Stopping Power...is this correct?

[orangeninja]

Thanks for all the replies...after reading all your comments and reading some other sources I have come to the conclusion that although energy matters....shot placement is 90 percent of it.

 

[rolltide]

Alduro,
I think you are absolutely right.

Sean,
The beautiful thing about circular logic is that you can say it as often as you like and still end up in the same place. Take a little trip and never leave the farm as it were.

Enjoy the ride!

I'll bet you just love a good Merry-Go-Round

Best Regards

Roll Tide

 

[cordex]

The only thing you have shown reasons for is that M&S data cannot be used to account for mutiple hit shootings

*laugh*

Okay, rolltide. I'll accept that that's all you've heard me (and others) say in this thread.

Now if you'll excuse me, CIASoGW has a meeting coming up. I'd better go compile statistics.

 

[HardCOR]

Yup, shot placement, speed of shot placement, find cover if possible and don't forget the BG may have friends you don't know about. Know what's going on around you. "Situational Awareness". Calibre is a secondary concern. Don't let it distract from fast shot placement.

You can only afford to miss with a "Flame Thrower" like .357, .40 or 10 mm. Heck just load'em with blanks and burn the BG's to death

 

[hipeflip]

I have been watching this thread for a while but I am not too deep into flaming so I have stayed away from posting. I am currently a student attending classes dealing with experimentation and statistics. After reading about this data (M&S) I am not impressed. People that do research are well aware that when it comes to external and internal validity you have to sacrifice one to achieve the other. In this case the data is clearly externally valid but suffers from its lack of internal validity. Two problems that immediately jump out at me concerning this data are the lack of generalizability due to the uniqueness of the sample being studied and the serious potential for extraneous variables. I know it may sound funny but to be honest I do not believe that one could confidently conclude from this data that the bullet (or type of bullet for that matter) was the only variable that effected the supposed stop (stopping power). Without causality it would be meaningless to apply a supposed stopping power rating to a bullet ( and kind of misleading). You would be better off just stating the correlation coefficient and the standard error of the estimate. So, to put it plainly my position is that this research does not meet the demands of science and should not be used as a basis for determining the stopping power of a bullet. Please dont flame me though because for one I have no loyalty for or against the people who did this study and two because I am looking at this from a scientific point of view which is skeptical and cautious by nature.

 

[cordex]

hipeflip,
So, from a scientific stance, what would you say are the strongest and weakest points of the M&S survey?

Where does the M&S survey surpass other methods for examining terminal effectiveness (such as jello shooting, shooting animals that are obviously physiologically different from humans, etc).

What benefits can you derive from the study as is?


What factors do you think M&S could add (if any) to make their study more valid?

Should they include barrel length and distance of the target from the shooter, and test the ammunition with that particular barrel length to determine an approximate velocity?

Should examples where intermediate barriers were shot through be included? Should the attacker's clothing be taken into account?

Should it be determined what - if any - vital organs were struck in each example, and what the ultimate cause of death or stop was?

Should cases where the perp was physiologically capable of continuing the attack be counted? How can psychological factors be examined and included (or discarded) from the study? Does the subjective size or menacing appearance of certain models of gun have any relavence to the psychological impact of a firearm in a given situation?

Should incidents where one round was obviously insufficient (i.e. a shot was fired, the attack continued and a few seconds or minutes later another shot was fired) be counted as a failure of a "One Shot Stop"? How can such incidents be seperated from the ones Marshall wanted to avoid where multiple shots were fired without regard to the eventual effects of the first one?

In short, is it possible to take the data that was supposedly gathered by M&S and actually obtain anything of value from it? Could another survey be commissioned (say, by the Cordex Institute) to follow in the footsteps of M&S but get scientifically valid results?

 

[bradvanhorn]

cordex and hipeflip - great input. I had similar thoughts rolling around the back of my head. I was initially thinking this would be a good question to pose to a statistics professor, but I think a statistics student is a good start.

