Stopping Power...is this correct?

[OF]

One problem I have with this argument is how repeatedly one side presents quantifiable data and one side presents...nothing.

The M&S database is not only inconclusive, it is fundamentally flawed and, as Sean stated, objectively worthless. Yet M&S supporters continue with the "can't we all just get along" line. Someone is right and someone is wrong. It's that simple. Prove you are right. Don't fall back on this "it's not provable" garbage. People have pointed out several legitimate problems with the M&S methodology and instead of demonstrating how those attacks are incorrect, we get sweeping generalizations demeaning the intent of the critics. Show me why a database that can't tell the difference between .308 and .40S&W can be relied upon to compare ammunition performance. Just explain it. Don't pay any attention to anything else. Do not attack the critics, just answer the question. What is the M&S data good for?

Support your position or be open-minded enough to change your position.


- Gabe

 

[rolltide]

OK guys, maybe you can teach me something here since my responses are "utter non-sense", and I believe in "magic". If you will be so kind, please answer a few direct questions that will help me understand where you are coming from. I will also be glad to respond to any of your direct questions. In simple terms, lets get to the rat killin'.


Sean said:

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.

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.

You must have some absolute knowledge about "stopping power", "rates" on "planet earth", and what is true in "real life". Let's see.

Question 1
Exactly what facts do you base YOUR OPINION that a pistol round and a rifle round cannot possibly come within a few percentage points of 100% stops with one shot to the torso?

IF you have no facts, you have no point. Marshall and Sanow looked at 306 ACTUAL SHOOTINGS where IMI .308 ammunition was used and only one shot was fired. Out of all the instances they investigated where only one such round was used, they stopped the perp 98% of the time. Marshall and Sanow looked at 523 ACTUAL SHOOTINGS where Federal 125gr JHP ammunition was used and only one shot was fired. Out of all the instances they investigated where only one such round was used, they stopped the perp 96% of the time. Now if they M&S lied and just invented all those numbers, then there figures are of course meaningless. NO ONE HAS EVER PROVED THEY INVENTED THEIR FIGURES. Let's see your proof.

Question 2
How many ACTUAL SHOOTINGS have you investigated? (Or do you know of anyone else who has investigated that many similar shootings and come up with significantly different results)?

Please cite the study you base your knowledge of "real life" "stopping power" on (either your own or someone elses.) If your knowledge is not based on actual shootings then it is merely a guess of what might happen in an actual shooting. Quite frankly I am not interested in your GUESSES or anyone elses, I can guess myself. I really don't expect you to answer these two questions directly because it would show that you are just spouting off with nothing to back up what you say, but maybe you will surprise me. I have been wrong before.

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 you mean do I believe that a 40SW round (or a 357 round) could stop the same perecentage of people with one shot to the torso as a 308 round, then the answer is YES I DO BASED ON THE 829 ACTUAL SHOOTINGS MENTIONED ABOVE. I guess in your estimation I am "simply too ignorant of objective reality to make your participation on this topic meaningful." Quite a bold statement. Any fool can make bold statements, and most of them do. It will be interesting how to see IF and HOW you answer these two simple, direct questions. I am waiting to learn FROM you or ABOUT you, depending upon your response or lack of it. Let's see how "objective" your "reality" is.

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?

I have seen no proof, objective or otherwise, in this thread or elsewhere, that there is any "huge differences in stopping power" which are not expalined by M&S. Therefore I disagree with the premise of the question. Your direct answers to the two questions above (or lack thereof) should prove very enlightening to us all.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Gabe,
You have asked some honest questions and deserve some direct answers.

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?

Just because I said the data was not a "scientific experiment" does not mean I said the methodology was not sound. I believe that the methodology of M&S was sound for comparing the stopping ability of different rounds, notwithstanding comments of firearmstactical to the contrary.

Please address Sean's questions directly and explain how his argument is 'straw man' in respect to the topic.

