Marshall/Sanow study

C

cosmicdingo

New member
Is the Marshall/Sanow stopping power info still credible to forum folks? I thinks it's still the ONLY statistically valid study done on small arms effectiveness.
 
It's credible to me so long as you understand the stats and their methodology.

They are still the first place I go to for information.

Others will have issues with them but they are good for me.
 
I ask myself the same question many times. I still go to it regularly. If there is something more current, I'd like to know about it.
 
Not only is it anecdotal...

... but it was done in the late 70's through 80's. Bullets weren't made to the same performance levels they are now. IE back then, HP ammo wouldn't expand at lower velocities, like it can now, and JHP selection for autos was limited.
 
Archer 9505 "By this study a .380 has a better stopping stat than a .357; Anecdotal meaningless data at best".

Where in the book does it say this??? I'm looking at it right know and just can't seem to see that anywhere.

I'll still look at this until something better comes along. As far as one shot stops go I don't believe I will shoot just once while protecting myself.
What other way would other suggest tests be measured. You may be in a gunfight and only hit the target once, that is just reality. Multiple shots always ups your chance at ending the fight faster but not realistic.
I would love to see another book from them with today's bullet designs in there.
 
“The key is to hit them hard, hit them fast, and hit them repeatedly.
The one shot stop is a unit of measurement not a tactical philosophy.” Evan Marshall
 
There are a number of issues with the Marshall/Sanow study, not least of which is that it's based on anecdotal evidence.

By their wisdom, .45 ACP and .357 Magnum are among the best man-stoppers for law enforcement. Let's think about that. Who in law enforcement is still carrying either of those cartridges? At the time of the study, revolvers were loaded with .38's, and automatics were 9mm.

The answer is older, more experienced shooters, who are willing to jump through hoops so that they can carry their weapon. I submit that the reason those guys are getting one-shot stops is due to the fact that they're good shots, and that those numbers are not so much due to ammunition selection.

In any case, it's very hard to do such a study to any comprehensive degree. Bullet trajectories vary, and the human body is an unpredictable and complex target. I don't think it's really possible to do a study that could prove the superiority of one cartridge over another because it's virtually impossible to replicate the exact same circumstances every time.
 
Tom Servo "I don't think it's really possible to do a study that could prove the superiority of one cartridge over another because it's virtually impossible to replicate the exact same circumstances every time"

So what do you use? Milk jugs-gelatin-wet news paper? Find someone that has exact twin and shoot them with different calibers. What would you suggest?


Tom Servo "By their wisdom, .45 ACP and .357 Magnum are among the best man-stoppers for law enforcement"

It's not by "their wisdom" it's just what the study ended up revealing.
Police department still carry .45. Where does it say this is for LEO's only. I have a .357 I carry. So what do you base your selection from. Internet?
 
Posted by cosmicdingo: Is the Marshall/Sanow stopping power info still credible to forum folks? I thinks it's still the ONLY statistically valid study done on small arms effectiveness.
Click to expand...
So, why do you believe that it is statistically valid?

Consider these very limited excerpts from an FBI report on the scientific issues....


There is no valid, scientific analysis of actual shooting results in existence, or being pursued to date. ... There are some well publicized, so called analyses of shooting incidents ..., however, they are greatly flawed. Conclusions are reached based on samples so small that they are meaningless. ...There is no correlation between hits, results, and the location of the hits upon vital organs.

It would be interesting to trace a life-sized anatomical drawing on the back of a target, fire 20 rounds at the "center of mass" of the front, then count how many of these optimal, center of mass hits actually struck the heart, aorta, vena cava, or liver. ... Yet nowhere in the popular press extolling these studies of real shootings are we told what the bullets hit.

The numbers of cases cited are statistically meaningless, and the underlying assumptions upon which the collection of information and its interpretation are based are themselves based on myths such as knock- down power, energy transfer, hydrostatic shock, or the temporary cavity methodology of flawed work such as RII.

The factors governing incapacitation of the human target are many, and variable. The actual destruction caused by any small arms projectile is too small in magnitude relative to the mass and complexity of the target. ... Unless the tissue destroyed is located within the critical areas of the central nervous system, it is physiologically insufficient to force incapacitation upon the unwilling target. It may certainly prove to be lethal, but a body count is no evidence of incapacitation. ... The more important question, which is sadly seldom asked, is what did the individual do when hit?

There is a problem in trying to assess calibers by small numbers of shootings. ...

Because of the extreme number of variables within the human target, and within shooting situations in general, even a hundred shootings is statistically insignificant. If anything can happen, then anything will happen, and it is just as likely to occur in your ten shootings as in ten shootings spread over a thousand incidents. Large sample populations are absolutely necessary.
Click to expand...

Then read the entire report for an understanding of the above and for an excelnt discourse on the subject of handgun effectiveness.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf
 
comn-cents...

... you might want to retract your question to Tom Servo, or at least its tone.

Or else re-read the Marshall/Sanow study you are so fond of.

Their study was based on reading a compilation of LEO related shootings. Hence, Tom Servo's LEO tie-in.

If you want to defend the study, you should understand the study.
 
comn-cents, yes, I hit you with a milder dose of sarcasm, though your sarcasm was based on YOUR misunderstanding, not your target's.

So my sarcasm was actually intended as irony.

Cheers,

M
 
This quote above by OldMarksman is spot-on, in my experience. The M&S data is nothing helpful in determining what will work, only what has happened in a limited number of hand-picked shootings. It's a good marketing tool, though. Too many variables will determine the effectiveness of a gunshot injury, including, but not limited to:
  • body habitus (size, shape, location differences of vital organs between people)
  • mental state (willpower, mental illness, attitude in general)
  • physiology (strength, natural chemical balances, composition differences in organs)
  • disease states (affecting the organs involved in the gunshot injury)
  • drug usage (legal medication, illegal drugs/alcohol)
  • injury location (shot placement!)
  • distance from firearm to target (ability to penetrate, muzzle gases from contact wounds)
  • previous injuries (affecting the organs involved, again)

This list can go on. Just by looking at this non-all-inclusive list, you can see that the effects between identical injuries can differ significantly. There is no statistic in the world that can account for this variability.

As I say with most of these topics, you really need to have the answer to the question "why" when determining a bullet's effectiveness.
  • Why is it that this particular bullet performed well?
  • Why is this result different from the effect of any other bullet, if another load was to be used in this case?
Unfortunately, the vast majority of the stories and commonly quoted info. out there is insufficient to answer this.
 
I have the book in front of me and just read the "Preface" and it doesn't say anything about being for LEO's. He says he was a cop, He goes on the say in the "Criteria" that cops and civilians who carry guns. So who's running their mouth about others not understanding?
 
Last edited:
I don't think the study is complete BS. I do however, think that it is not nearly as definitive as people give it credit for. People on the internet argue over the difference between a 96% one stop shot vs a 92% one stop shot and act like those 4 percentage points make the difference between blowing the bad guy out of his shoes or not even hurting him. The study reflects trends, not concrete statistics with control variables and whatnot. I suspect that there may be a margin of error of at least 5% for something as subjective as this scale. I think any of the top 10 or 15% performers are more or less equal for all intents and purposes.
 
OK...

In the past this very subject has been cause for some hard debate and harsh words.

To this day I still can't figure out why, but that's beside the point.

What isn't beside the point is that I just KNOW, with all my heart and soul, that everyone is going to maintain a polite, even, and measured tone while talking about all of this.

Right?


RIGHT?

Thank you. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top