Marshall/Sanow study

"This is why the rest of the experts in the shooting community call it BS".
What shooting community are you talking about, the one who can't even read the statistics out of the book correctly?:rolleyes:

So shooting into gelatin at exactly 14.23in is reality. I see people shot targets all the time when there is no pressure on. Put something as little as a time limit on the same thing target shooting and everything falls apart. Reality that is what it's called. I never said anything about scientific nor will I.
 
Last edited:
Once again I dont think Marshal/Sanow ever implied this was anything other than them examining the cadavers, and interviewing the medical examiners. Maybe I'm confusing their book with something else. But wasnt Evan Marshal a detective seargent in detroit homicide or something?

Dead bodies cant lie. Evidence is what it is. Science has nothing to do with it.If they found a large % of people killed with .380's then .380's kill people. Might not fit in with popular thinking... but it is what it is.

I think they were able to interview police officers about the shooting's and gather information from them. If I remember correctly they mentioned not being able to include other than police shooter interviews in order to protect the rights of the accused.

The reason I hold with the Marshal/Sanow opinions is because they had the bodies to prove their opinions.


Glenn
 
comn-cents, if you are going to say a particular bullet has a 95% OSS rate, but a different load has a 96% OSS, you need to be scientific. It's just "common sense", right?

The variance is reality, yes. Read my posts on page 1 and you will see that I fully understand that.

Glenn, what?!? Science has EVERYTHING to do with it when you want to compare these bullets and say one works better than another. To think anything else is wrong. Comparing 2 loads that hit in the same general area, but not EXACTLY the same spot can be a night and day difference in results! One round could hit the aorta, while one just a mere centimeter to the side misses all vital tissues in the body and is a failure-to-stop. See what I'm saying? You can't compare the two examples above...they are not the same, and bullet type has NOTHING to do with it.

If M&S were to narrow down further and remove issues like the one above, every round would be a 100% OSS because it doesn't really matter whether it was a 9mm STHP or a .45 GDHP that hit the same area.

By not removing the issues above, the info is terribly inaccurate. You can't count an obvious miss to anything vital as a "failure-to-stop" and a solid hit as a OSS. It's stupid.
 
Last edited:
I agree with 357Sig. There are too many uncontrolled variables to chalk it all up to specific caliber. A statistician would cringe at the methods used at arriving at these conclusions. I'm not saying the results are bunk, I'm just saying that you can't read those percentages as if they were scripture. Use them more as a guideline and don't fret over a few percentage points difference between two loads.
 
"info is terribly inaccurate." No it's reality!
Click to expand...
Glad to see you ignored all the important stuff and focused on this. Ranks right up there with saying "your mom" when things don't go your way...
 
