so in a scientific, repeatable, and verifiable manner.
"Oh I also noticed that those that use Marshalls work as a guide are currently ahead. Thats how I voted. Nice to be on the majority side for a change."
Now that's TRULY interesting, Pat, given statements such as those quoted above it would appear that you believe Marshall and Sanow's work to be THE definitive and only valid work on the subject.
So why the equivocation now?
If you take time to read my first post in this series, or the many posts that I made on The Firing Line, you'll also see that I've categorized Marshall and Sanow's work as being useful as a guide in the loosest sense of the word, but certainly not what you've tried to claim it to be in the past.
Statements such as this:
His opposition has yet to do a study for themselves correcting the flaws they feel are present with Marshalls work. Until they do some real work and leave the lab they will not have any credibility.
also call your guide statement into question.
Apparently without understanding the work that Fackler and other SCIENTISTS do, you dismiss it wholy in favor of doctored results, suspicious conclusions, and dubious "science."
Finally, for everyone who categorizes Fackler as a jello junkie, and doubts the veracity of gelatin testing, here's the cover illustration from "Street Stoppers..."
Oops...
Wonder if I could get some whipped cream to top my ballistic jello?
You mean the same way you attacked views instead of people in this stellar example of debating technique?
"Fackler sells books. The IWBA charges a huge membership fee to get thier publications. Fackler is a whore. He is the one that popularized the 147 grian 9mm load that got cops killed and he would not pull his recomendation once he knew the truth because it would hurt his reputation. Instead he has slowing lowered his recomeded penitration range from 18 to 15 inches and his lower penitration range from 12 to 11.5.
Fackler and the IWBA are the whores. I know that Evan Marshall is a good man and an honest one based on personal knowledge. I can not say the same for his detractors. Most are cowardly and afraid to face the truth."
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums...76288&perpage=40&highlight=sanow&pagenumber=1
That seems to be the sum total of your views, Pat.
EVERY statement I made is the absolute truth about how you've mischaracterized, misrepresented, and flat out misstated the facts about Fackler, his work, and Marshall and Sanow's work.
I don't recall the thread in which you implied that I was lying -- I'd be more than happy to view it again.
But you claimed that Fackler's work was drive only at selling books. That's a lie.
You claimed that Fackler "popularized" the 147-gr. load. That's a lie.
You claimed he lowered his recommended penetration. That's a lie.
You claimed that IWBA charged a "huge" membership fee. That's a lie. In fact, the list price for either of Marshall and Sanow's books was MORE than a yearly membership to IWBA.
As for books, Fackler isn't published by the popular press that I can find. He publishes in scientific journals. He may well have published a book on the subject, but I sincerely doubt that it would have had titles such as "Handgun Stopping Power: The Definitive Study."
Marshall and Sanow can't publish in scientific journals, there's nothing scientific there that can stand up to peer scrutiny.
"The FBI is not the end all be all authority in this matter."
You're right. They're not, but neither are, as you've stated in the past and infer in the quote above, Marshall and Sanow. FBI was, however, among the first to categorize performance criteria for handgun rounds in a manner that truly met the needs of police, and do so in a scientific, repeatable, and verifiable manner.
"Oh I also noticed that those that use Marshalls work as a guide are currently ahead. Thats how I voted. Nice to be on the majority side for a change."
Now that's TRULY interesting, Pat, given statements such as those quoted above it would appear that you believe Marshall and Sanow's work to be THE definitive and only valid work on the subject.
So why the equivocation now?
If you take time to read my first post in this series, or the many posts that I made on The Firing Line, you'll also see that I've categorized Marshall and Sanow's work as being useful as a guide in the loosest sense of the word, but certainly not what you've tried to claim it to be in the past.
Statements such as this:
His opposition has yet to do a study for themselves correcting the flaws they feel are present with Marshalls work. Until they do some real work and leave the lab they will not have any credibility.
also call your guide statement into question.
Apparently without understanding the work that Fackler and other SCIENTISTS do, you dismiss it wholy in favor of doctored results, suspicious conclusions, and dubious "science."
Finally, for everyone who categorizes Fackler as a jello junkie, and doubts the veracity of gelatin testing, here's the cover illustration from "Street Stoppers..."
Oops...
Wonder if I could get some whipped cream to top my ballistic jello?
Mike Irwin
Member
Webhobbit,
"There is simply no good reason to choose that bullet weight in a HANDGUN."
Perhaps not for you or me, but perhaps for FBI and police in general.
FBI developed their original testing criteria based on the situations that their agents, and other police, could be expected to face during armed confrontations.
If you read the article, which I've referenced, you'll see that it's really unlikely that you or I, as civilian CCW carriers, will ever face a shoot out under the majority of those conditions.
FBI's criteria really laid out what seemed to be impossible goals. It was the attempts by the ammunition companies to meet those goals satisfactorily that gave us the second generation 147-gr. 9mms.
"There is simply no good reason to choose that bullet weight in a HANDGUN."
Perhaps not for you or me, but perhaps for FBI and police in general.
FBI developed their original testing criteria based on the situations that their agents, and other police, could be expected to face during armed confrontations.
If you read the article, which I've referenced, you'll see that it's really unlikely that you or I, as civilian CCW carriers, will ever face a shoot out under the majority of those conditions.
FBI's criteria really laid out what seemed to be impossible goals. It was the attempts by the ammunition companies to meet those goals satisfactorily that gave us the second generation 147-gr. 9mms.
Preacherman
Member
Ladies and gentlemen, if we can't disagree politely, then there's something wrong.
Closing this thread as generating rather too much heat, instead of light!
Closing this thread as generating rather too much heat, instead of light!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll