7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
Who's making a 40mm? I want one 
Stopping Power...is this correct?
- Thread starter orangeninja
- Start date
- Status
Marshall and Sanow have never tried to disguise or mislead anyone about their data. Their critics have NEVER been able to bring any better data forward. It is easy to criticize. It is much more difficult to do something meaningful. Someone said M&S have never won an argument. That may well be true, but it is at least equally true that they have never lost one either. Most of their critics either offer questionable anecdotes to refute questionable anecdotes, or they misrepresent what M&S said then tear down the misrepresentation. I have never seen one critic offer any data that is more credible than M&S.
Can you say from their figures that a 125gr JHP in 357 will definitely stop an attacker 96% of the time within an error margin of 2 or 3%?
NO
I don't think M&S ever tried to make that point.
Does every multiple shot shooting indicate a one shot stop failure?
NO
Often multiple shots are fired even when they are not needed or out of shear panic. Many train to shoot double or triple taps every time they shoot. That seems wise in any defense against lethal force.
Is it significant that in 96% of the cases where only one shot was fired FOR WHATEVER REASON, that the attacker ceased their attack?
YES
Especially in the great number of shootings that are in the sample.
M&S data cannot guarantee a OSS percentage on any specific load. Does that mean their data is worthless?
NO
It is significant to compare what happened when assailants were hit with only one shot of a given caliber, regardless of why they were hit with only one shot. The best use of the data is for comparing the effectiveness of a single shot in different calibers. Personally I am glad to have their data, although I understand that only the Bible is gospel.
I have seen M&S advocates and critics over simplify the arguments for and against. Then they turn around and destroy the oversimplified arguments.
I prefer to just use the data for what it is and not try to make more or less of it than the data warrant, and I try not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
IMHO, If you must have 100% one shot stops, use a 12ga, properly loaded, and hit center mass. Everything else is a compromise.
Best Regards to all,
Roll Tide
Can you say from their figures that a 125gr JHP in 357 will definitely stop an attacker 96% of the time within an error margin of 2 or 3%?
NO
I don't think M&S ever tried to make that point.
Does every multiple shot shooting indicate a one shot stop failure?
NO
Often multiple shots are fired even when they are not needed or out of shear panic. Many train to shoot double or triple taps every time they shoot. That seems wise in any defense against lethal force.
Is it significant that in 96% of the cases where only one shot was fired FOR WHATEVER REASON, that the attacker ceased their attack?
YES
Especially in the great number of shootings that are in the sample.
M&S data cannot guarantee a OSS percentage on any specific load. Does that mean their data is worthless?
NO
It is significant to compare what happened when assailants were hit with only one shot of a given caliber, regardless of why they were hit with only one shot. The best use of the data is for comparing the effectiveness of a single shot in different calibers. Personally I am glad to have their data, although I understand that only the Bible is gospel.
I have seen M&S advocates and critics over simplify the arguments for and against. Then they turn around and destroy the oversimplified arguments.
I prefer to just use the data for what it is and not try to make more or less of it than the data warrant, and I try not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
IMHO, If you must have 100% one shot stops, use a 12ga, properly loaded, and hit center mass. Everything else is a compromise.
Best Regards to all,
Roll Tide
Why do I do this to myself? My blood pressure really can't take this. <training for curmudgeonhood>
*sigh*
For you, I present Correia's concise explaination of why "real world" accounts such as M&S's "Stopping Power" is bunk:
*sigh*
1. Many of their critics do not simply suggest that the data is bad (though, that is among the implications many bring), they contend that such a studies results are worthless, as it cannot begin to start to think about considering to take into account the infinite variables of a gunfight, and even if they could, that data could not be used to predict the results of a subsequent gunfight. Thus, bringing "better data" would not be something said critic would be likely to do, as it wouldn't solve the problems they have with the study.
For you, I present Correia's concise explaination of why "real world" accounts such as M&S's "Stopping Power" is bunk:
2. It is easy to criticize their critics with this meaningless challenge. It is much more difficult to logically defend M&S's fallacious findings.
3. Read the threads that have been linked to.
4. See 1.
Black Majik
Member
.40S&W has more stopping power than the .45 ACP? 
...blasphemy!...
...blasphemy!...
antediluvianist
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2003
- Messages
- 182
handguns are relatively weak
Just use the proverbial "highest caliber gun that you can control WELL" - after a lot of practice - and keep firing multiple shots into COM.
It has been said that a handgun has, depending on its caliber, approximately one-fifth to one-seventh the muzzle energy of a military rifle (just compare the known muzzle energies.) So there is no "best" with a handgun. Multiple hits are necessary to have a good chance of "stopping" the BG. "Single shot stop" percentage? Not bloody likely.