I did address Seans questions directly above. Let's see if he answers mine. As for his straw man argument, let me explain. His basic point was:
"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."
He never proved that there were any EXTREMELY LARGE differences in stopping power, period, nor that they are unaccounted for in M&S data. His "Straw Man" is his unproven ASSUMPTION that there are these extremely large differences in stopping power that M&S did not account for. His answers to questions one and two should shed light on this.

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?

I said I DO believe that the M&S data is useful for comparing rounds.

Here is the point: the M&S database is worthless as a means of comparing the terminal performance of ammunition.

Question 3
Why is it worthless to look at every instance where one shot is fired and document the performance of that round under those conditions? That seems useful to me.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Shawn,
The facts are that evaluating what the results were in hundreds of cases where one shot was fired is an extremely useful measure of what a round will and will not do with one shot.

FACT:
Out of 523 times that only one shot of Fed. 125gr JHP was fired at an attacker, the attack ceased in 96% percent of the cases.

FACT:
While that does not prove that round will stop someone 96% of the time (as you so ably point out on your site) it does prove that the 357 round is about 5 times better than a round where one shot only stopped the attack 20% of the time in hundreds of cases.

FACT:
Therefore M&S is not worthless bunk if it demostrates that a single shot of a 357 round will stop someone the same percentage of the time that a single shot of a 308 round. WE KNOW THAT IS TRUE IN 829 ACTUAL SHOOTINGS.

Question 4
Do you say that the results of these 829 shootings are worthless bunk when comparing the 2 rounds involved? If yes, explain.


Hankb

It is not just DIFFICULT to prove they are wrong without their data
I T I S I M P O S S I B L E ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Without such proof, all your other points are pure conjecture.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


Well it will be intersting to see what kind of answers we get.


Best Regards,

Roll Tide

 

[OF]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just because I said the data was not a "scientific experiment" does not mean I said the methodology was not sound. I believe that the methodology of M&S was sound for comparing the stopping ability of different rounds, notwithstanding comments of firearmstactical to the contrary.

But the problem is, we are comparing round performance. Their methodology does not compare round performance. It assigns a value to the cesation of hostilities for whatever reason in gunfights where one round was fired. It makes no attempt to separate the performance of the round from any of the enourmous number of other possible reasons why that fight may have stopped. The data we are looking for is buried in a sea of unknown variables, and the results bear that out.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please address Sean's questions directly and explain how his argument is 'straw man' in respect to the topic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did address Seans questions directly above. Let's see if he answers mine. As for his straw man argument, let me explain. His basic point was:
"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."
He never proved that there were any EXTREMELY LARGE differences in stopping power, period, nor that they are unaccounted for in M&S data. His "Straw Man" is his unproven ASSUMPTION that there are these extremely large differences in stopping power that M&S did not account for. His answers to questions one and two should shed light on this.

So you are saying that you believe that there is no quantifiable difference between a .308 and .40S&W because the M&S database finds no difference? You don't think someone shot with a 40S&W in Location X (say, 3 inches from the heart) is any less likely to become incapacitated than someone shot with a .308 rifle round in Location X? This is unproven?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the point: the M&S database is worthless as a means of comparing the terminal performance of ammunition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Question 3
Why is it worthless to look at every instance where one shot is fired and document the performance of that round under those conditions? That seems useful to me.

Sure, maybe it is. But not as a means to compare the terminal performance of ammunition as the data we are looking for is buried in noise. What if some of those perps in one cartridge data set decided to give up because they figured it wasn't worth dying once they took that first round in the shoulder? Isn't the fact that incidents such as that are woven throughout a database designed to compare round performance enough to spoil any conclusions?

- Gabe

 

[rolltide]

I do indeed think that there are a myriad of other factors other than the physiological ones that cause people to stop an attack, that is why Fackler is so limited in its use. It does not account for all these factors at all. That is why M&S is so useful, because it is an average of hundreds of shootings where all these factors were in play and describes real world results.

Frankly, If I am attacked in a situation that requires a lethal response, I could care less about which round has a greater theoretical physiologial effect. The result I am looking for is to stop the attack, that is EXACTLY WHAT M&S DOCUMENT. I could care less why he stops, as long as he stops. I think M&S cut to the chase.

