Marshall/Sanow study
- Thread starter cosmicdingo
- Start date
Mike Irwin
Staff
"M&S were cops trying to save other cops."
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
Or basic repute from publication of supposed conclusive data?
I agree that if they were probably not blind to the possible moral and practical benefits from the institution of a conclusive study, but the doctors who performed the first heart transplant sure didn't go home poor.
~LT
I agree that if they were probably not blind to the possible moral and practical benefits from the institution of a conclusive study, but the doctors who performed the first heart transplant sure didn't go home poor.
~LT
I've never understood why people have been getting so upset with what these two writers have been saying. I can only assume it is because the results don't say what they believe and know to be true.
Their studies are scientific. The method is called observation. Scientists studied the moon for ages without ever going there (and still do). All they could do was look at it. Likewise, although Marshall supposedly was in a lot of gunfights, way more than any of us, he didn't limit his study to just that.
It is an interesting subject and has been for a long time. Using the results couldn't be any worse than doing what they did before picking a .45 caliber a hundred years ago or even earlier when the New York Police Department under Theodore Roosevelt did something similiar (and ended up selecting a .32!).
What is even more interesting is how he sometimes (I've only read their magazine articles) separated out data for, say, short barrelled guns. No matter what you think about it, there is nothing startling there to speak of. I also think that a "one-shot stop" point of view is valid and important in that no doubt many instances there was only one bullet wound. And I don't know how you can separate cases in which the person who was shot "stopped" just because he wanted to, as if being shot had nothing to do with it.
It might be interesting to compare rifle bullet wounds the same way.
Their studies are scientific. The method is called observation. Scientists studied the moon for ages without ever going there (and still do). All they could do was look at it. Likewise, although Marshall supposedly was in a lot of gunfights, way more than any of us, he didn't limit his study to just that.
It is an interesting subject and has been for a long time. Using the results couldn't be any worse than doing what they did before picking a .45 caliber a hundred years ago or even earlier when the New York Police Department under Theodore Roosevelt did something similiar (and ended up selecting a .32!).
What is even more interesting is how he sometimes (I've only read their magazine articles) separated out data for, say, short barrelled guns. No matter what you think about it, there is nothing startling there to speak of. I also think that a "one-shot stop" point of view is valid and important in that no doubt many instances there was only one bullet wound. And I don't know how you can separate cases in which the person who was shot "stopped" just because he wanted to, as if being shot had nothing to do with it.
It might be interesting to compare rifle bullet wounds the same way.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Their studies are scientific."
Actually, no they're not.
There are a couple of monographs, by actual scientists, on the web that absolutely destroy their methods of gathering data and their statistical interpretations of that data.
At the point at which they started presenting their "data" in a statistical manner, any claim to scientific validity broke down.
Another huge hit against the scientific validity of M&S's work is that they adamantly refuse to allow their data, methods, and conclusions to be peer reviewed.
Actually, no they're not.
There are a couple of monographs, by actual scientists, on the web that absolutely destroy their methods of gathering data and their statistical interpretations of that data.
At the point at which they started presenting their "data" in a statistical manner, any claim to scientific validity broke down.
Another huge hit against the scientific validity of M&S's work is that they adamantly refuse to allow their data, methods, and conclusions to be peer reviewed.
M/S study material, caliber-ammunition selection, 2011...
Many of the forum posts are going in circles or are just pomp IMO.
In short, you(the member/reader/firearm owner/armed professional/etc) can review the Marshall-Sanow data and either accept it or decide not to agree with it.
To blather on or cast insults is not really going to change the research material or how interested parties(students, service members, sworn LEOs, etc) use it.
I for 1, see merit in reviews of 100s of cases or reported shootings and explaining in a clear, straight-forward way how the handgun round really worked.
I never took either Marshall or Edwin Sanow as trying to slam or put down any common handgun caliber or weapon. I'm 100% sure they wanted their efforts to keep good guys alive.