Just use the proverbial "highest caliber gun that you can control WELL" - after a lot of practice - and keep firing multiple shots into COM.
It has been said that a handgun has, depending on its caliber, approximately one-fifth to one-seventh the muzzle energy of a military rifle (just compare the known muzzle energies.) So there is no "best" with a handgun. Multiple hits are necessary to have a good chance of "stopping" the BG. "Single shot stop" percentage? Not bloody likely.
Let's see. They are good for separating the gullible from their cash and selling magazines/advertising space. They are also a good source of supplemental income for a couple of gunwriters and free advertising for a fringe ammo manufacturers (well maybe not free--we just don't know for sure).
Actually, it goes beyond that..40S&W has more stopping power than the .45 ACP?
As covered in one of the referenced threads, M&S attempt to demonstrate that ...
A good .40 load is equal to or better than many .223, .308 and 12 gauge loads.
The best 9mm loadings can be compared to several of the 00 and all of the 4 buck 12 gauge loads evaluated.
Anyone agree that one shot of any 9x19mm is equivalent to one shot of Remington 2 3/4" 00 buck?
Cordex,
I have also been in many of these discussions. I am not really interested in another endless debate either, but I would bring up a few salient points in your response.
1. A very good point is made that there are many unquantifiable (is that a word) variables in a gunfight. That is precisely why studies like the ones done by M&S are about as good as can be done. While I agree with you the M&S numbers are not absolutely indicative of the past or absolutely predictive of the future, I must reiterate that the M&S data is valuable for much more general comparison because it is real life data that reports quantifiable results of situations comprised of unquantifiable (?) variables.
The critic’s argument at this point is basically "M&S numbers are worthless because they did not quantify the unquantifiable variables". M&S never attempted or pretended to quantify those variables. Fackler and Firearmstactical have attempted to discredit M&S by attempting to quantify the unquantifiable ( a task which they have failed miserably.) I find the M&S approach more honest and logical.
I would simply state that every election is a quantifiable result of unquantifiable variables that led people to vote the way they did.
Results are important even if the variables that produced them are not completely understood.
2. The reason you find the challenge meaningless is because it is not a challenge at all. It is a simple statement of fact. It is a lot easier to take pot shots at the water bucket than carry the water. (I'm sorry, but these meaningless challenges are just so easy, a point that has not entirely escaped the critics of M&S.)
3. I read those pages and many others long ago, and they are exactly what I referenced in the statement you quoted.
4. There was a little boy who stood shooting at the moon with his BB gun. A man walked by and asked him what he was doing. The boy replied he was shooting at the moon. The man told him that the moon was millions of miles away and he could never hit it with a BB gun. The boy said, "That is true, but I am getting closer than you are."
My point is that M&S are much closer to meaningful data than any of their critics.
Best Regards,
Roll Tide
PS This really isn't anything you should get your blood pressure elevated over. Take care of yourself.
I have also been in many of these discussions. I am not really interested in another endless debate either, but I would bring up a few salient points in your response.
1. A very good point is made that there are many unquantifiable (is that a word) variables in a gunfight. That is precisely why studies like the ones done by M&S are about as good as can be done. While I agree with you the M&S numbers are not absolutely indicative of the past or absolutely predictive of the future, I must reiterate that the M&S data is valuable for much more general comparison because it is real life data that reports quantifiable results of situations comprised of unquantifiable (?) variables.
The critic’s argument at this point is basically "M&S numbers are worthless because they did not quantify the unquantifiable variables". M&S never attempted or pretended to quantify those variables. Fackler and Firearmstactical have attempted to discredit M&S by attempting to quantify the unquantifiable ( a task which they have failed miserably.) I find the M&S approach more honest and logical.
I would simply state that every election is a quantifiable result of unquantifiable variables that led people to vote the way they did.
Results are important even if the variables that produced them are not completely understood.
2. The reason you find the challenge meaningless is because it is not a challenge at all. It is a simple statement of fact. It is a lot easier to take pot shots at the water bucket than carry the water. (I'm sorry, but these meaningless challenges are just so easy, a point that has not entirely escaped the critics of M&S.)
3. I read those pages and many others long ago, and they are exactly what I referenced in the statement you quoted.
4. There was a little boy who stood shooting at the moon with his BB gun. A man walked by and asked him what he was doing. The boy replied he was shooting at the moon. The man told him that the moon was millions of miles away and he could never hit it with a BB gun. The boy said, "That is true, but I am getting closer than you are."
My point is that M&S are much closer to meaningful data than any of their critics.
Best Regards,
Roll Tide
PS This really isn't anything you should get your blood pressure elevated over. Take care of yourself.
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
rolltide,
It is clear that you are approaching this question with an a priori faith in Marshal & Sanow's claims. It is also clear that the study is OBJECTIVELY WORTHLESS. Here is why:
The study can't reliably detect EXTREMELY LARGE differences in stopping power. .308 rifle cartridges and 12ga slugs produce virtually the same OSS % figures as many handgun cartridges. Put another way, the study can't tell the difference between the on-target effects of 168gr @ 2,680 ft/sec (2,680 ft-lbs KE) or 438gr @ 1,600 ft/sec (2,490 ft-lbs) projectiles on one hand (99-97% OSS)... and 135gr @ 1,300 ft/sec (507 ft-lbs) or 125gr @ 1,450 ft/sec (584 ft-lbs) on the other (96% OSS).
The margin of error/confidence interval being alot bigger than 1-3%, of course. And since M&S used EXACTLY THE SAME criteria for their OSS calcuations for all cartridges, this is a fair, apples-to-apples comparison.
Thats OBJECTIVE fact. That's their OWN RESULTS telling you the value of their study. To wit: nil. Because if the study can't detect HUGE differences in stopping power, it is objectively impossible for it to be useful in detecting relatively SMALL differences in stopping power, e.g. which .40 S&W hollowpoint is better, or which handgun cartridge has better stopping power.
You might as well use a yardstick with only foot increments on it to measure fractions of an inch.
It is clear that you are approaching this question with an a priori faith in Marshal & Sanow's claims. It is also clear that the study is OBJECTIVELY WORTHLESS. Here is why:
The study can't reliably detect EXTREMELY LARGE differences in stopping power. .308 rifle cartridges and 12ga slugs produce virtually the same OSS % figures as many handgun cartridges. Put another way, the study can't tell the difference between the on-target effects of 168gr @ 2,680 ft/sec (2,680 ft-lbs KE) or 438gr @ 1,600 ft/sec (2,490 ft-lbs) projectiles on one hand (99-97% OSS)... and 135gr @ 1,300 ft/sec (507 ft-lbs) or 125gr @ 1,450 ft/sec (584 ft-lbs) on the other (96% OSS).
The margin of error/confidence interval being alot bigger than 1-3%, of course. And since M&S used EXACTLY THE SAME criteria for their OSS calcuations for all cartridges, this is a fair, apples-to-apples comparison.
Thats OBJECTIVE fact. That's their OWN RESULTS telling you the value of their study. To wit: nil. Because if the study can't detect HUGE differences in stopping power, it is objectively impossible for it to be useful in detecting relatively SMALL differences in stopping power, e.g. which .40 S&W hollowpoint is better, or which handgun cartridge has better stopping power.
You might as well use a yardstick with only foot increments on it to measure fractions of an inch.
The 'argument' is not as simple or single-pronged as you would characterize it here. But you have one facet of it down, and the fact they never 'attempted or pretended to quantify those variables' is the real elephant in the living room, isn't it. If you can't account for the variables, you don't get valid data, now do you.
You must be kidding. The goal of the experiment is to compare the performance ('stopping power', as it is called) of one round against another. If the comparative data set is so full of 'unquantifiable variables' that your 'quantifiable variable' (a particular rounds OSS %) is just a small possible cause among many 'unquantifiable' causes of bringing about the experiment's outcome (dropping the perp) how can you possibly conclude that that data is worth anything as a method of drawing conclusions on round performance? Extremely important conclusions that people then use to choose their life-saving equipment!! It boggles the mind.
No. They are not. At least not in any credible scientific sense. If you don't understand and control the experiment, it's worthless. It's just that simple.
First, M&S need to be discredited as widely as possible, as their flawed methodology and conclusions are, in all likelyhood getting people killed. Second, you reach your 'logical' conclusion without any arguable logic to reach it... If you are comparing rounds, don't you need to compare rounds? Doesn't that require comparing rounds and not gunfights? They are not the same thing. M&S compare gunfights, Fackler et al compare rounds. Round performance is the question. Gunfight results are not the answer.
- Gabe
cratz2
Member
Actually, Fackler and Firearmstactical.com have attempted to discredit Marshall by showing that their percentages add up to over 100% on occasion... Bad math, misleading database pooling, whatever it is... it means something ain't right! As I and others have said, it is sad to think that even one officer's life might have been lost because an agency used their data to make a load or caliber selection.
Let me ask you this... would you let someone prepare your taxes that guaranteed you in print that if he prepared them a certain way he would get you 123% of the refund to which you were entitled? Would you his brother - a doctor, that claimed he had saved the lives of 113% of the patients he had worked on - work on your child?
