Are you a Facklerite or do you worship at the alter of M&S?

Status
Not open for further replies.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>(In 1993, Calibre Press permanently removed Marshall & Sanow's first book, Handgun Stopping Power, from their catalog after law enforcement members with the International Wound Ballistics Association presented them with compelling evidence that the book was teeming with falsehoods. Since then, Calibre Press has refused to carry Marshall & Sanow's books.)"[/quote]

:confused:

I went to a Calibre Press Street Survival Seminar in Amarillo in either '96 or '97 and the Marshall & Sanow book was still being carried.

Maybe I just got an old catalog in my packet.

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited June 03, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by adad:
As most of you probably already know, I'm definately a Facklerite.

time, another renown academic, Dr. Carroll Peters, Professor of Engineering at the University of Tennessee calculated the probability that they could be true to be one in ten to the twentieth power (1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). Dr. Peters' paper describing his analysis will soon appear in print."


[/quote]

The very extremity of this remark makes me suspect that anyone who reports it or believes it. I would really have to see the stats behind this argument. In my experience, the most extreme "scientific sounding" remarks are made by wackos.

I can certainly understand a criticism of M&S's one stop shot methodology. I think I understand their motivation- usually the application of statistical models seem to require some simplification, it seems fundamental that the real work is too complicated to model. So some simplification is necessary. And it certainly could be true that M & S's method of simplifying the problem is wrong, and obscures the very questions that they are trying to answer. But to claim that they are lying, and that you can prove it to a gazillion decimal places is just plain wacko. My guess is that if there really is a Dr. Carrol Peters, he has not published this criticism in a peer-reviewed journal, although he is a renowned academic, and that's what renowned academic do. In fact, my guess is that any serious academic journal in the field would very much welcome this kind of paper, as acadmeic journals I've seen love de-bunking popular myths.

Has anyone actually read the the paper sort of cited here?

munir



------------------
ahlan wa sahlan
PCV Yemen 1984-86
 
I think the terms "light and fast" and "heavy and slow" are not necessarily accurate when trying to separate the two camps (MS v. Fackler/IWBA). There are several "light and fast" rounds that display adequate penetration according to IWBA suggestions.

It seems that MS have perhaps misrepresented their "data", and their failure to allow peer review is highly questionable. Fackler/IWBA seem to focus on physiological wounding mechanisms (the bullet must disrupt a vital structure of the body) and that in itself lends a great deal of credibility to their work, imo. Their work is out in the open for review/criticism.

Articles and books by Fackler and MacPherson are hardly what I would call "light reading". I don't think they're trying to sell anybody anything, either.

Re Banzai's assertion that "Facklerite websites" promote ONLY their way of thinking, I would suggest he move from websites to something of substance such as the IWBA Journal. I don't see a promotion of an agenda, but the publication of controlled test results and "real world" investigations of deaths (people, not goats:-))

One thing that everybody seems to agree on though, is that shot placement is of paramount importance. And dat's da truth!
 
I don't follow that crap. What suits me is the bigger the better. I'll stick with the proven .45ACP round because I find it to be an accurate and hard hitting round.
 
If you search carefully, you can find rounds that ALL camps agree to working well.

For example:

The 230gr HydraShock. No one disagrees that this one works quite well. Both camps glorify this round as a standard for others to match. It has a long street record and does great in gelatin.


The 155 gr .40 Gold Dot or the 165gr Golden Sabre. Pretty much everyone agrees that these work very well.


The 124gr +P 9mm Gold Dot. Both camps agree that this is a good load, among other 124gr 9mm loads.


The 125gr .357 Sig. All agree that this is a good load weight, showing good penetration and lots of energy.


Those are just a few examples. It takes a bit of rooting around, but if you look carefully, you can find cartridges that both/all camps agree are great defensive rounds.
The IWBA looks for rounds that penetrate deep enough, but still expand and perform through cloth etc. Other people look for rounds that deliver energy to "stop" attackers with a "punch in the gut" to get their attention. Many of these people look to street results.
If you search both and match them up, you can find a large number of cartridges that both penetrate deep enough, AND have a great street performance, and all camps agree that they work very well.
These are the types of loads I like to stick with.
Just remember to match the load to your gun. Full size service guns usually ballistically perform a little different and require a slightly different load than a subcompact with a short barrel. I usually go with just a hair heavier bullet for the service gun, and a slightly lighter bullet for the subcompact gun with the shorter barrel (velocity loss).

[This message has been edited by CassandraComplex (edited June 04, 2000).]
 
If you believe what M&S have published, then more power to you, you'll need it. It's even possible that the end results of their theories have some truth, just don't expect me to believe it based on their evidence. The Facklerites may be wrong too, but not to the degree that M&S are. Maybe high speed bullets have some merit, but deeper penetrating rounds will always do what their supposed to do, i.e. penetrate. High speed bullets don't always do what they are supposed to be famous for. Expansion is random and adequate penetration seems to depend on the bullet acually failing at expansion to get to the vitals. Fackler's and others data is scientific, reproduceable information. Even if it's lacking in some as yet undiscovered magic that the medical community can't find, it is at least true. The results can be reproduced at will. I don't think that Fackler would have anything against fast bullets as long as they penetrated deep enough to hit vitals on other than perfect shot placement. A bullet that fragments and violently expands is great for creating increased wounding, but to believe that getting this type of performance at the risk of losing adequate penetration is foolish. Gelatin blocks are consistantly the same from shot to shot. What penetrates in gel won't do the same in people. Too many variables. Why pick something that might work great sometimes when you could have something that works well all the time.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JimFox:
... you're the first one I've run across that admits to practicing the multi-load concept with handguns ... but first I'll really appreciate knowing what your experience has been.[/quote]JimFox, I can't take credit for this because I got the idea from my wife's uncle. It turns out that his son is a sheriff's deputy and his son-in-law is a state trooper. One of them (I forget which) swears by lite & fast while the other one is equally fond of heavy & slow and they both have real life stories to support their point of view. As a result, my wife's uncle decided to go both ways by alternating ever other round. The concept also made sense to me as well.

I decided not to bother with the .45 because the highest and lowest scores were in the high 80's to mid 90 percentile. So, with that caliber, I felt that it really didn't matter. However, when looking at the .40S&W, the difference between the high end and low end was something like 78% - 96%. That was a big enough difference to alternate ammo. The same thing was true for the 9mm -- the difference between the high end and low end was significant. When you look at the .38's, .380's, .32's and .25's, the difference between the high end and low end were not that much so I didn't bother alternating ammo for those calibers.

I no longer wear a uniform for a living and I never shot another human so I personally do not know who is right. Both sides seem to present very convincing arguments for their particular point of view.

Since a 9mm (either a MK9 or 3913TSW) is my CCW and a .40S&W is my primary home defense gun, AND since I don't know which side is right, I just decided to follow my wife's uncle's lead and go both ways. Like I said, I would rather be half wrong than all wrong.

If you decide to do some experimentation of your own, pleas let me know how you make out. Regards, FUD
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Orndorff:
I think the terms "light and fast" and "heavy and slow" are not necessarily accurate when trying to separate the two camps (MS v. Fackler/IWBA). There are several "light and fast" rounds that display adequate penetration according to IWBA suggestions.
[/quote]

Good point, Chris! I made the mistake of adopting the terms of the debate.

Brasso, you said:

"I don't think that Fackler would have anything against fast bullets as long as they penetrated deep enough to hit vitals on other than perfect shot placement."

You are correct, of course. I tend to focus on the 9mm in this debate since that is what I shoot and that's where the conclusions of the two camps tend to differ the most between light/fast and slow/heavy. Fackler/IWBA are looking for adequate penetration, as you said, and if it so happens that they get it with slow/heavy 9mm cartridges, then that's their recommendation. If a fast/light cartidge gives enough penetration in 9mm or any caliber, that's fine too.

[This message has been edited by adad (edited June 04, 2000).]
 
You can argue untill you are blue in the trigger finger about the stopping power of various cartidges, but when it comes down to it, I don't realy want to be hit with a 22 rimfire.

