7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
Who's making a 40mm? I want one
I am pretty sure that if I shoot a perp with a 40mm and miss by 3ft, the blast radius will still get him. However, that cant be said when using a .380.
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.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.
My personal problem with all of M&S is that they are trying to quantify something that is not quantifiable.
Perp A weighs 100 pounds, is not combative, is not on drugs, and has never seen blood before. He is shot with a .32 that barely breaks the skin over his rib cage, he falls down and crys for his mommy. 100% stopper.
Perp B weighs 315 pounds of lean prison weight lifting muscle. He has been shot before. Has a tatoo of a spider web over his face, opens beer bottle with his teeth, and is currently high on elephant tranquilizer and lime Cool Aid. He is shot with a .45 that lodges in his lung. Has it removed later at a party by a friend of his who flunked out of vet college. 0% stopper.
So from this I can see that the .32 is a far better stopper than the .45 because one was 100% the other was 0%.
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.It is easy to criticize. It is much more difficult to do something meaningful.
3. Read the threads that have been linked to.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.
4. See 1.I have never seen one critic offer any data that is more credible than M&S.
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)."Single shot stop" percentage? Not bloody likely.
Actually, it goes beyond that..40S&W has more stopping power than the .45 ACP?
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.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.
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.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.
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.Results are important even if the variables that produced them are not completely understood.
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.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.
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.
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?This is not a scientific experiment, never was, never will be.
Please address Sean's questions directly and explain how his argument is 'straw man' in respect to the topic.You and many others just build up straw men, then tear them down.
You're going to need to start drawing logical conclusions from your arguments if you want this to be considered a logical debate.A common fallacy in 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?We are not just comparing rounds or just comparing results in gunfights. We are comparing a rounds ability to end a gunfight.
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.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.
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?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.
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?You confused "variables" and "results". The OSS figures are objective "results" of actual gunfights, not "variables" in the process.
What facts? Please elaborate. Thanks!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.
That's because they've never shared their source data - only their analysis of it.Marshall and Sanow have never tried to disguise or mislead anyone about their data.
You need to do a little more reading.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.
Would you kindly refer me to a few of these "charts with all manner of detailed numbers"?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?
Fackler's article presents comparisons of several shootings to results observed in ordnance gelatin.The test of the wound profiles' validity [in ordnance gelatin] is how accurately they portray the projectile-tissue interaction observed in shots that penetrate the human body. Since most shots in the human body traverse various tissues, we would expect the wound profiles to vary somewhat, depending on the tissues traversed. However, the only radical departure has been found to occur when the projectile strikes bone: this predictably deforms the bullet more than soft tissue, reducing its overall penetration depth, and sometimes altering the angle of the projectile's course. Shots traversing only soft tissues in humans have shown damage patterns of remarkably close approximateions to the wound profiles...
...Conclusion: The bullet penetration depth comparison, as well as the similarity in bullet deformation and yaw patterns, between human soft tissue and 10% gelatin have proven to be consistent and reliable. Every time there appeared to be an inconsistency (the German 7.62 NATO bullet for example) a good reason was found and when the exact circumstances were matched, the results matched. The cases reported here comprise but a small fraction of the documented comparisons which have established 10% ordnance gelatin as a valid tissue simulant.
As popbang already mentioned, Marshall has published his complete methodology. It is erroneous. End of story.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.
What? That your many falsehoods will go uncorrected?I should've known better...
These numbers aren't intended to "translate into a human being."Same goes for you Shawn. Try ammolab.com (who I think do interesting testing), or your own website for all manner of numbers.