In all honesty, I believe their 'research' or 'number crunching' is 7% more informative than no information at all... 9% if we consider +P+ loads.
But also in all honesty, Firearmstactical.com does kind of get on my nerves with how approximately one fifth of their writings go towards discrediting M&S. We get it! You think it's bunk! You've proven it's bunk! Get on with your own data!
Let me ask you this... would you let someone prepare your taxes that guaranteed you in print that if he prepared them a certain way he would get you 123% of the refund to which you were entitled? Would you his brother - a doctor, that claimed he had saved the lives of 113% of the patients he had worked on - work on your child?
In all honesty, I believe their 'research' or 'number crunching' is 7% more informative than no information at all... 9% if we consider +P+ loads.
But also in all honesty, Firearmstactical.com does kind of get on my nerves with how approximately one fifth of their writings go towards discrediting M&S. We get it! You think it's bunk! You've proven it's bunk! Get on with your own data!Sean,
It is no more evident that I have a priori faith in M&S than it is that you have a priori bias against M&S.
You seem to be missing a very important point here. If you are evaluating a given result as a percentage of incidents, as you approach 100%, the given causes could be said to be "equal" ONLY IN REFERENCE TO THE RESULT BEING EVALUATED. IT IS AN OBVIOUS AND VARIFIABLE FACT THAT MANY HAVE CONTINUED TO FIGHT EVEN AFTER BEING SHOT WITH HIGH POWER RIFLES AND FULL HOUSE SHOTGUN ROUNDS. (Some have actually gone on to win the Congressional Medal of Honor after taking rounds that should have stopped them including hand grenades.) IT IS AN OBVIOUS AND VARIFIABLE FACT THAT THE SAME IS TRUE OF MANY HANDGUN ROUNDS. M&S just reported the FACT that some handgun rounds stopped a fight in96% of the cases where one round is fired, and some shotgun rounds did so in LESS that 96% of the cases where only one shot is fired. They never claimed that a shotgun was equal to a handgun, they just reported the facts. Just because you accurately report that a howitzer and a 12ga will both kill bunny rabbits 100% dead, does not mean you don't understand the difference between a howitzer and a shotgun. M&S just reported real life objective results that do not agree with obviously preconceived notions of others, so others attempt to discredit M&S instead of reevaluating their own notions. A common failing in human nature I am afraid.
Lawyers put it this way:
If you are right on the law, try the case on the law.
If you are right on the facts, try the case based on the facts.
If you are not right on the law or the facts, destroy the witness.
Clinton did this very effectively even though he was wrong on the facts and the law.
For example Firearmstactical cannot get around the FACTS reported by M&S, so if they want to make money on their own information, they must spend inordinate amounts of time and energy trying to discredit M&S (evidently with great effect.). That is basically what all their "logic" against M&S boils down to.
Quite frankly I think Fackler, M&S, and Firearmstactical have each advanced our knowledge on the subject to a degree, but none of them has a corner on the truth. Just accept each for what it is without trying to demean the other.
Gabe,
This is not a scientific experiment, never was, never will be. You and many others just build up straw men, then tear them down. A common fallacy in logical debate. We are not just comparing rounds or just comparing results in gunfights. We are comparing a rounds ability to end a gunfight. As the objective facts tell most convincingly, a round's ability to do that simply flies in the face of the rounds balistics some times. Just because we can't fully understand why, does not mean that the fact that it happens is questionable. Some minds are easily boggled, mine included on occasion.
You confused "variables" and "results". The OSS figures are objective "results" of actual gunfights, not "variables" in the process.
cratz2,
I think trying to say that M&S data adds up to over 100% in some instances is an excellent example of twisting what M&S said into something they DID NOT SAY, then tearing down what they DID NOT SAY and claiming to have discredited M&S - rather silly isn't it.
One must be careful not to equate what one implies from what is said, with what is actually said, if one wants to be honest and fair.
I enjoy the banter fellas. I think you are all good guys motivated by good, but I think you are obivously as mislead on this topic as you think I am.
We have all studied the facts and drawn our conclusions. Let's be careful not to discount the other person just because we have come to different conclusions on this issue. Lets just agree to disagree without being diasagreeable.
Roll Tide
It is no more evident that I have a priori faith in M&S than it is that you have a priori bias against M&S.