Personally, the 325gr. 50AE @ 1400 fps muzzel velocity and carrying 1400 ft-lbs of kinetic energy works just fine.
 
I use Marshalls data as a guide not as gospel. I know the limitations of both theorys. Facklers group has some good points but they often overlook some real world facts.
PAT

------------------
I intend to go into harms way.
 
1) .355" = 115g JHP 1350+fps

2) .357" = 125g JHP 1400+fps

3) .400" = 135g JHP 1300+fps

4) .410" = 170g JHP 1300+fps

5) .429" = 180g JHP 1200+fps

6) .451" = 230g JHP 780+fps

A) reliable
B) controllable
C) accurate
D) powerful

I worship at the altar of common sense. And I normally carry either a hi-cap 9 with my GAA 115gJHP+P+ (1330fps from my carry gun), or my 1911 and my superbly accurate 230gJHP-GS (780fps from my 1911).

------------------
"All my ammo is factory ammo"
 
FUD

Thanks for the info and insight. I really am going to play around with the idea and experiment a bit with different calibers. Since I have short barrel and long barrel .357 revolvers and short and long barrel .45 ACPs I'll probably use those calibers. Although I agree with your reasoning on the .45 ACP - still, it is what I have. I'd like to use the experimentation as an excuse to get a couple of .40 S&Ws and maybe a .357 Sig barrel for each - unfortunately all that stands between my doing that and satisfying my intellectual curisoty is money. If I could find a couple of guns in 10mm - say an all steel Colt 1911 and a lighter Glock I might consider a mortgage on my wife's good will. But ...

Two things are going to hold this up for a while. 1st I want to think through a bit more as to what exactly I want to measure (and why)i.e., do I restrict my playing around to "gunfight" ranges 10 to 20 feet, or do I want to go out as far as tactical reanges 25 to 50 yards. Then there is the mechanics of setting up penatration/expansion tests. I'd speculate that a closely spaced double tap using your configuration might be potentially more damaging than a double tap with two rounds of either the heavy/slow or two rounds of the light/fast. But who knows.

The second delay is because I need new glasses if I'm ever to clearly see the front sight on a handgun again. Right now most of my defensive handgun practice is at close range and it's getting down to being almost kissing kin to point shooting. I don't know why I'm putting off doing that, but I am. Probably hating to admit that I can't beat the ageing process.

Again, thanks for your comments.


------------------
Jim Fox
 
I really don't side w/one or the other,I agree w/CassandraComplex as there are several good loads both camps advocate.

My preferences,

.45- 230 hs,golden sabre or gd.I also like the std. pressure 185 gs & gd.

.40- 165 gs,155/165 gd,155 hs,180 gs,hs,gd.

9mm- 124 +p golden sabre/gold dot.

One of the biggest factors for myself when selecting a load for a given pistol is bbl. length.

Short bbl.- 9mm or 357 sig.I'm comfortable w/the .40 in a 4in. bbl. & up.And the .45, a 4.5in. bbl. or longer.
 
You cannot assert that M&S are all about Light & Fast. For YEARS now, they've reported that what works best in .45 and .38 is Heavy & Slow. Though L/F is shown to be the best in 9mm, it appears that the .40 is somewhere between both ends of the spectrum.
I have to concur with one of the above posters who pointed out the issue of "ideal" penetration. You must choose the load that will work the best in the MAJORITY of the scenarios. Most shootings are not involving large, hulking Steve Austin types who are behind cover and wearing body armor!
Particulary for non-LEO, CCW folks, we need to use loads which offer the least chance of OP. Why? We don't have the luxury of protection under the law if an IB is struck when we fire in our self-defense. LEOs are covered under "excusable homicide" statutes in most states.
No, I'm not advocating that we all tote around Glasers. I only believe in conventional JHP designs, for the most part. I do feel that Federal's new EFMJ will need a close look, if we mere subjects are permitted to. I am also an advocate of carrying larger calibers as the weather gets colder. That is, if you don't already carry one consistently. I feel that the extra clothing, and slowed metabolism of the BG diminishes the effect that HG ammo provides. It's been observed before, a plugged JHP acts like ball, so bigger is better. The EFMJ departs from that theory due to its unique design.
End of ramble. :)
 
I stick with calibers and ammo that EVERYBODY can agree with: for me that means caliber .45 government models or commander length tubes... with 230 grain Federal Hydrashoks.

