If only everyone were as rational as yourself,Tim, then the MS charts would not be so "respected" by the masses. The fact is, they do prove nothing. They are a bastardization of science. They account for so few of the variables present in a shooting and the data is clearly skewed, possibly in favor of certain brands. The only way that they could even hope to have any viable outcome with so many variables present would be to have thousands and thousands of shootings for evey single bullet weight and brand, so that all the variables could hope to be overcome by sheer nubers of incidents. They are a prime example of a couple of uneducated people delving into a field that they know nothing about (statistical science) and trying to make charts for everyone. The blind leading the blind. Gun shop idiots and armchair commandos respect the charts because it was made by one of their ilk. The charts are like brain-candy for the masses: no thinking required, just look at the simple chart and pick the ammo at the top. Don't think about how the data was collected or what variables were present and how it could be flawed, and you can't read any opposing viewpoints because they publish no data to scrutinize. For the average shooter, this makes for a very simple chart that looks neat, but is chock full of holes to anyone that knows anything about science or statistics.
Maybe some companies payed to have their ammo represented favorably? Because they refuse to publish data, no one knows. But on top of that, as you said, even if the charts are accurate, they account for so few variables and leave out so many possiblities that they are meaningless.
The problem is, most people do not understand the true scientific method and proper data-gathering methods for accurate statistics. Personally, I believe that their "charts" are an insult to science and statistics, a disservice to the world of self-defense with a handgun, and I believe that there are deaths in this world that rest on their shoulders.
The fact is, they are publishing charts that ignorant people look at to determine what ammo to carry. If they are publishing flawed data, fraudulant claims, and poorly concluded hypotheses, then they are irresponsibly (or possibly fraudulently) getting people killed when those trusting people pull the trigger, expecting their magic bullet to have a %95 chance of physically stopping ther assailent with one shot anywhere to the torso.
Sorry for the rant, but I am a bit infuriated by this insult to science. I have no axe to grind on what bullets work best or anything like that, but I do get a bit ticked-off when I see the misuse of scientific methods presented to the masses that don't know any better. And, I am not belittling "the masses", but just saying that they are "ignorant" (in the dictionary definition of the word) of strict scientific methods and satistics through no fault of their own, but simply because they are not specialized in that area.
M&S (mostly Sanow) should leave wounding ballistics to the professionals and statistics-gathering to the scientifically inclined. Either that, or they could simply publish their data and have it scrutinized by professionals so that they can refine their technique and produce some viable charts. With some advise from some professionals in statistical gathering, and science, they could refine their charts and with a lot of work, they could actually make something that was worth looking at. Their intentions and ideas appeared worthy, but their execution is pitiful. If they took their ideas and got some advise on how to execute their research properly, they might be able to make a decent chart. It may not even resemble the original, but at least it would be worth reading. Then again, I am assuming that they really had intent to make accurate charts.
