Marshall/Sanow study

"The sad fact is that we DON'T have any conclusive data".

That's what I thought, so like I said before I am comfortable with what they have to say and will use it... The End!
 
That's what I thought, so like I said before I am comfortable with what they have to say and will use it... The End!
Click to expand...

Ummm. Does that work? "The End"? Wow. I don't think I even need to carry a gun anymore. If a criminal ever comes right at me with intent to kill, I'm just going to shout "The End" and that'll be the end of it. Everyone goes home.:rolleyes:

You're more than welcome to use it. Just know that you literally can't use it for what it was and is intended for. I've never torqued a bolt with a screwdriver. And no, you can't borrow my Craftsman power drill to hammer on your roofing shingles.

"The end"? Nah... it'd be naiive to think that at this point I feel.:rolleyes:

~LT
 
I didn't think the syllogism was THAT far-fetched.

Real World:

Requirement ---> Solution

Ideal:
Need for Conclusive Ballistics Data ---> Conclusive Ballistics Data
(Requirement satisfied)

Actual:
Need for Conclusive Ballistics Data ---> Poorly conducted and inconclusive un-scientific research (i.e. M&S Study)
(Requirement unsatisfied)

Analogy:
Ideal:
Need for Socket ---> Socket
(Requirement satisfied)

Actual:
Need for Socket ---> Screwdriver (i.e. M&S Study)
(Requirement for Socket not satisfied... tool provided is useless for requirement)

~LT
 
Funny babbling makes me feel even better about my choice.

Any and every study can be pulled apart, Good for you, to do that.

As Marshall said in the book, doesn't care what people have to say about it.
 
Okay, I really don't want to give up on this, but calling sound syllogism formation and accurate logistical observation "babbling" is just childish. Perhaps another analogy is what's needed.

Steve: Hey, Bob. Look at that guy over there walking his car.

Bob: What? What do you mean?

Steve: That guy over there walking his car. I think it's a German Shepherd. I wish I had a car that cute.

Bob: That word isn't the right word you're looking for. I think you mean "Dog".

Steve: Nope. I'm going to call it a car. I like that.

Bob: Yah, but a car is an engine-powered automobile with moving parts and an entirely separate intended function and form. A dog is a living animal. The two are entirely different things. To call a dog a car is ridiculous and people will think you're either dumb or crazy.

Steve: Yup, all your babbling about "definitions" and "vernacular" are really making me feel better about doing what I'm doing. I'm off the the car-pound to adopt me a Cocker Spaniel. >whistles<.....

Bob: Hmmm. Well... The end?


And Marshal representing his study with the phrase, "I don't care what people have to say about it," is the equivalent to standing up during a scientific lecture from a renowned scientist, putting your fingers in your ears and screaming, "WHATEVER, THAT'S YOUR OPINION!"

Of course he cares what people say, otherwise he wouldn't have gone through the trouble of developing the study and publishing his results. The reason he SAYS he doesn't is that the only attention it's gotten is either negative review or mis-understood sampling. To say, "Well whatever, man. I don't even care," is just juvenile.

~LT
 
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.
Click to expand...
Marshall/Sanow controlled for impact location by only counting shots to the chest at or near COM. So no BB gun to the foot. They do not control by target mentality and a lot of other things because they don't have that data. I'm betting their reports are often of the form of: shot perp in chest N times with X pistol loaded with Y round, perp ceased attack and ran off. If N=1 its an OSS, if not then not.

The real big issues with Marshall/Sanow is with the data set itself. They've published a series of books. The data changes with each book. You would expect that as they revise the data set with additional new data. I believe Firearms Tactical has at least one article analyzing changes in the data with time and showing that the you can't possibly get the later sets by just adding more data to the older ones. For some rounds the improvement is such that you'd need OSS percentages for the additional newer rounds to be higher than 100% (or less than 0%). How did that happen? Lucky Ricochets? Really bad misses?

This lead some people to ask for M/S to release the raw data set they used to compile their statistics. M/S won't release it because (1) they spent their own money to do the legwork to build it so giving it away for free is silly (2) it's likely that some of the data is confidential information they shouldn't actually have but still got from their buddies (3) they might be lying.
 
Marshall/Sanow controlled for impact location by only counting shots to the chest at or near COM.
Click to expand...

Can I amend the example to have the pellet impact the bellybutton?

And since every published works seeking scientific approval and acceptance is subject to scrutiny and peer review, it makes it impossible to hoard your cake and eat it too. As long as they keep their information under wraps, they'll never be accepted in the scientific community and any findings they claim will never hold any weight, (except the uninformed camp-y kind).

Thank you for an even more in-depth assessment MrAcheson. I kind of wish Glenn E. Meyer would roll in here with all of his credentials and just blow the bottom out of this subject. It's not like we haven't been here before.

~LT
 
Close to COM

Ok, that could be through the heart, aorta, or pulmonary arteries.

Or it could go between all of the above, without touching any, and might or might not significantly damage a lung.

Again, not really a good comparison. Placement trumps other factors, most of the time.

As far as a physiological vs psychological stop, perhaps there's no good way to account for that, at least with non-fatal wounds.