I am glad you have moved to the point where you admit that M&S may be useful.

Best Regards,

Roll Tide

 

[Model520Fan]

Reality

Marshall and Sanow looked at 523 ACTUAL SHOOTINGS where Federal 125gr JHP ammunition was used and only one shot was fired. Out of all the instances they investigated where only one such round was used, they stopped the perp 96% of the time. Now if they M&S lied and just invented all those numbers, then there figures are of course meaningless. NO ONE HAS EVER PROVED THEY INVENTED THEIR FIGURES.

Sorry. M&S DID NOT look at 523 actual shootings. They say they looked at thousands of shootings, and CHOSE those 523. They threw out many others. Then, later, they decided to throw out some more. THEY have proved that they invented their figures, and published the proof in the gun rags over a period of time. I am pretty sure that I still have physical possession of the contradictory reports, but it is not feasible for me to dig in my basement to find them. And if you couldn't get back copies of the referenced articles, why would you believe me? I don't have a scanner. However, I think that one of the Fackler or Roberts articles refers to the phenomenon of the resurrection.

How many ACTUAL SHOOTINGS have you investigated? (Or do you know of anyone else who has investigated that many similar shootings and come up with significantly different results)?

Dick Fairburn did a somewhat similar study for Police Marksman magazine. The results were considerably different - my recollection is that shootings with most cartridges had succes rates in the high sixties. I believe that Fackler may also have referred to this study.

FACT:
Out of 523 times that only one shot of Fed. 125gr JHP was fired at an attacker, the attack ceased in 96% percent of the cases.
False. Out of 1746 times, the success rate was 71.6%. Furthermore, out of 423 times, it was 100%. The percentage depends on which cases you select.
FACT:
While that does not prove that round will stop someone 96% of the time (as you so ably point out on your site) it does prove that the 357 round is about 5 times better than a round where one shot only stopped the attack 20% of the time in hundreds of cases.
No, it doesn't. And which round was 20%? Where are the data?
FACT:
Therefore M&S is not worthless bunk if it demostrates that a single shot of a 357 round will stop someone the same percentage of the time that a single shot of a 308 round. WE KNOW THAT IS TRUE IN 829 ACTUAL SHOOTINGS.
Your "therefore" is a non-sequitur. Furthermore, we know of THOUSANDS of shootings in EVERY caliber, especially .22LR, where a one-shot stop occurred. That has virtually NO bearing on the PERCENTAGE of one-shot stops that cartridge has achieved or will achieve.

I have no reason to doubt the numerators in M&S's fractions. I believe that each one of them represents real shootings, and is probably correctly included on the top of the fraction. I have no reason to believe the denominators in their fractions, and THEIR OWN DATA are the most incontrovertible evidence of their inaccuracy. I am sorry those guys don't get it, and I'm sorry you don't get it, yet. But their fractions are just as wrong as the denominators of the fractions, and you can stack all the dead bodies you want right in front if me, and I'll still tell you that 523 divided by I don't know what gives I don't know what, whether you express it as a decimal or a percent or a common fraction.

I'd like a valid cartridge comparison based on dead bodies, too. But if I can't have one, I'm not going to fantasize one.

 

[cordex]

NO ONE HAS EVER PROVED THEY INVENTED THEIR FIGURES.

Kind of hard to do when they refuse to show anyone their figures, isn't it?

That they essentially say "You can't prove me wrong if I don't show you the evidence!" doesn't do anything to support their position.

The result I am looking for is to stop the attack, that is EXACTLY WHAT M&S DOCUMENT.

No it isn't. They say what has historically been used when an attack stopped with one shot. If the particular cartridge failed to stop someone 90 out of 100 times, and required a second (third, fourth, fifth, thirty rounds, a whole belt, whatever) shot, M&S discounted it.

How many ACTUAL SHOOTINGS have you investigated? (Or do you know of anyone else who has investigated that many similar shootings and come up with significantly different results)?

