Marshall/Sanow study

Who it's for, vs who it's about

The info was intended for LEO and civilian carriers.

It was derived primarily from shootings involving LEO's vs bad guys, because, interestingly enough, it was easier to get LEO's to talk about shootings - less interference from defense attorneys, etc.

So, Tom Servo was referring to the fact that most of the shooters studied or interviewed, who used .45 or .357, were LEO - at least as far as that study.
 
Tom Servo said:
"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? "

On LAPD, the largest police department on the West Coast, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, possibly the largest sherrifs department in the nation, the 45 ACP is still used in S&W, Glock and Kimber pistols. The sheriffs department also authorises Ruger and Sig pistols. I carried a Smith 4506 for many years and like it very much. So I don't know where you came up with such an incorrect statement.

I respect the Marshall/Sanow results but don't consider them the final word. It's all part of the overall conclusions. Shot placement is still number one!
 
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department They carry Beretta 92's and I think some S&W's semis. Maybe it's LAPD that carry the things you mentioned.
 
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?
Click to expand...
Actually, that was one of my points. Gelatin and other such substitutes might approximate the average density of flesh to some extent, but they don't take into account, movement, bone, angled trajectory, state of mind, or whether or not a round does damage to the CNS.

I think it's impossible, at least with current methods, to "prove" that one sort of ammunition is superior to another when it comes to stopping an assailant. I give Marshall and Sanow credit for trying, and for coming up with a novel methodology, but I'm not sold on the results. Nor do I think people should base potentially life-altering choices on the data.

So what do you base your selection from. Internet?
Click to expand...
Good lord, no. I worry that internet advice has gotten more than a few people in serious trouble. My personal criteria are:

  • reliability in the gun for which it's to be used,
  • accuracy with the gun in which it's being used,
  • muzzle flash,
  • velocity and bullet weight,
  • and very far down in last place, how long it's been around, and what its reputation is.

Anything else, I consider to be peripheral. I don't care what Fackler recommends, or what did or didn't work in the Miami Shootout. I consider all of that data academic, and I somehow doubt that any of those pundits will be around to defend me when I'm in harm's way.

On LAPD, the largest police department on the West Coast, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, possibly the largest sherrifs department in the nation, the 45 ACP is still used in S&W, Glock and Kimber pistols
Click to expand...
Were they already doing so in 1996? I seem to remember mostly seeing Berettas.

Misses didn't even enter into the data, did they?
Click to expand...
You've made the point much more concisely than I could.
 
Looking at the "Stopping Power" info many of shootings had 2-3-4 hundred shootings and into the 1000's. Doesn't seem anecdotal to me.

Like I said before until someone comes up with something else I'll stick to what they have to say. Real people getting really shot.
 
To clarify, the LASD now, as of approximately 2000, authorizes the 45 ACP.

The LAPD authorized 45ACP pistols in 1997 after the North Hollywood Shootout. I did not mean to say this is the issued caliber but are only authorized, with a short training course, to carry. Almost all specialized units on LAPD and a large number of patrol officers and detectives carry the 45ACP to this day.
Sorry for any confusion.
 
Ummm are we sure that the Marshal/Sanow book is based on law enforcement shootings? Or did they examine cadavers, and interview medical examiners based on many shooting's by many calibers, then conclude that the .45 acp, and .357 were the best choice for an officer or armed civilian?

Their methods may have not been scientific. But I do believe they pretty much got it right...

As far as there being ammo with better balistic properties today.... I submit that Dead from a gunshot wound in 1970 is exactly the same as dead from a gunshot wound today.

Glenn
 
Glenn I agree with most of your post but I would still like to see them write another updated book with today's more modern bullet designs. I still have a carry 357 and fill confident it will do what they say.
 
"I think it's impossible, at least with current methods, to "prove" that one sort of ammunition is superior to another when it comes to stopping an assailant."


Except when you start comparing results of gelatin tests with results from actual shootings using the same bullets, and comparing performance in the lab with performance in the street.

Why do you think that 10% ballistic gelatin has been the standard test medium for going on 25 years now?

It's because results in that medium have an extremely high fidelity with what is seen when those bullets actually impact living tissue.

Some have claimed that gelatin isn't viable because it doesn't account for layered densities, such as muscle and bone. But when people have actually cast bone into gelatin in an attempt to make it "more realistic," the results skew wildly from what's seen with 10% ballistic gelatin.

The stuff wasn't chosen at random, and it wasn't chosen by a wandering tribe of Knox Jello salesmen.
 
