Gel test: 10mm 180 gr SIG V-Crown

You looking for the Texas findings? I probably have the paper report in a box in the basement somewhere, assuming it wasn't lost in a move. There's also a summary written by Massad Ayoob somewhere, which was what made me write to request all those reports in the first place.

What made the Texas report so interesting was that they'd moved from .357 revolvers to Sig 220s (.45 ACP) and regretted it, which spurred them to write the report. Then subsequently they pushed for the design of the Sig 226s in .357Sig which they were generally happy with in terms of terminal ballistics but which wore out and didn't fit female officers. Now I guess they have M&P 9mms.
 
Well, when I have more time, I'll have to look it up.

This bit died seem to indicate some bias, though: "...they'd moved from .357 revolvers to Sig 220s (.45 ACP) and regretted it..."
 
Got it, you don't have better data than Marshall & Sanow. My previous comments apply then.
Click to expand...

Your own ability to find humor is irrelevant. The link I posted details some of the numerous problems with attempting the sort of analysis that M&S tried. It likely isn't possible to draw any meaningful conclusions from shootings other than very general and obvious ones like:

Getting shot is really bad for your health.

Or:

Rifles and shotguns mess people up WAY more than handguns.
 
I can see that there are too many variables to perform the statistics of gunshot wounds and their lethality.

Where was the threat hit?
From what distance?
What angle?

Etc etc.

Notice I didn't say what ammo and what caliber.
 
There's a LOT more useful information in there than that, but I know full well you've decided to ignore it so I'll make use of it, you won't, and hopefully (for you - I don't care much) you'll never be in a situation where it matters.
 
Where was the threat hit?
From what distance?
What angle?
Click to expand...
My point here is not so much to defend M&S as to point out the failure that is the FBI test protocol and their fetish for penetration in excess of the depth of the human body. Even if you have no faith in M&S, 357B WORKS and the fact that the FBI protocol would not give it a passing score is first order proof the protocol is worthless and misunderstands how bullets incapacitate humans in gunfights.

We do however owe the FBI some credit for the idea that barrier blindness is an essential feature of a handgun round.

That said, M&S is MUCH better scientifically than some people are suggesting. Like the vast majority of scientific studies, there are many variables that are not controlled for which are dealt with by means of averaging. Sure, one shot from round A might pass through the target's heart while one shot from round B just broke some ribs and nicked a lung. But that's not going to play out over 10s or hundreds of shots. Round A is not magically heart-seeking. Averaging, like they did, is a valid scientific approach for this sort of thing, although I would be the first to agree that the M&S data would benefit from some error bars to make clear how strong a conclusion you can reasonably draw from the data.
 
The Big D said:
Please link to your better database. Because of course you must have one
Click to expand...

The problem with the Marshall and Sanow data wasn't that there wasn't better data available (and there wasn't for a long time), but that the M&S data itself was bad data based on strangely collected data and statistical practices. The way that some things were counted and others ignored fatally flawed the data. They should have continued and revised their methods, but I can't find any indication that they did.

There is now a much better collection of data, based on over 1000 civilian and police shootings, and that data can be examined by reputable sources. I mention some of the problems with this study, below, but would note, that the M&S study had many more flaws and fundamental errors.

Here's the Greg Ellifritz study: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power

Some folks disagree with some of the analysis categories, but they are well explained and justified. Read the underlying explanations before you look at the data, and save yourself some misunderstandings. Then you can question his assumptions and his related PERSONAL conclusions.

As for the FBI's focus on penetration...

Penetration is important, and concern about OVER-penetration is valid, but just penetrating through 12"-14" inches of ballistic gel (which is a simulation of porcine tissue) ignores the fact that PEOPLE have rib cages and wear denim and leather, etc. (Some penetration tests now include simulated bone and clothes, and that helps.) Unless you penetrate near or more than the FBI-specified distance, you aren't able to hit something that MIGHT stop the guy who is trying to stop you.

That's key: not making the other person bleed out and succumb to shock, but putting him or her out of action before he or she does that to you... There's a risk (to bystanders, for example) of over-penetration, but the risk of under-penetration, to YOU, is far greater.

Th Ellefritz study doesn't address the type of rounds used -- and that's probably because there aren't that many DOCUMENTED shootings in a year's time -- and getting all of the details (important to us, but not necessarily to those who are collecting the data) is difficult.

To make matters worse, another problem with ANY of these studies is that you just don't know how PROFICIENT the shooters were.

A calm, cool, experienced shooter might be a LOT more effective in a shootout than someone who hasn't been there and done that before. We also don't know whether the person or persons STOPPED were experienced or on drugs. In the final analysis, it It might just be the INDIAN and not the bow and arrow, as that old saying goes. It's hard to know... But the differences between the many different handgun calibers aren't really THAT different!
 
Last edited:
I don't believe that the number of cases they looked at were anywhere near a large enough sample to rule out anomalous clusters. I also believe that a significant factor is the sort of clumping that is caused by shooters of one caliber or firearm type tending to have better training. Hypothetically, let's say that a department issues .40 S&W Glock 23s but allows officers to carry their own pistols, from an approved list. It is reasonable to expect that the sort of person who chooses to carry a 1911 is more likely to have better handgun skills. Moreover, the better trigger and longer sight radius also lend themselves to better shooting. This means that a single rounds fired from the 1911 is more likely to land closer to the center of the target's upper chest and therefore be more effective. On average. Averaging does not rule out this sort of variable.

I think you're probably right that 125 gr SJHP tends to work well. I also believe that there are loads that are probably mostly good enough most of the time that fall a little short of the 12" mark. II don't believe that there is any objective way to conclude that particular load (or any other) is conclusively "the best".