Some of you may be too young to remember the whole Marshall/Sanow
thing. It was sort of like the "Dark Ages" of bullet design. We weren't too far out of the time of FMJ and RNL bullets. Mr. Juras and his Super Vel bullets led the way in JHP bullet design. With the bullet designs of the time the only way the designs would have any chance of expanding was by making the bullet go fast. Usually that meant making a lighter, faster bullet. This is where the idea that only a bullet moving faster than 1000f.p.s. would have any chance of expanding.
And actually it was pretty much true then. And somewhere they came up with the figure that at best the bullets expanded about 70% of the time. It's been too many years for me to remember where the stats came from but they were accepted as gospel. Yet to this day some well known trainers still stick with the 1000f.p.s. rule. Remeber their wasn't any kind of real test medium that gave any good idea of how a bullet would perform. Clay, duct seal, pine boards were some of the different mediums that were used to gage bullet performance. The only problem is that they did not relate in any way to performance in real human beings. And they certainly didn't test for things like several layers of clothes to clog up the JHP design. This is why you see even the best designs of the time fail to work if they hit heavy clothing. The Hydra Shok is just such a bullet.
It was one of the better if not the best designs of the time. It would usually open up when hitting someone not wearing heavy clothing. But it clogged and turned into basically an expensive FMJ when running into multiple layers of clothes. And their was another bullet that was the top of the line in terminal performance at the time. The Winchester Silvertip. It went with a lighter bullet and a soft covering over the bullet. It would usually open up also. Another round that got good results for the time was the Federal .38 Special Nyclad JHP.
It used a soft lead bullet with a no metallic jacket to get it to expand. The various .38 158gr. LSWCHP had no covering and soft lead to open up. The Nyclads covering was supposed to keep a barrel from getting leaded up. Anyways the mechanism of incompacitation was not well understood. So a thing came along called the Relative Incompacitation (excuse the spelling) Index or RII. There was even a computer model for this that measured a bullets ability to stop a fight. The thought that a bullet that expanded fast and "dumped all of it's energy" into the target within 8 inches of penetration was ideal. Until we learned that a bullet from a handgun did not "dump it's energy" into a target and if it did it was not enough to aid significantly to wounding/killing effects.
This is where you got bullets that were made to expand rapidly but didn't go deep. This is one of the myths of the infamous F.B.I. firefight with Platts and his accomplice. The bullet they blamed for not stopping the fight was 9mm 115gr. Silvertip bullet. Actually the bullet did exactly what it was designed to do. It went through Platts arm, torso and stopped short of the heart. But it expanded just as advertised and got the "magic" 8 inches of penetration. That's is when it was believed that "hydrostatic shock" from the bullet dumping it's energy quickly dropped an opponent. Which is of course just wrong.
So here is where Marshall and Sanow must be given some credit. They did try to come up with a method to determine bullet effectiveness that they thought was statistically sound. For several reasons which I won't go into the statistical analysis they used was flawed. But the RII index was also. And it was supposed to be leading edge science. Some have said Marshall and Sanows stats were made up. This was further exerbated by the fact that they said they had to keep their sources secret. Some said it was downright fraud. Including some very prestigious publications. Then their was the famous "goat tests".
Supposedly a study was done in which goats were hooked up to things that measured all manner of things such as blood pressure and other measure that were supposed to be indicative of how fast the goats died when shot. Of course all these tests were "secret" so only the results could be published. Again no sources to verify this event ever happening. None the less many accepted them as gospel also. Between goats and "one shot stops" they thought we had a pretty good idea of how things worked.
All these methods had flaws. The RII was based on a myth (for handguns anyways) of hydrostatic shock. The statistical analysis used in the other tests were not statistically sound and the data was never made public. I'm not going as far as others to say these people committed fraud. At best they might be like Sigmund Freud and his ideas on psychoanalysis.
Most of his methods have long since lost validity. But he was the first M.D. to try and apply scientific methods to get some valid results. They were the best they had at the time. Even though advancements in science have debunked his methdology. You can't be talked out of being Bi Polar. And the goat tests have no proof that shows they took place. So they have no authenticity.
The "Miami Massacre" started the valid scientific analysis of what made handgun rounds effective. It was understood that a bullet had to destroy vital tissue to stop someone. The 12-16 inches of penetration was used because that makes sure the bullet will go deep enough to reach vitals no matter at what angle the bad guy is hit. The flaw in this system is that sometimes 7-10 inches of penetration is not given any consideration because it doesn't meet their test criteria. On a frontal shot it takes 6"-8" on an average male to hit vitals. So not giving a round any value for not meeting at least 12" of penetration is wrong in the real world. But if I had to face a 6'6" 350lb. male I would like more penetration.
Next up expansion was important. The bigger the hole the quicker the blood pressure falls below the level to sustain life. The usually quoted phrase is a bullet that expands to 1 1/2 times it's pre expanded size is ideal. Don't know if this is part of the F.B.I guidelines. But it is quoted by many in the know. Then the realization that alot of JHP's clogged up going through certain materials. Denim, drywall and the like. Others would not hold together when
going through sheet metal or windshields. So they set out to codify a scientific means of determining these things.
Ballistic gel is about the same consistency as human muscle tissue. Not as soft as soft tissue. Not as hard as bone. Truly a test "medium". Add denim, windshields, drywall, and so on you get a good idea how a bullet works or doesn't under different conditions. Is it perfect? No. Is it good? Yes. By their testing protocol they have developed some of the best JHP's ever made. But some things to consider.
Having to shoot through windshields, sheet metal on a car, dry wall and so on is important for LEO's and the Military that needs such capabilities. For the situation most civilians will face if the bullet goes through the 4 denim layer test and expands and penetrates deep enough to reach vitals it is plenty good for civilian defense situations. But such a round would be considered a failure under the F.B.I. protocol. Even though it is probably a decent choice for civilains and the situations we would run into. Hornady Crtical Defense ammo was made with this in mind.
Another thing is getting real medical people involved that treat gunshot wounds on a regular basis. This is the bottom line. Doctors, medics and so on can't tell if the bullet is 9mm or .45 until they remove that bullet from the person that has been shot. The human body is made to try to survive. The temporary wound channel lasts for a fraction of a second. And except on non elastic tissue at least from handguns the tissue is not torn to the point it overcomes the elastic limits of the tissue. In fact the tissue closes to a size smaller than the bullet hole to try to slow down bleeding. In other words the body tries to save itself.
I grew up in Detroit and know Mr. Marshall survived in a very tough place to be an LEO. If he was teaching classes on street survival I would gladly go. But those who still quote the "one shot stop", "goat tests" and so on are
using as evidence a thing that has been shown to at least be wrong statistically. And the whole goat thing is urban legend as far as anyone can tell. It's similar to someone saying "I know somebody that knows somebody...". Find a bullet that is known to expand well and get good penetration. Make sure it works in your gun. Get training and practice lots. Hitting someone in the right place and repeating as necessary is the best you can do with a handgun. And Mr. Marshall agrees with this by the way.
 
sigxder thanks for the trip down memory lane. Good stuff. I thought the goat tests were CorBon or Super Vel? Anyway, Evan even says take his info for what it's worth he doesnt care one way or the other. He didn't write the books to impress anyone or make himself well know. It is what it is, I just happen to believe what he has to say.
 