You seem to be missing a very important point here. If you are evaluating a given result as a percentage of incidents, as you approach 100%, the given causes could be said to be "equal" ONLY IN REFERENCE TO THE RESULT BEING EVALUATED. IT IS AN OBVIOUS AND VARIFIABLE FACT THAT MANY HAVE CONTINUED TO FIGHT EVEN AFTER BEING SHOT WITH HIGH POWER RIFLES AND FULL HOUSE SHOTGUN ROUNDS. (Some have actually gone on to win the Congressional Medal of Honor after taking rounds that should have stopped them including hand grenades.) IT IS AN OBVIOUS AND VARIFIABLE FACT THAT THE SAME IS TRUE OF MANY HANDGUN ROUNDS. M&S just reported the FACT that some handgun rounds stopped a fight in96% of the cases where one round is fired, and some shotgun rounds did so in LESS that 96% of the cases where only one shot is fired. They never claimed that a shotgun was equal to a handgun, they just reported the facts. Just because you accurately report that a howitzer and a 12ga will both kill bunny rabbits 100% dead, does not mean you don't understand the difference between a howitzer and a shotgun. M&S just reported real life objective results that do not agree with obviously preconceived notions of others, so others attempt to discredit M&S instead of reevaluating their own notions. A common failing in human nature I am afraid.
Lawyers put it this way:
If you are right on the law, try the case on the law.
If you are right on the facts, try the case based on the facts.
If you are not right on the law or the facts, destroy the witness.
Clinton did this very effectively even though he was wrong on the facts and the law.
For example Firearmstactical cannot get around the FACTS reported by M&S, so if they want to make money on their own information, they must spend inordinate amounts of time and energy trying to discredit M&S (evidently with great effect.). That is basically what all their "logic" against M&S boils down to.
Quite frankly I think Fackler, M&S, and Firearmstactical have each advanced our knowledge on the subject to a degree, but none of them has a corner on the truth. Just accept each for what it is without trying to demean the other.
Gabe,
This is not a scientific experiment, never was, never will be. You and many others just build up straw men, then tear them down. A common fallacy in logical debate. We are not just comparing rounds or just comparing results in gunfights. We are comparing a rounds ability to end a gunfight. As the objective facts tell most convincingly, a round's ability to do that simply flies in the face of the rounds balistics some times. Just because we can't fully understand why, does not mean that the fact that it happens is questionable. Some minds are easily boggled, mine included on occasion.
You confused "variables" and "results". The OSS figures are objective "results" of actual gunfights, not "variables" in the process.
cratz2,
I think trying to say that M&S data adds up to over 100% in some instances is an excellent example of twisting what M&S said into something they DID NOT SAY, then tearing down what they DID NOT SAY and claiming to have discredited M&S - rather silly isn't it.
One must be careful not to equate what one implies from what is said, with what is actually said, if one wants to be honest and fair.
I enjoy the banter fellas. I think you are all good guys motivated by good, but I think you are obivously as mislead on this topic as you think I am.
We have all studied the facts and drawn our conclusions. Let's be careful not to discount the other person just because we have come to different conclusions on this issue. Lets just agree to disagree without being diasagreeable.
Roll Tide
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
No, your response was utter nonsense. If a .40 S&W and a .308 were anywhere NEAR each other in terms of "stopping power," you might could have a point. But they aren't, so you don't.
Huh? The M&S OSS criteria are the same across all calibers. Therefore a 96% OSS for .308 means exactly the same thing as a 96% OSS for .40 S&W. They are measuring the same thing in the same way... M&S say so themselves.
Except for the part that you leave out: on planet Earth, the rates are nowhere near each other.
... "the facts" being that the handgun round was superior than the shotgun round. Except, of course, that isn't true in real life.
So explain again how can a study to compare "stopping power" between cartridges have any value if it cannot discriminate HUGE differences in stopping power? The study can't measure what it is the whole point of the study to measure. Therefore, it is of no use to anybody.
Or do you really believe that any .40 S&W pistol cartridge has comparable "stopping power" to a .308 rifle? If so, you are simply too ignorant of objective reality to make your participation on this topic meaningful. If not, then M&S breaks down and their study is on the face of it worthless.
But if we are attempting to draw a conclusion from data, as you are, doesn't it make a difference whether the methodology is sound?
Please address Sean's questions directly and explain how his argument is 'straw man' in respect to the topic.
You're going to need to start drawing logical conclusions from your arguments if you want this to be considered a logical debate.
As I said: comparing rounds. The database compares rounds against each other re: their ability to 'end a gunfight'. If we don't agree on that, what is it exactly that the M&S data does again?
You are assuming that the reason a gunfight ends is due to the 'rounds ability' in every instance. This, 'as the objective facts tell most convincingly' to use your phrase, is demonstrably untrue. Just because a guy gets shot with a .22lr and puts his hands up another gets the MOH after taking an RPG to the chest does not does not mean that .22LR has some 'fight-stoping' powers that the RPG lacks. To draw that conclusion would be a grave mistake. It is even worse to base your decision on what round to use to save your life or the lives of others based such a conclusion. So if the M&S database can't tell the difference between a .22LR and shotgun, what is it's purpose. Are people or are they not making conclusions on a rounds performance using this database? A database that cannot tell the difference between rounds and is therefore worthless for comparing round performance.