It's also worth pointing out that you seem not to understand the reason for theFBI's penetration fetish. It has little to do with the thickness of a torso and everything to do with the fact that rounds fired in a fight often strike the torso at an oblique angle and have to pass through limbs.
 
Here's the Greg Ellifritz study, where: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alter...stopping-power
Click to expand...
That database is tiny compared to M&S, and fails to break the data down ammo type. But that said, it reaches the same darn conclusion: .357 is the king of the heap for common calibers. It has the fewest shots to incapacitate and the best percentage incapacitated (both one shot and overall).

Everyone's results are the same, because the data's all the same.
 
Last edited:
The Big D said:
That database is tiny compared to M&S, and fails to break the data down ammo type. But that said, it reaches the same darn conclusion: .357 is the king of the heap for common calibers. It has the fewest shots to incapacitate and the best percentage incapacitated (both one shot and overall).

Everyone results are the same, because the data's all the same.
Click to expand...

You still trust the M&S data? The Ellifritz study is based on data that can be confirmed. Have you tried to find out ANYTHING about the M&S data?

You clearly DID not read the Elleifritz study if you came to THAT conclusion, as .357 was top performer in only ONE category: the number of people NOT incapacitated (9%).

It tied .22 for highest percentage of fatal shots (34%), and tied .380 for one-shot stops (40%). The .45 out performed .357 with a higher % of accurate hits (head and torso) 85% vs. the .357's 85%. (The .44 Magnum round, not shown below, had 88% accuracy.)

9mm: 456 people shot, 1121 hits, 24% fatal, rounds to incapacitation - 2.45
.357: 105 people shot, 178 hits, 34% fatal, rounds to incapacitation - 1.7
.22: 154 people shot, 213 hits, 34% fatal, rounds to incapacitation - 1.38
.32: 25 people shot, 38 hits, 21% fatal, rounds to incapacitation - 1.52
.380: 85 people shot, 150 hits, 29% fatal, rounds to incapacitation - 1.76
.40: 188 people shot, 443 hits, 25% fatal, rounds to incapacitation - 1.87
.45: 209 people shot, 436 hits, 29% fatal, rounds to incapacitation - 2.08
 
Last edited:
I most definitely did read the data. You didn't read what I wrote.

The .357 was BY FAR the best performing handgun cartridge in that data of the common fighting cartridges (.38SP, 9mm, .357, .40 & .45). It had the fewest failures to incapacitate at 9%, 30% lower than the next closest. It tied with with .40 S&W for most one shot stops (44% and 45% are the same when you only have 105 samples), had the best accuracy (probably more a function of the type of people who shoot .357), and had the most actual one shot stops.

In other words, .357 ran the table.
 
It ran YOUR table, because you focused on a single criteria. You're free to do that, but we don't have to agree with your analysis and conclusion.

The fact that there were only 105 poeple shot, puts THAT round it in the same category as .22, and .25 ACP, and .380 ACP -- so your choice of what might be called POPULARLY USED ROUNDS seems to be open to debate, as well.

Tell us about the M&S study, when you have the time. I did some digging a few years back, and was frustrated by my inability to get anything but, "trust me, it's good" from the authors. The basis for any statistical or scientific study is data that can be evaluated and analysis that can be replicated. That, including the choice of data used, was never possible with the M&S data.
 
Last edited:
It ran YOUR table, because you focused on a single criteria.
Click to expand...
Except I focused on 4 different criteria, which I VERY clearly enumerated. I'm thinking you didn't even bother to read my post before responding.

And had you ACTUALLY read the data you're so excited about, you know he pointed out that the other stats on the mouse guns are irrelevant because they fail to incapacitate at all so frequently.
 
You're making assumptions about what data is credible based on YOUR criteria, and your assumptions about the the statistical significance of small or large samples. Tell us why we should accept your assumptions.

You went into this with conclusions already established, and ignore anything that throws those conclusions into question. Many things in the M&S study cause its problem. Only when ONE HIT to the torso occurred was it counted. Multiple shots were ignored. (Most cops, at the time, were trained to shoot twice and assess; now many of them are trained to shoot until the threat is over...) Many successful confrontations would be ignored! How is that valid data?

I'm not as enthusiastic about the Ellifritz study as you think, for the reasons I stated in my first comments about it -- it doesn't address the type of rounds used and it tells us NOTHING about how competent the shooters were. M&S didn't do a good job of that either, but at least with the Ellifritz study you don't ignore MANY, MANY shooting events simply because more than one shot to the torso was the result. It is the best I've found in the last couple of years. The M&S study is profoundly flawed. There are MANY contradictions and errors in the data, and they adjust their results in ways that aren't explained.

Their analysis and recommendations on specific loads, too, are based on very small data groups, not a large number ofcases, (some with as few of five events), and they use questionable analysis methods and don't follow their own rules. There's a lot of INTERPOLATION in their results, some of which may be badly flawed. (At least that seems to be the case with Sanow; Marshall's part of the study seems better done.)
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it's clear that your own data proved you wrong and you failed to read or understand either the data or my post, leading you to blunder around in a sort of confused haze. I've got nothing further to say to you, as you likely would just misinterpret it again.
 
No, it's clear that it is profoundly difficult, if not impossible, to gather enough data and control variables carefully enough to make any sort of specific conclusive statements about effectiveness in the real world. These aren't attributes on a role playing game's character sheet.
 
Well, you're right that it's difficult, which is why we should be glad that so many groups like Texas DPS went through the work to do it for us.

I realize full well that certain people will choose to ignore that information, which is very unfortunate when police departments do so (since it can easily lead to officers being needlessly killed or wounded) but is basically a case of personal consequences for bad judgement when individuals do it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top