It's important too to keep the #s and details in perspective too. If a criminal justice student or sworn LE officer/detective/chief wanted to see how many documented LE shootings a agency had with say; a .40S&W in a 165gr JHP, then to go even deeper to review how many LE shootings were ended by only one center torso hit or only one LE fired .40S&W duty round then the results would come up. As many sports fans like to say; "stats don't lie".
If the .40S&W 165gr JHP duty load had a rating of 90-95% would all the sworn officers pee their pants and run out and get larger .45acp duty pistols? No, probably not.
Even if the reviews showed a % around 75-85% I doubt many working cops would flip over it.
In closing, I think those who rank on the M/S study should stop crying about the ticky-tacky $&+* and understand the point of the research.
Many of the forum posts are going in circles or are just pomp IMO.
In short, you(the member/reader/firearm owner/armed professional/etc) can review the Marshall-Sanow data and either accept it or decide not to agree with it.
To blather on or cast insults is not really going to change the research material or how interested parties(students, service members, sworn LEOs, etc) use it.
I for 1, see merit in reviews of 100s of cases or reported shootings and explaining in a clear, straight-forward way how the handgun round really worked.
I never took either Marshall or Edwin Sanow as trying to slam or put down any common handgun caliber or weapon. I'm 100% sure they wanted their efforts to keep good guys alive.
It's important too to keep the #s and details in perspective too. If a criminal justice student or sworn LE officer/detective/chief wanted to see how many documented LE shootings a agency had with say; a .40S&W in a 165gr JHP, then to go even deeper to review how many LE shootings were ended by only one center torso hit or only one LE fired .40S&W duty round then the results would come up. As many sports fans like to say; "stats don't lie"
.If the .40S&W 165gr JHP duty load had a rating of 90-95% would all the sworn officers pee their pants and run out and get larger .45acp duty pistols? No, probably not.
Even if the reviews showed a % around 75-85% I doubt many working cops would flip over it.
In closing, I think those who rank on the M/S study should stop crying about the ticky-tacky $&+* and understand the point of the research.
Mike Irwin
Staff
That's the one odd thing in all of this, Clyde...
Despite all of the bickering back and forth between M&S and Dr. Martin Fackler, the overall results of the two groups often show surprising fidelity in that many of the same bullets have been highly rated by both.
Despite all of the bickering back and forth between M&S and Dr. Martin Fackler, the overall results of the two groups often show surprising fidelity in that many of the same bullets have been highly rated by both.
Guys... for real. Don't take offense to this... but:
There is not one legitimate scientist that will agree with the validity of their methods. They hide their data so it can't be reviewed. And every major journal or research source that has studied it has criticised it to the point of uselessness. It's not even useful as a collection of case studies because they omit an incredible number of cases based on unscientific and ridiculous reasons. It's literally like reading a government document that has had 87% of the information redacted with no availability of that information from which to draw a conclusion.
In the academic community, the credibility and usefulness of this research has literally been destroyed. Stop for a second and ponder on that before you try and continue an argument for it's usefulness.
And it's BLARINGLY apparent that no one arguing the opposition has read either of these links. Please do so. They were posted on the first page. And for some reason people still think they can offer credible opposition.
http://greent.com/40Page/general/oss.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf
~LT
The fact that they refuse peer review undermines any benefit of the doubt I can give them. If they were truly concerned first and foremost with officer safety, they would not only welcome peer review, but they would actively seek it.
Nobody takes medical findings seriously, from researchers who refuse review. How is this different?
Nobody takes medical findings seriously, from researchers who refuse review. How is this different?
As those who are familiar with scientific studies know, no method of study is perfect. The M&S study was basically a collection of case studies. The problem with case studies, however, is that there are usually a lot of uncontrollable variables that may not make the results repeatable. Such variables in the M&S study include exact placement of the bullet (the torso is a pretty large target and will react differently depending on exactly where it is hit), the size and body type of the individual who has been shot, the mental state of the individual who has been shot, and the way in which being shot stopped them (incapacitation vs. "oh my god I've been shot, I give up"). Because of this, I think it's probably a bad idea to take the OSS percentages too literally, but that doesn't mean that they're completely useless.