But we are not interested in why the fight stopped. We are only interested in how the round contributed to that result. How that rounds contribution compares to the contribution of other rounds. That is the point. M&S' "data" cannot help us with this comparison. The more you talk, the more I think you believe that some rounds, that is to say hunks of metal, have some sort of magical property that other, similar, rounds do not. This 'unknowable property' has amazing gun-fight-stopping-power that is revealed through the M&S database, yet can not be quantified in any scientific way....why? Is it magic?
The point is that the variable you are trying to measure: a rounds' ability to 'stop a gunfight' is lost in a sea of other unknowns. The result is what Sean is explaining: garbage. A system for measuring ammunition performance that can't tell the difference between a .308 and a .40S&W. Here is the point: the M&S database is worthless as a means of comparing the terminal performance of ammunition. You seem to argue that this is not the point of the database...well...what is the point?
- Gabe
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,195
What facts? Please elaborate. Thanks!
The reason (and logic) why we spent "inordinate amounts of time and energy" on Marshall/Sanow was to attack the problem from different angles so readers could better comprehend the significance of the flaws.
HankB
Member
That's because they've never shared their source data - only their analysis of it.
They haven't shared their complete analysis methodology, either.
I submit that it's not up to Marshall and Sanow's detractors to prove them wrong - since they're presenting what they allege to be results, the burden of proof is on THEM to prove themselves RIGHT. Peer review and full disclosure would help - but they'll do neither.
Given the absence of source data for independent review, it's hard to prove they're wrong, but there's ample reason to doubt the accuracy of what they've presented. Some of the data they presented early on showed that a .44 Mag Silvertip HP had better stopping power results than .357 Silvertip HP. So a smaller diameter, lighter weight bullet, moving noticeably slower . . . gave better results?!? Something this counter-intuitive needs to be fully explained. They made no effort to do so.
Model520Fan
Member
M&S data are fudged. I read their gunrag articles from when they first started, and watched shootings disappear. I don't accuse them of dishonesty, just COMPLETE ignorance of what constitutes science.
FWIW, Sanow's newer method of calculation of theoretical stopping power is a WORSE fit to his fudged data than his older 1300fps-breakpoint method, but he's too caught up in his elementary statistics course to see it.
Meanwhile, the whole magic cartridge approach is, in my well-read but inexperienced opinion, a crock. Bullet shapes count, and placement counts. Psychological factors aside, every time a bad guy, or, for that matter, a good guy, hits the ground, it is because of very specific physiological phenomena having to do with destroying important parts of the skeletal system or depriving the brain of oxygen by messing up the heart or major blood vessels, or by redistibuting the brain to locations outside the cranium. These outcomes have a lot more to do with terminal bullet shape and placement than with bogus percentages or temporary wound cavities.
FWIW, Sanow's newer method of calculation of theoretical stopping power is a WORSE fit to his fudged data than his older 1300fps-breakpoint method, but he's too caught up in his elementary statistics course to see it.
Meanwhile, the whole magic cartridge approach is, in my well-read but inexperienced opinion, a crock. Bullet shapes count, and placement counts. Psychological factors aside, every time a bad guy, or, for that matter, a good guy, hits the ground, it is because of very specific physiological phenomena having to do with destroying important parts of the skeletal system or depriving the brain of oxygen by messing up the heart or major blood vessels, or by redistibuting the brain to locations outside the cranium. These outcomes have a lot more to do with terminal bullet shape and placement than with bogus percentages or temporary wound cavities.
popbang
Member
Look at it this way if two gentlemen will not let their data be peer reviewed then all that can be examined is their methodology. If their methods have flaws then the outcome is flawed.
They need to learn how to work with statistics, especially small populations.
They need to learn how to work with statistics, especially small populations.
bradvanhorn
Member
As we've all seen before, "lies, damn lies, and statistics."
In this case, I don't think anyone has ever presented a truly convincing argument for any side of the debate. I think there are interesting and believable hypothesis out there, but as someone said here, "we are trying to measure that which is not measurable." We are trying to put an objective answer on a subjective equation, and thus many people will not be pleased with the outcome.
When I look at what has been published on the matter of bullet effectiveness, I see many things that don't really add up.
The lab people shoot at covered blocks of gelatin, show charts with all manner of detailed numbers, and yet how does this translate to a human being? Speculation, that's how. What is "human tissue," and how does gelatin represent it? I don't see any bones in there; what's going to happen to that hollow-point when it hits a bone first? How about the effects of adrenaline, or crack cocaine? I don't know, and I don't think anyone else truly does either.