Shawn - My mother-in-law had a heart attack last night, and as I was pacing the ICU waiting room, one of my trains of thought was about the general agreement to disagree about the S&M theory. I think you would be surprised to learn I probably agree with you more than you realize, but in the end our posts were sufficiently opposed as to make our debate mostly pointless. Anyway, I was also trying to think of where I'd heard of Port Orchard, WA; your listed location here at THR. I finally recalled it's nearby the Bangor NSB, and that put an idea in the back of my mind. I'll probably be leading a routine assistance team visit to our Marine Corps Security Force Company in Bangor from 29 Mar to 1 Apr, so I'll be out in your neighborhood in about a month or so. Would you be interested in meeting one afternoon or evening to talk about some of this in greater detail? Of course I would have to stipulate we both remain unarmed so as to preclude any live fire testing.

 

[OF]

Sorry to hear about you Mother-In-Law, Brad. I hope everything turns out for you.

- Gabe

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Brad:

Sorry to hear about your mother-in-law. I hope she recovers soon.

I work at the command guarded by MCSF Co. I'm currently scheduled for travel to NSB Kings Bay from 3/22 to 4/9, however there's a possibility that my trip will be rescheduled.

E-mail me ([email protected]) and we'll see about getting together.

BTW, I'm *never* unarmed, so plan accordingly.

Cheers!

 

[P95Carry]

Of course I would have to stipulate we both remain unarmed so as to preclude any live fire testing.

Sorry Brad but .... LOL!!

 

[hipeflip]

So, from a scientific stance, what would you say are the strongest and weakest points of the M&S survey?

The strongest point that I gather from this data is that it was collected from real life situations and people. This means that we got something to start with that is occuring, for lack of a beter term, naturally.

Where does the M&S survey surpass other methods for examining terminal effectiveness (such as jello shooting, shooting animals that are obviously physiologically different from humans, etc).

I wouldnt say it surpasses those methods because they have different forms of validity. On one hand you have a 'controlled setting' where you can test an independent variable (being shot) and then measure the dependent variable (the damage) to see the cause and effect relationship. The problem here is that we dont have a human being shot so our sample (jello, animals) is not representative of the population we wish to apply our findings to. Then you have a natural setting (minimal control) where you can only get information after the fact and you dont get the whole picture.

What factors do you think M&S could add (if any) to make their study more valid?

This is a tough one. I havent seen their numbers or their full method in detail so I can only guess as to how complete their information gathering process is. Truth be told, I dont know if it is reasonable or effective to study this relationship in a natural setting. I mean it is reasonable to compile the data of as many shootings as you can and then to correlate all the variables as a precursor to doing true experiments. Still, when it comes down to it I have trouble believing it is worth the time and effort to do that .

Should they include barrel length and distance of the target from the shooter, and test the ammunition with that particular barrel length to determine an approximate velocity?

Distance of the target from the shooter and velocity yes. Barrel length shouldnt matter if you have velocity at impact.

Should examples where intermediate barriers were shot through be included? Should the attacker's clothing be taken into account?

If you have velocity at impact (of skin) barriers and clothing would be confounding. They would be useful if you looked the problem more from the viewpoint of decreasing velocity.

Should it be determined what - if any - vital organs were struck in each example, and what the ultimate cause of death or stop was?

Thats what I would be looking for since I am not knowledgeable about this stuff. Still, I doubt you will find one ultimate cause.

Should cases where the perp was physiologically capable of continuing the attack be counted? How can psychological factors be examined and included (or discarded) from the study? Does the subjective size or menacing appearance of certain models of gun have any relavence to the psychological impact of a firearm in a given situation?

The first part of this

Should cases where the perp was physiologically capable of continuing the attack be counted??

deals with how you operationally define 'stopping power.' The next two parts seem reasonable but may be extraneous or more specifically confounding. To really understand the problem you need to simplify the relationship and psychological factors are so varied between individuals that I think it would make this research too difficult to accomplish.

