One Stop Shot Data Questions

[Kiln]

While it is prudent not to underestimate one's enemy, I don't think there is a point in exaggerating the average level of skill of certain people just because of their classification. If criminals really were significantly more skilled on the average than armed civilians, then maybe some people would decide that being armed is not worthwhile and is more likely to get them killed than simply surrendering no matter what. Whether to be armed or not is of course a very personal decision with many factors to consider, but I think that having a realistic view of the skill of criminals, on the average, is better than setting the bar so high that people would get discouraged, especially if it is not true.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make, I wasn't saying that every criminal is going to be on par with an army sniper, I was just stating that alot of people that watch too much tv have the wrong idea about the type of people who commit crimes. Alot of people believe that everyone who wants to rob you will look and act like the stereotypical Hollywood gang banger and be completely incompetent when they could be just like you or me and practice constantly. I guess all I was trying to say is be prepared for the worst if someone accosts you and don't hesitate.

I also agree with pretty much all that you wrote above so cheers man.

 

[Burt Blade]

It is decidely difficult to carry out scientific tests of the "one shot stop" on human beings, for a whole bunch of reasons.

I suspect much is being inferred from hunting, as the hunters I know prefer not to have to chase wounded critters over hill and dale. Deer are not exactly consistant in behavior when shot. Humans are even less consistant.

Ammo makers sure claim to have the snake-oil that really works. But one-shot stop seems to be more a real estate issue: location, location, location.

As River Tam said, "Bullet in the brain pan. Squish."

 

[Manco]

Perhaps a bit of thread drift, but...
While luck is certainly a factor, I believe that far more important is the element of surprise.

I don't think we view luck quite the same way. To me everything ultimately depends on luck (or random chance if you prefer), even the element of surprise. What if the cop happens to turn around and see his would-be assassin, recognizes his face from a photo he just happened to view earlier, and is therefore on the alert? So much for the element of surprise. To take another example, a person may be so highly skilled that their probability of success is like 99.99999999999999999999%, but there is still a chance that something could go wrong, which depends on luck. Once everything else has been set up with regard to odds, luck is not just a factor, it is the final determinant--the universe "rolling the dice" for us after we've placed our bets.

The BG frequently has an advantage in determining when the gunfight starts. He can ambush the LEO or otherwise decide when the first shot is fired--the LEO can (generally) only react. So the hit percentage is a bit skewed from the git-go.

Our views on luck or random chance aside, that is a valid point. It further skews us toward the perception that criminals are exceptionally skilled shooters compared to everybody else (on the average), which I don't think is true.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make,

It may not have seemed like it, but I agreed with your point about not underestimating one's opponent. I guess I was still focused on responding to the above-referenced FBI report with regard to the average skill level of criminals.

I wasn't saying that every criminal is going to be on par with an army sniper, I was just stating that alot of people that watch too much tv have the wrong idea about the type of people who commit crimes. Alot of people believe that everyone who wants to rob you will look and act like the stereotypical Hollywood gang banger and be completely incompetent when they could be just like you or me and practice constantly. I guess all I was trying to say is be prepared for the worst if someone accosts you and don't hesitate.

I also agree with pretty much all that you wrote above so cheers man.

That's true, there is always the other end of the spectrum to consider, and maybe I got a little too "colorful" in my description in my first post, when all I really meant was that criminals probably have the same skills as everybody else on the average.

If there is anything we derive from this thread, it should be that shooting an assailant once is very unlikely to be enough.

 

[tipoc]

I'm just going back to the original questions for a moment and which I shortened some for simplicity...

1) Who are the shooters who have 'contributed' to the data? Are they trained/experienced LEO's, who arguably would be more accurate, or does the data also include CCW'ers who have had to defend themselves?

The data for the OSS percentages was collected by Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow (both police officers and gun writers) over a period of more than 20 years beginning in the 1970s. They first began publishing the data and their theories in gun magazine articles in the 80s and published their first book "Handgun Stopping Power: The definitive Study" in 1992. Their second book was published later that same year, '92 and the third in 2001.

To get the material they researched as many shootings as they could interviewing those involved, both shooters and those who were shot, looking at medical records, police reports, interviewing morgue attendants and doctors, etc. Where they could they tried to get several reports on what occurred before they accepted the reports on what occurred as valid.

They never made the raw data available for examination by independent scientists or experts.

So the data was collected, and sometimes provided to M&S by some Departments or individuals in law enforcement, over a number of years and featured a number of shootings in many situations. The shootings could have been done by anyone in any situation, intentional, accidental, etc. If they met the criteria they were included. This according to M&S because no other independent researchers have seen it.

2) Is there any idea as to the shot placement of the 'one stop shots'? For example, if out of 10 shots fired 8 were head shots, it would skew the OSS percentage without really illustrating the effectiveness of a round when fired center of mass.

To qualify to be included in the data the shootings had to meet the OSS criteria. If the cases did not meet the criteria the shootings were not included and not counted. The criteria were:

1). A torso shot in the area from the collar bone to just below the navel from any angle to the front, back side, etc. Shots out side this area were not counted.
2.) The person hit had to stop any aggression and be, in the opinion of the shooter or other observers, incapable of aggressive action after being shot, in order to qualify.
3.) The person hit could move up to 10 feet after being shot but no further, in order to be included in the data.
4.) Multiple hits were ruled out.
5.) There had to be more than one source for the information to be considered useful for the study. One police report wasn't enough. One report, eyewitness account, interview with the EMT, this was acceptable.
6.) The bullet had to be recovered and photographed and enough of it left to identify along with other information so that they could identify the manufacturer.
7.) A minimum of 5 shootings had to be verified for the bullet type to be included in the study.

This information is taken from pages 43 and 44 of "Handgun Stopping Power.

3) What was the body type of the people who were shot? Were they bulit like Steve Urkel or Arnold Schwartznegger? Were the targets male or female? Young or old? Were any on drugs/alcohol at the time? Were there other health factors (bad heart, etc.) that may have contributed to a OSS?

These things were not a part of the criteria and so not counted. Because they did not share the data no one knows if this made any difference.

Their books and articles and the whole concept of OSS statistics is controversel for a number of reasons.

Hope this helps.

tipoc