Then again, placement being similar, the round that makes the deepest, widest hole should do better. Ballistic gel gives some insight into this. Dissection of shot game animals does, too. A buddy of mine used to test his handloads on pork shoulders. Not scientifically controlled, but gave a pretty good idea of relative damage between rounds (bearing in mind non-living flesh has much less elasticity, etc).

Since the factors for physiological stops are CNS interruption, vital organ function disruption, and blood loss, it's safe to say that wounds that stopped a BG, without causing any of those, would have been primarily psychological in nature.

What do I take from all this?

1) M&S, at best, used scientifically refuted methodology, comparing outdated bullet types, to come up with a study that a lot of people have severe problems with.

2) All things being equal, I want a primary handgun that I shoot well, so I can achieve optimal hit placement; I want it in a caliber that affords penetration of at least 12" gelatin, and expansion of quality bullets to .6"-.7". Ideally, I want it in a platform that I can shoot accurately from shot 1, and can follow up with rapid, accurate fire.

(For me, this means a 1911 or BHP in .45acp, 9mm, or .40, or a S&W .44 Special; preferred loads are subsonic Gold Dot or DPX; for others, that will vary.)
 
What do I take from this?

1.
M&S, at best, used scientifically refuted methodology, comparing outdated bullet types, to come up with a study that a lot of people have severe problems with.
Click to expand...

2. Since the difference between physiological and psychological stops cannot be qualified in the incidents provided by this study, or any other collection of case studies, the only measurement that TRULY matters is the ability to physiologically or mechanically stop your assailant; which means causing enough damage to incapacitate major bodily functions such as circulation/respiration, cause life threatening blood loss though damage to a major organ/s, and/or shutting down the central nervous system.

This is accomplished by accurately putting as many rounds as you can into vital areas (COM or possibly CNS) as fast as you can -ACCURATELY. For this purpose, every major defense caliber has been proven to work effectively, granted it is EMPLOYED effectively.

Shot placement, accuracy, and proficiency are paramount. Everything else is just noise (within reason).

~LT
 
When they start "Comin' Right At Us!"

They sure can put a lot of force behind a hit. But it's hard to have a whole lot of respect for an animal who's only defense is slamming it's head into trouble.

~LT
 
Geez Louise, its 2011 and we're still discussing this drivel?

I guess some junk science dies hard. Can't take it out with a one shot stop no siree.
 
There is no conclusive data because there is no possibility of getting conclusive data. It's not that everyone other than M&S are too stupid to do it, or won't take the time...it's that it is very IMPOSSIBLE. Anyone who knows how the human body works, how it responds to trauma, and the mechanisms of injury involved with gunshot injuries would tell you this as fact. If you don't have even a basic understanding of these three concepts, then you will never understand why the M&S data is trash. It seems a few on this thread have it down pretty well, while others do not.

Variability (in this case), as it seems we universally agree, does not allow anything to be written in stone. There are things in the world that can never be predicted or quantified, and that will never change. Why is it you think a medical doctor - one who can spend 14 years specializing on a particular subject in college, then spend years applying what they learned in practice - can not give a definite answer to a diagnosis? It's because the answer depends entirely on you, not on everyone else. Same goes for trauma. You will handle trauma differently than anyone else in the world. This is why you can't assign a number to a bullet's effectiveness...the person you are shooting is going to react in their own way based on the variables, and the bullet's brand, design, etc. means nothing.

What M&S did was to assign these numbers to shootings ONLY within the scope of the study. Get a different set of shootings, and the numbers will change significantly. They can change if even ONE shooting is added, removed, or changed...it's just an observation of THOSE shootings, NOT A WAY TO PREDICT WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN ANY OTHER SHOOTING.

I'm sorry to say it this way, but it all comes down to pure ignorance. The ignorant will take this info and believe it, regardless of what education we try to impart.
 
LT3...

... for some people, a Judge with snake shot or 3 buck shot pellets is considered an SD weapon. So, while I agree proficiency is crucial, and the single most important factor, the tools do matter to an extent.
 
You Said It, Brother

"Geez Louise, its 2011 and we're still discussing this drivel?"

That about sums it up Nate45. I think this one has ran its' course. It has been fun though.
 
So, while I agree proficiency is crucial, and the single most important factor, the tools do matter to an extent.
Click to expand...

I think so too.

Shot placement, accuracy, and proficiency are paramount. Everything else is just noise (within reason).
Click to expand...

The "within reason" was what I was talking about. Somewhere between a 20 yard shot with a .22 short and a 13" shot with a .454 Casull, things tend to fade into different shades of gray.

I think we agree on this.

What M&S did was to assign these numbers to shootings ONLY within the scope of the study. Get a different set of shootings, and the numbers will change significantly. They can change if even ONE shooting is added, removed, or changed...it's just an observation of THOSE shootings, NOT A WAY TO PREDICT WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN ANY OTHER SHOOTING.
Click to expand...

Yes. Exactly. They are case studies. And poor, unscientific case studies at that.

~LT
 
Compare M/S conclusions to those made from other source involved in testing bullets in gelatin.

The methodology of the M/S statistics is far from conclusive, but it is an interesting read.

Take it for what it is worth and no more. They will not release their data to be loked at, or even allow a peer review.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top