I was going to respond to the above post about how MS data has never been peer reviewed and they refuse to publish any of their supposed data for anyone to see (probably because their data is comprised of third-party tales from their buddies, not from scientific methods) but I think someone else put it better on another forum. Let me just quote them:
"The main problem with ballistic discussions and the "average Jo" all come down to Marshall/Sanow's (MS's) bogus charts.
I guess that as a trained scientist, the methodology of Marshall/Sanow to find their data is so ridiculouly bogus that I cannot understand why people buy it. Getting away from the flaws in their study (variables) that they don't account for, like WHERE the person was shot, HOW pissed off they were, and WHY they decided to stop attacking (because they didn't want to , or because the COULDN'T?).
For instance, in just one case I know of tha MS discuss as a failure of the big heavy 230gr .45, a man was hell bent on killing a couple of officers and picked up a hatchet and charged them. ONE shot was fired from a .45. The BG immediatly stopped in his tracks, truned around and stumbled over to a car seat, and collapsed. Because he went "more than 10 feet" over to the car before he collapsed, it was deemed a "failure". This takes nothing into account about how determined the attacker was (he was very pissed off with murderous intent), and how one bullet made him turn around and stumble back to his car, it takes no account of where he was hit (besides the "torso"), etc. All it states is that he stumbled more than 10 feet (away from the Officer with the .45), so therefore is was a "dismal failure" on the count of the .45 bullet. What a crock of garbage.
Finally, there is one acid test that sets aparts true scientists from bogus ones, and that is PEER REVIEW!!!
For instance, the Kellerman/CDC statistics that state "you are 43 times more likely to be killed by your own gun in your home than to use it to defend yourself". This statistic is BOGUS because Kellerman refuses to publish data for peer review, and what little data he has put out has been ripped to shreds.
A scientist HAS TO publish the data and methods from which they derived their theories in order to be scrutinized by peer review to make sure that their study was accurate.
Marshall/Sanow is the same case as Kellerman. Their data is bull****. They derive it from secondhand hearsay stories, they fill in any blanks where they see fit, make estimations, and plain MAKE UP data when they need to fill in a grey area. Read their site, it says right there that they "estimate bullet effectiness for those that do not have enough data". So...their supposed "street data" that is so accurate because it is based on "real street shootings" is a bunch of garbage.
It is like basing your opinion of Glock Kb!'s on stories that you hear on the internet. Sometimes, you may be hearing the same story told three different ways, and think it is three different Kb!'s.
Taking stories from hearsay gives no good data at all, because you don't even know if the story is true or if it is a rehash of a story you heard before.
"CorBon XX" may have a high rating in M/S's data purely because the same shooting story was told ten times over from different people in different ways, and "voila!": CorBon XX has a high stoppage rating on their charts.
The simple fact is, M/S REFUSE to publish data because they have none!!! They are not scientists! There is no reason to trust your life to a chart made from data by non-scientific means.
Quite simply, the peer review is what makes a scientist accountable for his claims. Until M/S can come up with their data, their charts are hocus pocus voodoo.
If it were not for Marshall/Sanow and their crappy bull**** "charts" that rate the "street effectiveness" of bullets, then there would not be so many uninformed people out there that INSIST that no matter what logic is put before them that the lighter faster bullets on their charts work better. Unfortunaly, the masses are no more scientists than Marshall/Sanow, and, no offence, but they are easily fooled by smoke and mirrors.
Think about it: if people's minds were not so clouded by the bogus M/S charts, then it would be easy to have a logical discussion, from professionals in the business of studying ballitics, like the one above (not uneducated, hick Police Officers, calling themselves ballistics experts, like Ed Sanow). Personally, I would rather base my life on information given to me by people who are trained EXPERTS in the field, who get paid every day to study ballistics, rathar than a couple fo dudes who decided to compile all the shooting stories they heard into a "chart" that supposedly tell us how effective a bullet is.
Sorry for the rant, but that M/S bullcrap is so unscientific and ridiculous, and it is deceiving so many people, that it drives me NUTS."
One thing I would like to add is that no handgun bullet stops somebody %95 of the time. No one handgun bullet to the torso could stop someone even %10 if the person is determined. That alone shows how ludicrous the MS data is.
