Kleanbore said:
One of the most widely quoted ones is the FBI report on handgun wounding effectiveness. It is based on anatomical information and expert scientific analysis of same, on observations, and on ballistic tests.
Have you accessed any of the sources cited in the
FBI study? Most of them require subscriptions to costly services or are available only through academic channels. A number of them point back to the Dr. Fackler's studies. And they're all roughly 30 years old. I ask, because few of the people who cite the FBI study and it's sources seem to have taken the next step. Some of Fackler's work can be found on line and I have copies of those pieces.
Martin Fackler, was an MD and colonel in the Army. His work had to do with small arms, but he only addressed handgun weapons and wounds in passing. Handguns weren't an Army concern. We should note, howver, that Fackler's findings were based on studies of ammunition available in 1987, and things have improved since then. Fackler investigated all sorts of wound-related issues – focusing on rifle rounds and the related wounds – as that was what the Army needed most to know about. Fackler also addressed other types of projectiles. Not a lot of it seems to directly address handgun wounds. He did address things like penetration, permanent cavity, temporary cavity, and fragmentation. The bulk of material cited in the FBI study addresses the nature of the wounds created by different types of small-arm ammunition.
What the FBI study does is give us summaries and opinions, based on one agent's analysis. FBI Special Agent Urey W. Patrick did what he could, and he tried to consolidate the facts. Here are his conclusions from that analysis – his opinion. It is an informed opinion, but it is not scripture:
1)
No one round is likely to incapacitat an individual unless the brain is hit.
2) People stimulated by fear, adrenaline, drugs, alcohol, or the sheer will to live may not be incapacitated (
even when mortally wounded) until it is too late for his or her opponent. As Patrick notes, someone who is intent on doing you harm may still be able to act very effectively for 10-15 seconds after his or her heart has been destroyed!
3) Kinetic energy is not a factor. Temporary cavity size is not a factor. The force of being struck by round is not a factor.
4) The only way to force incapacitation, short of a brain hit, is through blood loss. (But, as noted in 2, that may take more time than is available.
5) You can increase bullet effectiness by increasing the size of the bullet, but the bullet must still penetrate far enough and hit blood-carrying organs. Just hitting isn't enough – you've got to hit the right stuff! He doesn't say it directly,
but, to me that's all about shot placement.
6)
The critical element is penetration.
7)
Penetration must be at least 12” if you don't hit the brain
Penetration without placement is of questionable value. Placement without penetration is also of limited value. Patrick seems to feel, all things considered, that penetration is more important than placement (but a torso hit seems to be implicit in that conclusion.)
Special Agent Urey Patrick's analysis, summarized above, seems incontrovertible. But he makes these points based on his interpretations, interpolations, and opinions based using data that doesn't always directly relate to handgun effectiveness or to weapons used in self-defense or home defense situations. There's a lot of battle-field data behind the data, and there's typically NOT a lot of handguns on the battlefield. Are the sources used pertinent? I don't know. Do you?
Neither Fackler nor Patrick are particiularly helpful in helping someone evaluate which gun might work best for any of us. They both try to make chicken salad out of chicken crap and address the things they were told to address. Your point that Cunningham makes a contribution here. He does, but his contribution is a bit like Patrick's -- you can't go by his guidelines alone. You've got to take what he says and try different things out. You've got to evaluate the "data" Cunningham can't give you.
The FBI study may be good, but as I said earlier, you have to accept much of Special Agent's analysis on faith – as there is little else.offered as proof. Citations to data you can't access isn't proof. At one time the Marshall & Sanow studies [One-Shot-Stops, etc.]were held up as the best available, but it didn't take long for analysts to show us how the Marshall & Sanow work's methodology was itself fatally wounded.
Kleanbore said:
Can you evaluate the goodness of data when you see them?
Maybe, maybe not. But I certainly can't evaluate the stuff I can't access. Evaluating data isn't necessarily a specialized skill -- it depends on the data.
In my critique of the FBI study, with which you seemingly took exception, the data generally can't be seen and isn't easily accessed. The data is NOT shown in the FBI study. Sources are cited, but try to get to the data, if you can.
The Ellifritz study cited earlier does have data that most folks can analyze... and if they disagree, they can see enough information to know WHY they disagree. The data base isn't large but its certainly open -- and it can grow, over time, which will certainly help.
Kleanbore (referring to the FBI study) said:
However, these analyses and data are all about terminal ballistics, and that's just part of the equation.
I'll agree the FBI study is all about terminal ballistics. It's certainly not about how to select a weapon for self- or home-defense. But some knowledge of terminal ballistics may be useful when making weapon and round selections. That's part of the bigger picture, too.
I took exception to the FBI study because the conclusions aren't necessarily evident from looking at source citations or displayed data.
Kleanbore said:
That's the point of Cunningham's article. He speaks of control--the shooter's ability to control the firearm while firing rapidly.
But Cunningham compares firearms of equal size and with different recoil characteristics. It's an excellent analysis, but there is more.
A really small lightweight pistol will usually have a very short grip, poor sights, low capacity. and a difficult trigger, compared to a larger pistol.
That's a major problem with "mouse guns". Great for back-up, but not so great for primary carry, if you have an alternative.
Cunningham's article is a good warning to the uninformed: there's more things to be considered when buying a firearm than just how easily it's carried or concealed. If you can't place your shots well, and those shots don't penetrate (a function of terminal ballistics) his points aren't going to help much, either. His points are just part of the story, too.
I happen to agree with Cunningham about small weapons, etc. I've owned a number of smaller guns that I no longer carry. But his points are more easily made than understood. If you're looking and don't have a chance to try out different weapons, you'll probably make a number of bad choices.
In your initial reply you seemed to find fault with my critique of Special Agent Patrick's FBI study, saying it was one of the
most-often quoted studies. Most-often quoted doesn't really say much, except that there's not a lot of other stuff out there that addresses similar topics. One study that does is an ongoing study by a guy named Rathcombe (who says, elsewhere, that he's a mechanical engineer) in SC. Here's a link:
http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html He has done some analysis of handgun performance, and the results are not pleasing. Look at the for handgun performance. It's limited to 9x19, .40. 10mm, and 41 Magnum.
Much of the data accumulated and presented by Fackler and used as source material for the FBI study was based on military weapons and the effect of their use. But, unless you dig into the sources, there's no way to know whether that information is of value to someone trying to find the best handgun or the most apprpriate handgun ammunition.
As Cunningham might argue, an effective rounds is less effective unless it's well placed. And being able to shoot a weapon without hurting yourself may be an issue, if you want to practice.
I guess I was right to question the FBIT study, but you feel I simply did it for the wrong reasons?