Should incidents where one round was obviously insufficient (i.e. a shot was fired, the attack continued and a few seconds or minutes later another shot was fired) be counted as a failure of a "One Shot Stop"? How can such incidents be seperated from the ones Marshall wanted to avoid where multiple shots were fired without regard to the eventual effects of the first one?

I think this one shot stop idea is really a big problem when it comes to this research. it almost seems counterintuitive because for a one shot stop to occur you need so many things need to go just right and then you need a shooter that only shoots once. I think this is where a controlled laboratory experiment is weak but with time we will increase our knowledge of all the variables and will be able to single out the most important ones.

In short, is it possible to take the data that was supposedly gathered by M&S and actually obtain anything of value from it? Could another survey be commissioned (say, by the Cordex Institute) to follow in the footsteps of M&S but get scientifically valid results?

I havent seen the data so I cant see how much we can get out of it. The results of this research were valid it was just the goal of the research that presented the problem. It is not wise to put your confidence into finding causality through externally valid research designs. The findings of this study can say that this caliber has a relationship with incapacitating a person but it cannot say this caliber caused the incapaciating. This sounds like a reasonable way to start research if your using a descriptive hypothesis. Still, I dont think that this will ultimately be the kind of research that is going to enhance our knowledge of 'stopping power'.

 

[cordex]

This is a tough one. I havent seen their numbers or their full method in detail so I can only guess as to how complete their information gathering process is.

Well ... you're not alone. As far as I know, M&S are the only ones who have seen their numbers in full detail. Marshall makes some pretty lofty claims about the depth of his information gathering work, but I can't speak towards the accuracy thereof.

Distance of the target from the shooter and velocity yes. Barrel length shouldnt matter if you have velocity at impact.

I figured that with barrel length, loading and distance you could determine the approximate velocity of the bullet.

If you have velocity at impact (of skin) barriers and clothing would be confounding. They would be useful if you looked the problem more from the viewpoint of decreasing velocity.

What about deformation/fragmentation of a bullet? Or packing of a hollow point from shooting through sheet rock, clothing, etc?

To really understand the problem you need to simplify the relationship and psychological factors are so varied between individuals that I think it would make this research too difficult to accomplish.

Agreed, so the study should probably concentrate only on cases where attacks were physiologically stopped - something that is more repeatable and constant, right?

I think this one shot stop idea is really a big problem when it comes to this research. it almost seems counterintuitive because for a one shot stop to occur you need so many things need to go just right and then you need a shooter that only shoots once. I think this is where a controlled laboratory experiment is weak but with time we will increase our knowledge of all the variables and will be able to single out the most important ones.

Once again, I agree. One Shot Stop ratings are artificially inflated due to the methods created to pick them. A cartridge might have a 100% "One Shot Stop" rating, yet have failed to deliver the promised "One Shot Stop" 90% of the time in instances that resulted in multiple shots. Since no tactical doctrine of defensive pistol shooting that I'm aware of requires you to fire only one shot, I'm not as interested in what happens if I only fire one shot.

I havent seen the data so I cant see how much we can get out of it.

Again, you're not alone. They've refused to release anything but preparsed numbers.

As I said earlier, if they released the body of evidence they claim to have collected, they might have some good information - and make a lot of money on the way.

The results of this research were valid it was just the goal of the research that presented the problem. It is not wise to put your confidence into finding causality through externally valid research designs.

In other words, the results (x% of people shot with a given cartridge once and only once in a given area stopped their attack) are accurate, but deriving "... thus, said cartridge is better/worse than another cartridge" is not supported?

I dont think that this will ultimately be the kind of research that is going to enhance our knowledge of 'stopping power'.

Agreed, but the Cordex Institute has already been approved for a six year extension on their Annual Survey of Gunshot Wounding grant, so I guess the lab boys will keep working on it. I'll try to provide the results of the next report when it comes out. Maybe I'll publish it and get lots of followers.

 

[OF]

Good stuff Cord!

- Gabe