Please cite the study you base your knowledge of "real life" "stopping power" on (either your own or someone elses.) If your knowledge is not based on actual shootings then it is merely a guess of what might happen in an actual shooting.

My information is based on the Cordex Institute's Annual Survey of Gunshot Wounding which has a pool of well over 12,000,000 shootings they have studied worldwide. We dispatch a professor to participate in treating those injured in any shooting we can find, as well as participate in the autopsy of deceased GSW recipients. What is more, the CIASG study attempts to dupicate the shooting conditions as closely as possible in a laboratory environment using ballistic gelatin, chimpanzees, goats, and cadavers and the actual gun and ammunition used by the shooter.

And I have given you just as much proof as M&S have.

Either you blindly believe everyone who claims to have compiled a list of non-peer reviewed, unverifiable data, or you are holding M&S to a different standard as everyone else.

I believe that M&S have investigated a few shootings. More than me, no doubt. I do not believe they have investigated the tens or hundreds of thousands of shootings they claim to investigate to the extent they claim to have investigated them. They are welcome to prove me (and their other detractors) wrong by simply presenting their data.

 

[OF]

Frankly, If I am attacked in a situation that requires a lethal response, I could care less about which round has a greater theoretical physiologial effect.

Physiological and psychological. These are the categories we have to work with. If you don't believe that the physiological effects are worth noting...what do you believe is happening? That somehow .40S&W is just as scary as .308? The database makes no distinction, they have quantifiable enormous differences in wounding capacity...so what 'unknown force' is it exactly that raises .40S&W up to the level of a 7.62 rifle round? I submit it must be magic. Prove me wrong.

I am glad you have moved to the point where you admit that M&S may be useful.

Don't be ridiculous. I am just trying to get a handle on your thought process. One that could lead you to believe that you are as well armed with a .40S&W as you are with an FAL. That given the choice, you wouldn't choose the rifle but the pistol.

- Gabe

 

[bradvanhorn]

Shawn, Shawn...

First, I made no claims, so you can prove no falsehood.

Second, "These numbers aren't intended to 'translate into a human being.'" Oh really?

"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."

and,

"Fackler's article presents comparisons of several shootings to results observed in ordnance gelatin."

So tell me again how we're not trying to translate the numbers to humans?

Third, I'm not a supporter of Marshall and Sanow. But I believe their theory is interesting, if perhaps unrealistic.

Last, I believe that gelatin testing is valuable research. But I do not believe it is the know-all, end-all of research.

Good luck with your superiority complex

 

[Sean Smith]

Exactly what facts do you base YOUR OPINION that a pistol round and a rifle round cannot possibly come within a few percentage points of 100% stops with one shot to the torso?

The fact that I passed high school physics? You can't do with 507 ft-lbs what you can do with 2,600 ft-lbs. There is no free ride, especially once you quintuple the kinetic energy of the projectile.

 

[cordex]

Sean,
To be fair, the design of the bullet will affect how that energy is used to tear stuff up.

For instance, a .308 bullet might be designed to resist tumbling (weight forward, fired from a high twist barrel, etc) and poke a smaller hole in the target (made entirely from hard materials, spitzer or spire point, etc) and it might cause less damage if fired into certain portions of the body than a .40 that was properly designed as a defensive round.

 

[fix]

I tried to avoid weighing in here, because I don't want to join the argument that will inevitably turn south, but I just couldn't resist. I still have no intention of "formally" joining the argument, so I'll just simply state my opinion in order to satisfy my urge to join the discussion in some minor way.

On one hand we have a group of folks (jelly crowd) using a repeatable method in the lab to collect data and then comparing their data to real world events as a pseudo reality check.

On the other hand we have a group of folks (police report crowd) using an unrepeatable method to collect data and comparing their data to absolutely nothing as a pseudo reality check.

Jelly Crowd = Data
Police Report Crowd = Entertainment

 

[Sean Smith]

For instance, a .308 bullet might be designed to resist tumbling (weight forward, fired from a high twist barrel, etc) and poke a smaller hole in the target (made entirely from hard materials, spitzer or spire point, etc) and it might cause less damage if fired into certain portions of the body than a .40 that was properly designed as a defensive round.

