JackNKoch:
Yes, ordnance gelatin must be calibrated to obtain valid data. The accepted protocol is to calibrate each gelatin block immediately prior to use. This ensures the gelatin will produce penetration and expansion results similar to expected terminal performance in live soft tissue. If the gelatin block sits out for too long and warms or if the gelatin solution is too diluted or too concentrated these defects won't be detected and the data obtained during testing will be faulty.
Yes, Sanow's .380 penetration data is similar to what I measured. But there are many other loads he tested that produced wildly inaccurate results as compared to the findings of other, more reputable, ballistics researchers. For instance, Sanow measured over 17 inches of penetration for the 9mm 147gr subsonic when several other researchers were measuring about 13-14 inches penetration. Same is true with .357 Magnum 125gr JHP. Sanow's defective uncalibrated gelatin produced faulty data. Although Sanow's penetration data for the .380 ACP 90gr Hornady cartridge is indeed similar to mine, you at least have a reference to compare his results against, but you don't have this same luxury to validate any of his other data, which may or may not be faulty.
As for the M&S review of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Ammo Tests, the people who conducted these tests (Dahlstrom and Powley) have condemned the inaccurate manner and misinterpretation of results that M&S reported in their book "Street Stoppers".
Similar criticism has been leveled at M&S's "reworking of the numbers" of the Navy/Crane 9mm Ammo Tests to "prove" that the 115gr +P+ cartridge was superior to the 147gr that the Navy researchers selected.
As for the Secret Sevice Ammo Tests, these tests were conducted in 1972. In light of the changes in ammunition design and performance since then, this chapter is pointless.
In the early 1990's, Sanow wrote an article that was published in
Law & Order magazine critical of the 9mm 147gr subsonic. (Actually this same article was also published in
SIG Arms Quarterly and
Handguns magazine -- and a couple of others IIRC -- but with different titles.) As "proof" to support his claims he cited about a dozen law enforcement shootings involving this cartridge in which he alleged that the bullet was a failure. Several law enforcement firearms instructors were so alarmed at the information that Sanow presented in his
Law & Order magazine article that they contacted every one of the law enforcement agencies Sanow cited and learned that he'd intentionally misrepresented the facts of the shootings. These officers (Sgt. Steve Campbell, Firearms Training Unit Supervisor, Louisiana State Police; Sgt. Mike Dunlap, Rangemaster, Amarillo, Texas, PD; and Sgt. William Porter, head of the Michigan State Police Marksmanship Unit) presented their findings to the editor of
Law & Order magazine, Bruce Cameron, who published their findings in the Letters department (p. 89-90, November 1992). As a result, Mr. Cameron retracted Sanow's article, apologized to his readers for publishing "...information has proven to be in error.", and vowed never again to publish an article by Sanow.
The current issue of
Wound Ballistics Review (Volume 4, Number 2) contains two analyses of Marshall's data which presents compelling evidence of intentional fraud and misrepresentation ("Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow 'Data Base': An Evaluation Over Time" by Maarten van Maanen, and "The Marshall & Sanow 'Data' - Statistical Analysis Tells the Ugly Story" by Duncan MacPherson). These devastating analyses were recently featured in Street Survival Newsline # 419 (11/16/99), which is published by Calibre Press (
www.calibrepress.com ). Defenders of M&S -- who've never reviewed these analyses -- are willing to write-off these disturbing findings as simple errors in arithmetic, which they are not.
------------------
/s/ Shawn Dodson
Firearms Tactical Institute
http://www.firearmstactical.com
[This message has been edited by Shawn Dodson (edited January 13, 2000).]