.45 acp

The .45 acp is alive and well as a LE ctg. Not as common as .40, certainly, but w/ the advent of DA/SA pistols in LE, and the 1911 thus NOT being the only platform for the round, the old ctg is still in the hands of general LE personnel.

Limited examples:

Wayne Co TN SO is issuing Glock M21's to deputies, currently. Yeah, their rural, and small, I doubt they have more than 36 sworn officers, but it's just down the road, and theirs the first example, I didn't have to look far.

Also, about half the LEO NPS rangers are carrying .45 cal SIGS, that would be about 500 +- sworn officers.

ANd, haven't a bunch of SWAT teams specified it and gotten custom pistols built??

BAck on post, the Marshall/Sanow study is a reference, and must be taken as such. Finally, didn't they do a bunch of goat shooting in Europe, and what about the Dr Fackler studies?
 
Great Info from SIGXDER

Thanks for the great review. I think you have put the topic into context very well.
My problem with the One Shot Stop Statistics is that they should not be used as a determinant for selecting PD calibers and ammo; way too anecdotal.
Example: Part of the OSS stat shows that a 95 gr. .380 with 15 tested examples has a 100% OSS rating. This is better than the stats for .357 Mag, .45 ACP and .38 +p.
To choose a caliber/ammo combination on these stats alone overlooks the science of how handguns actually incapacitate.

As stated by SIGXDER: Deeper holes are better than shallow holes. Bigger holes are better than smaller. and multiple holes are better than single.

The FBI protocol although not a perfect criteria for PD is a much better source to make caliber/ammo selection decisions than OSS.

Despite the 95 gr. 380 having a OSS stat of 100% (Street Stoppers ca.1996)
I'll choose a .45 with Winchester 230 grain PDX
or Hornady critical defense. They both faired well when measured against the FBI protocol (Which I trust) and they run in a platform I am comfortable with, the 1911 series.
 
Last edited:
M-S research, LE documented shootings, issue of the .45acp...

As a teen in the mid/late 1980s I remember reading a lot of Sanow & Evan Marshall(a retired homicide detective with a PhD) articles.
To my understanding, their work was based on detailed reviews of court cases & police shootings.
Over the years, I started to have less of a opinion of Evan Marshall based on a number of factors(not related to ballistics/use of force shootings).
Marshall was a LE sales rep for IMI/Action Arms and promoted the use of Uzi SMGs saying how the "open bolt" format was better than the HK MP5 line.
Even the gun magazine's editor took issue with that statement ;).

Edwin Sanow was a state LE officer with a lot of formal training.
I take the handgun records and %s of 1 shot stops for what they are worth.
As posted here already, some of the data may be dated in 2011 but was valid for the times.
The 125gr JHP .357magnum round was way, way more common 20 or 30 years ago than it is today. The .45acp JHP is a fine duty round but IMO, a .357sig duty pistol would be a great sidearm.
To me it's like having a proven 125gr .357magnum in a duty pistol.
In my area, the main police agencies use the 9mmNATO(SIG Sauer P226) and the Glock 21 & 21SF in .45acp. The sworn deputies in the large sheriff's office have used the Glock 21s since about 2002.
 
Short and Sweet

There always seems to be problems with discussing these studies, because we've got an entire demographic of people that are very intelligent individuals, but have never had to read, critique, and logically analyze a scientific study, or write one of your own. There is not a thing wrong with this. Your field of study and interest has just not required it.

There are also many of us who have had to do this many times. These people can also say, without prejudice or emotion, that the parameters of these studies leave much to be desired in the terms of conclusive data. Many things in this study: data selection parameters, statistical methodology, definitional qualification, etc... even border on un-scientific. There are just too many informational and logical holes to make any real conclusive assessment from this study. As someone simply put; "Garbage in, garbage out". Which means that if you aren't careful, specific, and logical with the information and parameters that you're putting INTO your study, any information or conclusions you draw from it will be useless.

For one example, the M&S study measures instances of "One Shot Stops". Fine. Fair. But they don't go on to qualify this measure. "One Shot Stop", as a name, doesn't offer any information regarding WHY the person stopped; i.e. the difference between a "physical stop" (the person is physically/mechanically disabled and cannot continue the attack) and a "psychological stop" (person undergoes the "I Just Got SHOT!" reaction and subconsciously DECIDES to stop the attack themselves). Without taking the time and care to qualify what parameters you use to define the Primary Measurement used in your study, anything you derive from that measurement is going to be inaccurate.

