I think M&S have - - -
- - Pretty well been discredited. The thread cited above, from last September gives some good reasons.
I read a borrowed copy of the original edition of the M&S book when it was first released. I discussed it with a real, working, firearms examiner. He has extensive experience with two major forensics labs in the southwest. He is also an active member of AFTE, Association of Firearms and Toolmarks Examiners.
When M&S first began publishing their One Shot Stop "findings," and quoting anecdotes from various locales, some AFTE members asked for their raw data, to review it before inviting M or S to speak at a meeting. They categoriclly refused to share their information. Hardly a scientific attitude, huh? Then, when the first edition of the book hit the shelves, it was read critically by many of the examiners.
Interesting to see: Several of the firearms lab chiefs stated something like: M&S state such-and-such an incident happened (in Dallas, or Chicago, or New Orleans, or whereever.) "That shooting would have HAD to be handled by my lab, and I do not recall ANY situation even vaguely similar to what they quote." COULD something of the sort have happened? Well, sure. DID it happen when, where, and how M&S described? Well, no.
This, combined with the refusal to submit raw data for peer review, gives the lie to certain specifics they published. It also raises serious questions about the validity of ANY of their conclusions.
alduro, I suggest you check the links provided by Sean Smith and Huck Phinn above, and spend a little time reading each of them. Then go to the links THOSE links provide. If you trust ANY other sources, you'll see that some rather learned authorities question the scientific validity and veracity of M&S.
All of which being said, SOME of what they write is bound to be valid. What part of it can you trust, though?
Best,
Johnny