MLeake just reading the first line of that publication that you posted is all I needed. "The authors of this book are gunwriters who have close ties to bullet companies that specialize in lightweight handgun bullets shot at higher than usual velocities".
Lets see, "if" say Winchester made their own bullet and loaded it to high velocities then maybe. M&S don't just pick one particular bullet manufacture or ammo manufacturer they pick different ones. When it came to .45acp they pick 230gr bullet not traveling any faster than other companies loads. When I say "they pick" I mean their study suggests. To suggest that they close ties is bunk. Maybe I should read the rest but I have a hard time when they start that way...
 
Last edited:
We agree there...

... it started out pretty inflammatory in language.

But it did make interesting points, with footnotes, further into the paper.
 
The problem with the M/S study is that it's anecdotal data and not scientific. For the data to be scientifically valid, each representative bullet would have to be fired under the exact same conditions through the exact same barrier materials and hit the victim in the exact same spot.

Mike's right, that's why we use 10% ordnance gelatin. In modern times, bullets recovered from actual gunfights that were tested in gelatin and designed to meet the FBI standards have generally performed to that standard on "the street", wherever that is.
 
One important thing to keep in mind in considering the M/S data is that they did not filter it in any way. They considered whether a perp was stopped in one short regardless of other circumstances. The 380 Auto is a back-up piece and anytime it is fired the target is almost certainly very close, literally on top of the shooter, while the larger bore guns will be engaged at more "normal" distances. This is unquestionably why the 380 gets such high marks, not the remarkable ballistics of that round, since it is in now way remarkable.

Also keep in mind that most of the data came from well trained LE personnel who know how to shoot relatively small caliber, lightly loaded rounds under stressful conditions, and whose bullet placements should be excellent on average with those weapons. The better the bullet placement the less important the ballistics - that's why the 22 is one of the favorites among professional assassins. But for the rest of us we need a round that will help make up for our poor marksmanship under the stressful circumstances of needing to defend ourselves. The M/S study in no way addresses this and that's why so many experts either dismiss it out of hand or take it fully in context.

The M/S data says that a 38 spcl's one-shot stopping rate is 93%, higher than a 357 Mag and vastly higher than the 45 ACP at only 64%. Does that make any sense except in the context above? Of course not! And that's certainly not the military's extensive experience.
 
They also discounted...

.... instances where more than one hit was scored.

So, if good shooters were trained to double-tap, those stops would not have been considered.
 
Ballistics gel does not come close to simulate the body. Period. It may be intended to act like the "average of tissues" in the body combined, but that does not mean it mirrors anything like the results we see in the real world. However, for comparison testing of bullets, it works well and is the best thing we have.

Mike's right, that's why we use 10% ordnance gelatin. In modern times, bullets recovered from actual gunfights that were tested in gelatin and designed to meet the FBI standards have generally performed to that standard on "the street", wherever that is.
Click to expand...

Having seen a lot of recovered bullets in various states, I can tell you they don't look pretty like they do in gel most of the time. Often, they go beyond or fall short of the advertised penetration as well, depending on where they hit.
 
Last edited:
mes227 "38 spcl's one-shot stopping rate is 93%, higher than a 357 Mag"


So much miss information here. Reading from the book right know it says .38spl 67% 2in brl & 4in 80%. .357 is 96%


MLeake "So, if good shooters were trained to double-tap, those stops would not have been considered"


It says right in the Criteria that "Multiple hits were also disregarded"

The rest of the criteria is in the book and it's pretty specific.

As for distance from the person being shot, it's called reality. These shooting did happen and the results were recorded. Using ballistic gelatin over reality seems a bit crazy to me. I started reading the book again, so fare they don't say that these are only police shootings. If they are so what some of the worst shots I've ever seen are LEO's then again some of the best have been LEO's also.

I think some need a refresher course about what is written in the M&S books.
 
As for distance from the person being shot, it's called reality. These shooting did happen and the results were recorded. Using ballistic gelatin over reality seems a bit crazy to me.
Click to expand...

The problem here is any science to this data is washed away by extreme variance from all directions. Yes, distance matters. Yes, differences in body tissue hit matters. Yes, every difference matters when you are speaking of MINUTE differences between round performance. There is no way to properly compare rounds without controlled conditions, especially when talking about difference of only 1%. I'm sure the margin of error is greater than that.

How can someone even consider this data when nothing is consistent from one shooting to the next? It defies logic...

This is why the rest of the experts in the shooting community call it BS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top