Still not true, because the .308 is so much faster than the .40 S&W that hydrostatic shock becomes a real factor in tissue damage, even if the bullet doesn't yaw or fragment.

Bullet design can help you get the most out of the energy you've got, so energy isn't the sole factor in stopping power. But we aren't talking 100 foot-pounds here or there (as when comparing pistol bullets), we are talking about a difference of 2,000+. It simply isn't physically possible for the .40 S&W to do what the .308 does to the human body (or anything else it hits); you can't do work with energy you haven't got.

When comparing pistol calibers' "stopping power," you are trying to measure small differences in performance: the effect of maybe 100 feet per second more here, or a different hollow-point's merits there. Small factors can make a fair amount of difference here, because the overal level of ballistic performance is so low and the projectiles are moving so slowly. High-powered rifles aren't even in the same zip code from a ballistic point of view. We might as well say that getting hit with a radio-controlled car can produce the same results as getting hit with a 1972 Cadillac.

Put another way, I don't have to eat s#!+ to know it will taste bad, no matter that somebody's study can't tell it from chocolate.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

bradvanhorn writes:

First, I made no claims, so you can prove no falsehood.

Falsehood #1: ... how does this translate to a human being? Speculation, that's how.

Correction: Several studies have proven the validity of 10% ordnance gelatin as a realistic soft tissue simulant when compared to actual shooting results. I provided you references to three studies that disprove your “speculation†claim.

Falsehood #2: 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.

Correction: Marshall has published his entire methodology – it is available to anyone who reads his books or magazine articles.

Falsehood #3: 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."

Correction: The methodology is incorrect. The results are irrelevant. No need to waste any further time and energy.

Falsehood #4: 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.

Correction: The differences in “stopping power†performance between handgun cartridges are so trivial that the errors and inaccuracies inherent in the kind of study you demand will produce a finding that the differences are a statistical tie. This we know already, based on knowledge of valid statistical analysis. Hence it is illogical to waste the time and effort to perform the study you demand as proof.

Falsehood #5: 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.

Correction: The M&S methodology is the equivalent of 2+2 = 7, therefore it is unlikely “[the critics] might have to agree....â€

Falsehood #6: I believe that each side has some merit to its conclusions, but those conclusions are still based on unproven, perhaps unprovable, hypothesis.

Correction: Unproven conclusions? The evidence shows otherwise.

So tell me again how we're not trying to translate the numbers to humans?

I apologize for not elaborating further as my bride was impatiently beckoning me to dinner.

Ordnance gelatin testing tells us two things:

1) It provides a reasonable indication of a bullet’s terminal mechanical performance – penetration, expansion, fragmentation, yaw.

2) It provides a reasonable indication of a bullet’s wounding potential.

Although properly prepared 10% ordnance gelatin is a realistic soft tissue simulant it cannot be used to determine how any human will react to being shot.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

rolltide writes:

The facts are that evaluating what the results were in hundreds of cases where one shot was fired...

First, let’s clarify Marshall’s criterion: he studies shootings in which one hit is achieved. This is different than “one shot was fired.†A lot of shots can be fired, but Marshall includes only those shootings that involve a single hit.

As for your “facts,†Model520Fan already addressed this issue:

M&S DID NOT look at 523 actual shootings. They say they looked at thousands of shootings, and CHOSE those 523. They threw out many others.

 

[bradvanhorn]

Keep talking Shawn... Your lips are moving, but all I'm hearing is "blah, blah, blah". You continue to speculate, use contradictory statements, and have not offered proof of anything, except that you hate the Marshall theory.

Guess what? I've said I'm not a Marshall fan, and I meant it. But, just because they're not necessarily right doesn't make you right either.

In response to your words:

"Falsehood #1: ... how does this translate to a human being? Speculation, that's how.

Correction: Several studies have proven the validity of 10% ordnance gelatin as a realistic soft tissue simulant when compared to actual shooting results. I provided you references to three studies that disprove your “speculation†claim."