Marshall and Sanow will show you similarly detailed charts, which supposedly tell you about the effectiveness of round A. This information is supposedly taken from stories and forensic research demonstrating how round A reacted in person B when scrutinized by set of circumstances C. How does that translate to what'll happen when I put three rounds in someone's "x-ring". I don't know, and I don't think anyone else truly does either.
I fully agree that Marshall and Sanow are presenting results of analysis for which they've never shared their source data or their analysis methodology. Although Marshall and Sanow should submit their data and analysis for peer review, they show no intention of doing so. However, I do not believe it is sufficient for critics to simply say, "we don't like your methods or your results, which you haven't fully explained to us, so we say you're full of dung."
Critics who are willing to simply rest on their "dung" argument are doing everyone a disservice. If these critics are so convinced the results are misrepresented, then they should do the research and analysis, and present the "true" picture. Show us using similar methods why Marshall and Sanow are wrong. No one has done this, yet from a scientific perspective, it is logical to attempt to do so.
For example, I say that when I go out at night, the sky is dark. Many people criticize me, stating my methods and results are unsound. Yet those same critics only go out during the daytime, and only see the sun shining. Therefore, the sky cannot be dark at night; I am wrong, they are right, and why should they bother trying to disprove what I've said. If my critics truly want to prove me wrong, then one night they will go out and look up at the sky. My critics can then say, "see the sky is not dark, there is the moon, the stars, lights of the city, etc." Now they have verifiable evidence at their disposal to prove my theory is wrong. Once they've done that, then they can reasonably and credibly criticize me.
The point is that if I'm a critic, instead of folding my arms across my chest and saying, "you're wrong, I'm right, it's up to you to prove your work, and in the meanwhile I'll be calling you everything from a fraud to downright dangerous." If you think they're wrong, follow in their footsteps, recreate their conditions (or fix the broken methods), and then show the world your conclusions. I believe the critics are unwilling to put themselves in a position where they might have to agree with the Marshall and Sanow results; therefore, they are unwilling to give up the "dung" argument.
I believe that each side has some merit to its conclusions, but those conclusions are still based on unproven, perhaps unprovable, hypothesis. No two humans are exactly the same, and it's unlikely two bullets will ever perform exactly the same when striking a unique human. So, it looks like all we can do is test, speculate, and debate. Unfortunately, I doubt that right or wrong are likely to be part of the final answer.
In this case, I don't think anyone has ever presented a truly convincing argument for any side of the debate. I think there are interesting and believable hypothesis out there, but as someone said here, "we are trying to measure that which is not measurable." We are trying to put an objective answer on a subjective equation, and thus many people will not be pleased with the outcome.
When I look at what has been published on the matter of bullet effectiveness, I see many things that don't really add up.
The lab people shoot at covered blocks of gelatin, show charts with all manner of detailed numbers, and yet how does this translate to a human being? Speculation, that's how. What is "human tissue," and how does gelatin represent it? I don't see any bones in there; what's going to happen to that hollow-point when it hits a bone first? How about the effects of adrenaline, or crack cocaine? I don't know, and I don't think anyone else truly does either.
Marshall and Sanow will show you similarly detailed charts, which supposedly tell you about the effectiveness of round A. This information is supposedly taken from stories and forensic research demonstrating how round A reacted in person B when scrutinized by set of circumstances C. How does that translate to what'll happen when I put three rounds in someone's "x-ring". I don't know, and I don't think anyone else truly does either.
I fully agree that Marshall and Sanow are presenting results of analysis for which they've never shared their source data or their analysis methodology. Although Marshall and Sanow should submit their data and analysis for peer review, they show no intention of doing so. However, I do not believe it is sufficient for critics to simply say, "we don't like your methods or your results, which you haven't fully explained to us, so we say you're full of dung."
Critics who are willing to simply rest on their "dung" argument are doing everyone a disservice. If these critics are so convinced the results are misrepresented, then they should do the research and analysis, and present the "true" picture. Show us using similar methods why Marshall and Sanow are wrong. No one has done this, yet from a scientific perspective, it is logical to attempt to do so.
For example, I say that when I go out at night, the sky is dark. Many people criticize me, stating my methods and results are unsound. Yet those same critics only go out during the daytime, and only see the sun shining. Therefore, the sky cannot be dark at night; I am wrong, they are right, and why should they bother trying to disprove what I've said. If my critics truly want to prove me wrong, then one night they will go out and look up at the sky. My critics can then say, "see the sky is not dark, there is the moon, the stars, lights of the city, etc." Now they have verifiable evidence at their disposal to prove my theory is wrong. Once they've done that, then they can reasonably and credibly criticize me.