In conclusion, reading the M&S study is like working under a car with a child fetching your tools. What you really need is a 3/4" socket. When the kid shows up with a handful of screwdrivers, you have to thank him for trying, but you still can't use any of those to fit the task at hand; and you're really no closer to tightening that bolt. What you really need now is someone who knows what that tool looks like, and knows how to get it to you.

~LT
 
One Shot Stops - AGAIN!

Why don't we talk about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I say 5 and they have all have a 38 special bra size.
 
Archer 9505 "Despite the 95 gr. 380 having a OSS stat of 100%"

What book are you looking at. In "stopping power" the best .380 is 71%
Anyone who would only go off just the % and not the whole write up is flawed in their thinking.



LordTio3 why does it matter why they stopped. What they were unable to do according to the "Criteria" in the book is more important.
 
LordTio3 why does it matter why they stopped. What they were unable to do according to the "Criteria" in the book is more important.
Click to expand...

This question is one that was formed from this frame of mind...
we've got an entire demographic of people that are very intelligent individuals, but have never had to read, critique, and logically analyze a scientific study, or write one of your own. There is not a thing wrong with this. Your field of study and interest has just not required it.
Click to expand...

It matters because it does. That is the entire idea behind the label "One Shot Stop". It is one shot that will stop an attacker. It is NOT one shot that, when faced with, causes an attacker to CHOOSE to stop. The title and measure of "One Shot Stop" implies no room for error, and assumes the "stoppage" occurred from the direct PHYSICAL EFFECTS caused by that particular round. If someone just stops because they undergo the PSYCHOLOGICAL "I just got shot!" reaction; then it didn't really have anything to do with the bullet (weight/caliber/shape/core/charge) at all does it?

If there was only one instance where someone defensively used a pellet gun to shoot a man in the foot who then stopped his attack, in the M&S study, it would have a 100% OSS measurement. THAT'S why it matters. THAT'S why it's unscientific. A properly qualified, quantified, and surveyed study would have SOME way to empirically account for and discount these instances. The M&S study does not.

Please, PLEASE try and accept the fact that the "scientific parameters" used in this study ARE gravely flawed. That really isn't open for debate. It just realistically IS. Once an observer accepts that fact, then they can see how no absolute conclusions can be scientifically derived from the data provided.

Honestly, it's not about viewpoints or opinions. It's scientifically unsound, and in the academic community, to use it as a supportive reference to make a point would yield only scrutiny from your peers.

~LT
 
You are asking for the impossible when it comes to people. It is impossible to know how every single person in the world are going to reach when it comes to being shot. There is no way that you can be consistent when it comes to a self-defense situation. You can throw in as much as you want about science but it really doesnt matter, because it's the unpredictable factors that comes into play. Bullet angle, distance, mental status of the person, drugs, clothing, mussel mass, bone hit or not etc etc etc. These were actual shooting of actual people in the actual world.
So I'll still use M&S study as a logical base as appose to just pulling things out of the air or out of ballistic gel...
 
But you DO understand that all of this...
You are asking for the impossible when it comes to people. It is impossible to know how every single person in the world are going to reach when it comes to being shot. There is no way that you can be consistent when it comes to a self-defense situation. You can throw in as much as you want about science but it really doesnt matter, because it's the unpredictable factors that comes into play. Bullet angle, distance, mental status of the person, drugs, clothing, mussel mass, bone hit or not etc etc etc.
Click to expand...
... is exactly why the M&S study doesn't work as a logical or practical measure and only as flagrantly hand-picked anecdotal storytelling, don't you?

If you want stories, you can read "The Armed Citizen" and realize that well over 90% of firearm related self-defense scenarios are solved without ever having to fire a round; effective or not.

~LT
 
So show me something else to go off of that has actual happened in the real world when it comes to shooting...
Click to expand...

Yes. Exactly. That's what we've all been saying since the M&S study came out. We need a 3/4" socket; and M&S gave us a handful of screwdrivers. The Wrong thing to do would be to say, well... we've got these, better try to screw in this socket with them. Just because we HAVE the M&S study, doesn't mean it's worth the bandwidth it's taking up on the Internet; or that it's worth any more intelligent consideration.

The sad fact is that we DON'T have any conclusive data. And it's because the logistics involved in OBTAINING that data render the likelihood that we'll get an accurate and conclusive study very unlikely.

And we can't just say, "Well, we'll just use this one until something better comes along." Because it's junk, and it doesn't work. You can't torque a bolt with a Phillips head screwdriver.

That's what we've been saying. We don't know what the conclusive and definitive study "will be", but we can sure as heck know what it "already isn't".

~LT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top