As soon as everyone agrees on a 9mm load I am going to snag me a Sig P239...

:)
 
Munir:

I don't think you should be too astounded by such large numbers. Figure out some time the odds of flipping a coin 1,000,000 times and getting heads every time. Its a very big number. "But that's unrealistic, that's not ever going to happen!" That's the point -- it is so unlikely that this data is real that it is unimaginably remote and unreasonable to believe it.

After making my original post, I read the footnote (too late) that indicated that Dr. Carroll Peters, Professor of Engineering at the University of Tennessee, did not, in fact, publish an article based on his analysis. I apologize that I did not read the footnote before posting the quote. However, I find your suggestion that such men as Dr. Fackler and Dr. Carroll Peters are "wacko" to be highly insulting. I suggest you look into their education, list of publications, background and memberships in professional organizations and find out what their peers think of them before making such accusations. What, exactly, are your qualifications for judging such men and on what do you base your judgements?

Keep in mind, however, that his analysis is one of many. The pages of the quarterly journal put out by IWBA have many such articles. Here is a (rather lengthy -- my apologies) quote from probably the least technical of those articles. No big numbers, just some simple statements based on simple math that even I can follow (I am not trained in statistics). The original article, "Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow "Data Base": An Evaluation Over Time", By Maarten van Maanen, can be found in full here. It is a reprint from Wound Ballistics Review; 4(2), 1999: 9-13.

**********

...negative numbers mean that fewer cases are reported in a later Reference, which is in total contradiction to everything that Marshall & Sanow have claimed in developing their "data base." ...why has no mention of this manipulation of the "data base" ever been mentioned? Any kind of secret reevaluation of the results is a clear-cut violation of any form of doing research because it is one form of "fudging" the data.

Obviously, most of the caliber/load combinations which show a "one-shot stop" percentage of 100% do not seem realistic. ...the .380 ACP Federal 90-grain JHP, which has a sudden jump from 65% to 100% between the second and third data sets and a 41% difference between the first and third data sets. ...why are rounds like the .357 Magnum, .45 ACP or .44 Magnum not showing the same results?

.... Look at the .45 ACP CCI 200-grain JHP ammo. From 74% in 1988, the 1988 to 1992 data set shows 19 stops in 16 cases, a 119% effectiveness. This, of course, is simply impossible. Yet, Table 2 shows there are eight caliber/load combinations in which such impossible greater than 100% ratings have been produced by Marshall & Sanow during one of the data taking intervals.

These greater than 100% stopping percentage or negative numbers (showing mysterious disappearing shootings) are fairly described as misrepresentations because they demonstrate conclusively that the Marshall & Sanow "data base" is not as it has been claimed to be. Specifically:

Marshall & Sanow have claimed to have continuously collected their "data base" of shootings over time; this makes having fewer shootings in particular caliber and load combinations at later dates impossible, but eight such conditions exist in their "data base."

Marshall & Sanow have eight particular caliber and load combinations that show a completely impossible greater than 100% "one-shot stop" percentages in their "data base."

Conclusion

The simple analysis procedure I have used show a clear basis for claims of unreasonable characteristics in the Marshall & Sanow "data base" in earlier reviews. ....

I believe the Marshall & Sanow "data base" is completely discredited by the impossible conditions shown to exist in it.

*************

Based on such a simple analysis of the M&S data, why should anyone take their conclusions seriously? If I told you a martian landed in my backyard tonight and told me silver bullets will result in 99.99% one-shot stops, would you think that maybe I'm half right so maybe you should alternate silver bullet rounds with lead bullet rounds? It just makes no sense.

Again, I want to say to those who believe in light/fast 9mm based on experience, other data or other analysis (or even a gut feeling!), my point does not apply to you. You may or may not be right, but at least you're not basing your decision on a bogus "data base"!

[This message has been edited by adad (edited June 05, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by adad (edited June 05, 2000).]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top