Response: Wrong, you proved, or disproved nothing. Studies have shown a correlation between gelatin and human tissue. As you then proceded to point out, this has yet to provide any meaningful relationship to how a human will react to being shot. Hence my point of speculation still stands.


"Falsehood #2: 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.

Correction: Marshall has published his entire methodology – it is available to anyone who reads his books or magazine articles."

Response: There is nothing false in my statement. We know they have not shared their sources of data, and they have not explained the methodology of discounting certain data to my satisfaction, nor many others; the same data which we can't verify, validate, or refute.


"Falsehood #3: 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."

Correction: The methodology is incorrect. The results are irrelevant. No need to waste any further time and energy."

Response: Still nothing false in my statement. You've offered your opinion on what is or isn't relevant. You've still done nothing to prove the methods and results are irrelevant or unsound, or a waste of time, and all your grandstanding won't change a thing.


Falsehood #4: 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.

Correction: The differences in “stopping power†performance between handgun cartridges are so trivial that the errors and inaccuracies inherent in the kind of study you demand will produce a finding that the differences are a statistical tie. This we know already, based on knowledge of valid statistical analysis. Hence it is illogical to waste the time and effort to perform the study you demand as proof.

Response: Again there is nothing false in my statement. You again offer only your opinion on whether the research is of any value. You again offer no proof to support your statements. We already know that you aren't interested in doing the research, so your saying so truly is a waste of time and effort.


Falsehood #5: 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.

Correction: The M&S methodology is the equivalent of 2+2 = 7, therefore it is unlikely “[the critics] might have to agree....â€

Response: Again nothing false in my statement... Again you've offered no proof, only your opinion on the results of something you're not willing to entertain.


Falsehood #6: I believe that each side has some merit to its conclusions, but those conclusions are still based on unproven, perhaps unprovable, hypothesis.

Correction: Unproven conclusions? The evidence shows otherwise.

Response: Again nothing false about my statement... You have yet to offer any conclusion except "Marshall stinks", and have offered no evidence that proves any other conclusion. You cite studies that demonstrate a correlation between gelatin and human tissue, then say it's of no value in determining the outcome of a gun fight. In other words, you have reached the conclusion that testing is irrelevent to the outcome, Marshalls theory is irrelevent to anything, and you won't consider doing any research on the matter. So, why are you even here. Never mind - don't answer that - I don't know and don't care.

 

[rolltide]

Model520fan,
They DID look at 523 cases "where only one shot was fired", just as I said. You guys conveniently overlook little details like that and think you have proved something false. If you change what I say in such a way that it is false, sure you can prove it false. You change what M&S say and then prove that false. Anyone can do that with anything. Get serious.

M&S study evaluates the effect of a single shot so naturally they thew out multiple shots. They also threw out all the 22 shotings when they were looking at the 357 round and did not consider knifings at all. You guys are hilarious. They never claimed anything different. Naturally that means that their percentages are not percentages of total cases which M&S and I have readily conceded from the beginning. Please read more carefully That does not mean their data is worthless, it only means there are limitations to the study. Every study has limitations. Firearmstactical and a lot of sheeple think they have done something when they point out the limitations of the study that M&S made clear from the beginning. What a joke.

cordex,
it is not "kind of hard" it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove them wrong without their data. That makes everything else you say PURE CONJECTURE. Sorry, we have enough pure conjecture already. I did find your bufoonery rather amusing though.

Gabe,
I'm sorry, I thought your "sure , maybe it is" comment was in response to my "That seems useful to me" comment that you quoted immediate before your response. If it was not, please explain what you meant by "Sure, maybe it is."

Sean (and Gabe this addresses part of your ridiculous "magic" comments as well)

I had high school physics, plus college physics, plus 4 terms of college calculus, plus a few other engineering courses like statics, and strength of materials, yada, yada yada.

Anyway, let me try to explain this again in more simple terms.