The point is that if I'm a critic, instead of folding my arms across my chest and saying, "you're wrong, I'm right, it's up to you to prove your work, and in the meanwhile I'll be calling you everything from a fraud to downright dangerous." If you think they're wrong, follow in their footsteps, recreate their conditions (or fix the broken methods), and then show the world your conclusions. I believe the critics are unwilling to put themselves in a position where they might have to agree with the Marshall and Sanow results; therefore, they are unwilling to give up the "dung" argument.
I believe that each side has some merit to its conclusions, but those conclusions are still based on unproven, perhaps unprovable, hypothesis. No two humans are exactly the same, and it's unlikely two bullets will ever perform exactly the same when striking a unique human. So, it looks like all we can do is test, speculate, and debate. Unfortunately, I doubt that right or wrong are likely to be part of the final answer.
brad -
First off, ballistic gelatin does not, nor was it ever meant to, simulate human tissue. It was developed as medium to test bullet penetration and expansion. Various studies (foremost among them Wolberg's work) show a very strong correlaton between bullet performance in properly calibrated ballistic gelatin and human tissue. The results are a little "consistent" in gelatin--i.e., a smaller deviation, or spread, on either side of the mean, but the mean is constant in both gelatin and human tissue.
Secondly, the effects of adrenaline or crack cocaine is far more a factor in S&M's "work" than in the "lab people's" work. The "lab people" recognize there are only two dependable means of incapacitation--loss of blood pressure or CNS damage. Once the blood pressure drops below a certain point or the CNS sustains sufficient damage, the effects of adrenalin or crack cocaine become meaningless. They basically give you information concerning penetration and expansion, and let you make up your own mind--they are not into recommending the "top ten loads," etc. like S&M.
You need to do a little more reading.
First off, ballistic gelatin does not, nor was it ever meant to, simulate human tissue. It was developed as medium to test bullet penetration and expansion. Various studies (foremost among them Wolberg's work) show a very strong correlaton between bullet performance in properly calibrated ballistic gelatin and human tissue. The results are a little "consistent" in gelatin--i.e., a smaller deviation, or spread, on either side of the mean, but the mean is constant in both gelatin and human tissue.
Secondly, the effects of adrenaline or crack cocaine is far more a factor in S&M's "work" than in the "lab people's" work. The "lab people" recognize there are only two dependable means of incapacitation--loss of blood pressure or CNS damage. Once the blood pressure drops below a certain point or the CNS sustains sufficient damage, the effects of adrenalin or crack cocaine become meaningless. They basically give you information concerning penetration and expansion, and let you make up your own mind--they are not into recommending the "top ten loads," etc. like S&M.
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,195
Would you kindly refer me to a few of these "charts with all manner of detailed numbers"?
Speaking of speculation, I refer you to page 2 of the 1989 FBI Ammunition Tests, which states:
"The 10% gelatin has been correlated against the actual results of over 200 [FBI] shooting incidents."
See: Wolberg, Eugene J: "Performance of the Winchester 9mm 147 Grain Subsonic Jacketed Hollow Point Bullet in Human Tissue and Tissue Simulant," Wound Ballistics Review, Volume 1, Number 1,: 1991, pp. 10-13.
IIRC, prior to his death, Wolberg's study compared results of approximately 150 shootings by San Diego Police to results observed in ordnance gelatin.
Also: Fackler, Martin L., MD: "The Wound Profile & The Human Body: Damage Pattern Correlations," Wound Ballistics Review, Volume 1, Number 4; 1994, pp. 12-19. Fackler states
Fackler's article presents comparisons of several shootings to results observed in ordnance gelatin.
As popbang already mentioned, Marshall has published his complete methodology. It is erroneous. End of story.
bradvanhorn
Member
I should've known better... :banghead:
First, I don't belong to any camp in this issue, so I'm not trying to defend or attack anyone. That said:
jc2, thanks for the advice, but I can read quite well thank you, and I've read your input, or material similar to it before.
Same goes for you Shawn. Try ammolab.com (who I think do interesting testing), or your own website for all manner of numbers.
The best part about owning a computer... you can turn it off
First, I don't belong to any camp in this issue, so I'm not trying to defend or attack anyone. That said:
jc2, thanks for the advice, but I can read quite well thank you, and I've read your input, or material similar to it before.
Same goes for you Shawn. Try ammolab.com (who I think do interesting testing), or your own website for all manner of numbers.
The best part about owning a computer... you can turn it off
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,195
What? That your many falsehoods will go uncorrected?
These numbers aren't intended to "translate into a human being."
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
