JAMA article on caliber lethality

Caliber, like many other English words has multiple meanings, depending on context.
Click to expand...

When it comes to small arms, caliber most often refers to the diameter of the bore or bullet. When federal code mentions "caliber" in regards to armor piercing ammunition or destructive devices, it is talking about the diameter of the bore or projectile. If Cook and Braga wanted to use an alternative definition of "caliber" instead of the definition that applies most commonly in small arms, they should have made mention of their definition. This is especially important since they suggest their work be used in regulating small arms.
 
"Wouldn't want to get shot by" (usually minimal caliber and/or FMJ) and/or "Nobody volunteer to get shot by" .... are not indicative of being quickly incapacitating.

Nobody would want a cup of urine thrown on them or be spit on either, neither of which is quickly incapacitating.

Likely to penetrate 12-18'' and consistently expand (or not) is a better measure of potential performance. ;)
 
The study authors aren't MDs, they are criminologists. When I have looked at the research of P. J. Cook and Anthony Braga, they both seem to do far better than the MDs that usually post on guns in JAMA.

I don't have a problem with them trying to figure out if cartridge power plays a role in the rates of fatal shootings but I don't think they did a great job in calculating "intent" or using the term "caliber."

Edit to add: I also don't think they did a great job with measuring shot placement and the effects of multiple hits.
 
Last edited:
Regardless of how they used the term "caliber," good science strives to control or account for other variables in reaching conclusions about the effect of one variable factor on a result. This was not good science.
 
TailGator said:
Regardless of how they used the term "caliber," good science strives to control or account for other variables in reaching conclusions about the effect of one variable factor on a result. This was not good science.
Click to expand...
^^^ This.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top