1. Everyone understands that a rifle round has many times more energy than a pistol round does.
2. M&S helped us to understand that in 523 cases where a single shot was fired, a 357 round stopped the attack 96% of the time. In that 96% of the cases, for whatever reason, all that extra rifle energy was not needed to accomplish the desired goal, which is to stop the attack.
3. So in evaluating 829 cases where only a single round of either 357 or 308 was fired, the 357 stopped the attack 96% of the time and the 308 stopped the attack 98% of the time. (If someone is stopped by a 357, is he anymore stopped by a 308 or a howitzer or nuclear weapon. STOPPED IS STOPPED)
4. SO IN THE RESULT BEING EVALUATED (I.E. STOPPING A FIGHT WHEN ONLY ONE ROUND WAS FIRED) THESE 2 ROUNDS WERE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME, BUT ONLY IN REGARDS TO THE RESULT BEING EVALUATED.
5. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE THE SAME ANY OTHER WAY, ONLY IN THE LIMITS OF THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY.
6. ONE MUST THEN CONSIDER THE LIMITS OF THE STUDY WHEN EVALUATING WHICH ROUND IS BEST FOR THE PURPOSE THEY INTEND TO USE IT.
7. M&S evaluated each round by the same standard. that standard is very simple as I understand it.
LOOK AT EVERY CASE WHERE ONLY ONE ROUND WAS FIRED
SEE WHAT PERCENT OF THOSE CASES RESULTED IN STOPPING THE PERP.

That is one valid way among many valid ways to evaluate that data.

The same data can be looked at in a myriad of ways. M&S critics say because they did not figure percentages based on cases that include multiple shots, M&S data is worthless. That is asinine. Sure it would have been interesting to look at the data that way. I can think of at least 10 other ways that the data could have been evaluated. M&S did the study and had the right to choose any set of data they wished and report it according to any type of analysis they chose. They had to make a choice and they did. Had they chose to include multiple shot shootings, their data would have still been limited, it would just have been limited in a different way. Someone would have probably critisized them then for not just doing the analysis on one shot incedents.

It seems to me that firearmstactical started this hysteria of "shoot down M&S" for their own purposes. It sure seems a lot of people have jumped on their band wagon. Firearmstactical has a lot of objective data that is good in its own right. They do not need to spend so much time trying to tear down M&S. I think their emphsis on the terminal effects of projectiles is important, but it can lead to some wrong conclusions if you neglect to see the limits of how that translates into real life. M&S can also lead to wrong conclusions if one fails to account for the limits of the study. Does that make M&S and/or Firearmstactical worthless? Of course not. They both advance our knowledge in important albeit different ways.

HS physics does not disprove M&S. You gave a very poor answer to one direct question and no answer to the other.

Very illuminating!

Best Regards,

Roll Tide

 

[rolltide]

First, let’s clarify Marshall’s criterion: he studies shootings in which one hit is achieved. This is different than “one shot was fired.†A lot of shots can be fired, but Marshall includes only those shootings that involve a single hit.

Shawn,
you are of course correct at this point. Thank you for clarifying what I meant and should have said. To take it even one step further, I believe his criteion included only those shootings with one TORSO or HEAD hit.

Roll Tide

 

[cordex]

it is not "kind of hard" it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove them wrong without their data. That makes everything else you say PURE CONJECTURE. Sorry, we have enough pure conjecture already.

Okay, Rolltide, now this is just being silly.
Without thier data, their study can neither be proven, nor disproven. Thus, belief in their study is just as much "pure conjecture". More, in fact, because we have presented a large number of reasons that even if they had done the study to the extent that they claim, their numbers aren't useful for anything more than entertainment.

Now, if they did release their actual data (assuming it was collected as carefully as Marshall claims it was) and published that ... well, then you'd have something. A case-by-case analysis of thousands upon thousands of shootings would be far more valuable than the questionable stats that they've published so far.

I did find your bufoonery rather amusing though.

Thanks. I aim to please.

But why are my unproven assertions held to a higher standard than M&S's? The folks at CIASoGW won't be happy to hear that you're willing to blindly accept M&S's results based on data of unknown data, yet you blindly ignore the results from the Cordex Institute studies? You haven't even seen their results and you wave them off!

 

[Sean Smith]

5. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE THE SAME ANY OTHER WAY, ONLY IN THE LIMITS OF THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY.

A study which aims to detect differences in stopping power. Which it can't, given its own results. As you've unwittingly pointed out.

I had high school physics, plus college physics, plus 4 terms of college calculus, plus a few other engineering courses like statics, and strength of materials, yada, yada yada.

That's nice. My degree is in Nuclear Engineering. They didn't teach me blind faith at my college.

 

[jc2]

cordex -

Actually, I found your buffoonery amusing as well, but it's just not it the same league as S&M's buffoonery--maybe if you published two or three books of your buffoonery and did a few magazine articles . . .

 

[bradvanhorn]

"...not it the same league as S&M's buffoonery..."

I was just thinking "S&M" might be a more appropriate reference...

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Wrong, you proved, or disproved nothing. Studies have shown a correlation between gelatin and human tissue.

So you now concede there’s more than just mere speculation involved?

As you then proceded to point out, this has yet to provide any meaningful relationship to how a human will react to being shot.

Yes. What more do you expect from an inanimate test medium?

Hence my point of speculation still stands.

No speculation involved at all. The limitations of gelatin testing are well known. I just explained them to you.

There is nothing false in my statement.

You originally stated:

…they've never shared their…analysis methodology.

Now you claim you actually meant:

…they have not explained the methodology of discounting certain data to my satisfaction.

Seems a little disingenuous to me.

The remainder of your post is superfluous argument about what you said, and I’m unwilling to continue on this track. I'm comfortable with letting the record speak for itself.

 

[rolltide]

Brad,

Did you ever get the feeling that you and I ought to be standing back to back in the center of the room with this crowd. (Like Joe Starret and Shane in the bar room brawl scene in the movie by the same name.) Oh well, what are a few bloody noses and bruised knuckles amongst friends.

Sean,

A study which aims to detect differences in stopping power. Which it can't, given its own results. As you've unwittingly pointed out.

Let's see if I got this. The study is bad because the study is bad.

I am glad to hear that you are an educated man. That means that you should be able to understand this if I say it slow enough...

C-I-R-C-U-L-A-R
L-O-G-I-C


cordex,

More, in fact, because we have presented a large number of reasons that even if they had done the study to the extent that they claim, their numbers aren't useful for anything more than entertainment.

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

PSSS - PSSS - Come over here for a second -
I didn't want to say this in front of everyone else, but M&S stated that in their methodology. It is not a secret, or the boogy man under the bed. It is a simple fact that does not help you discredit them. Sorry.

-AHEM-

Do tell the good folks at CIASoGW to keep up the good work.

--Roll Tide waving at the good folks at CIASoGW--

Best Regards,

Roll Tide

 

[bradvanhorn]

Actually, the remainder of my post was not about what I said, but about what you said, and more importantly, didn't say. Oh well, at least your comfortable

 

[Sean Smith]

C-I-R-C-U-L-A-R
L-O-G-I-C

Um, NO.

The study can't do what it claims it does because it produces results that are on the face of it non-sensical.

Quoting you:

4. SO IN THE RESULT BEING EVALUATED (I.E. STOPPING A FIGHT WHEN ONLY ONE ROUND WAS FIRED) THESE 2 ROUNDS WERE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME, BUT ONLY IN REGARDS TO THE RESULT BEING EVALUATED.

-One projectile is orders of magnitue more powerful than the other. We can quantify this easily enough (think kinetic energy).

-The study produced practically the same "stopping power" for both. The study could detect no difference between the two.

-But that's what the study is for; to detect differences in stopping power. So you MUST conclude that either:

a. The study is right, and there is no differnce in stopping power between a .40 S&W pistol and a .308 rifle, or
b. The study can't detect what it is supposed to detect, which is the difference in stopping power between the two.

Pick one. I think most people that have actually shot a .308 and seen what happened to what was hit with it have an easy choice.