If we look, for example, at the data for the 125grn .357 Magnum: not only did that loading score very well, but its score was based on hundreds of shootings. The larger the pool from which data can be collected, the less effect uncontrolled variables will have on the outcome. So, while I don't think we can definitavely say that a 125grn .357 Magnum is guaranteed to stop 96 out of every 100 people shot with it, I think we can safely say that it is a very effective loading.
As for the rather shrill accusations leveled by those over at firearmstactical.com, I think they're jumping to some conclusions in an attempt to discredit a competing theory. While I do believe there are some discrepancies in the M&S study, I'm not quite willing to chalk them up to dishonesty. Instead, I would point to the fact that neither Marshall nor Sanow is a statician or mathemetician and that the discrepancies are probably due to honest mistakes. Regardless, calculation errors will have a minimal effect on the results of cartridges with a large amount of data such as 9mm, .45 ACP, .38 Special, or .357 Magnum.
As far as gelatin testing goes, while it is useful it's not perfect either. Gelatin testing is useful in determining how a bullet will react to impacting a target, but it does not tell us how the target will react to being shot. The best way to look at gelatin tests is to first decide what it is that you want a bullet to do, and then test it in gelatin to see if it does what you want.
What it all really boils down to is the debate between kinetic energy transfer and permanent crush cavity. Those who favor kinetic energy will typically want a light, fast, aggressively expanding bullet because that type will deliver the most energy to the target while those who favor permanent crush cavity will typically want a heavier, slower, more controlled expanding bullet because that type will offer deeper penetration. The answer, I think, lies somewhere in the middle. The loadings I prefer are those that do well in both the M&S studies and the FBI tests. Rather than going with a very fast 115grn +P 9mm or a relatively slow 147grn 9mm, I prefer a moderately fast 124-127grn +P or +P+ 9mm like Winchester Ranger-T 127grn or Speer Gold Dot 124grn. Such loadings give me plenty of energy, but also penetrate adequately.
If we look, for example, at the data for the 125grn .357 Magnum: not only did that loading score very well, but its score was based on hundreds of shootings. The larger the pool from which data can be collected, the less effect uncontrolled variables will have on the outcome. So, while I don't think we can definitavely say that a 125grn .357 Magnum is guaranteed to stop 96 out of every 100 people shot with it, I think we can safely say that it is a very effective loading.
As for the rather shrill accusations leveled by those over at firearmstactical.com, I think they're jumping to some conclusions in an attempt to discredit a competing theory. While I do believe there are some discrepancies in the M&S study, I'm not quite willing to chalk them up to dishonesty. Instead, I would point to the fact that neither Marshall nor Sanow is a statician or mathemetician and that the discrepancies are probably due to honest mistakes. Regardless, calculation errors will have a minimal effect on the results of cartridges with a large amount of data such as 9mm, .45 ACP, .38 Special, or .357 Magnum.
As far as gelatin testing goes, while it is useful it's not perfect either. Gelatin testing is useful in determining how a bullet will react to impacting a target, but it does not tell us how the target will react to being shot. The best way to look at gelatin tests is to first decide what it is that you want a bullet to do, and then test it in gelatin to see if it does what you want.
What it all really boils down to is the debate between kinetic energy transfer and permanent crush cavity. Those who favor kinetic energy will typically want a light, fast, aggressively expanding bullet because that type will deliver the most energy to the target while those who favor permanent crush cavity will typically want a heavier, slower, more controlled expanding bullet because that type will offer deeper penetration. The answer, I think, lies somewhere in the middle. The loadings I prefer are those that do well in both the M&S studies and the FBI tests. Rather than going with a very fast 115grn +P 9mm or a relatively slow 147grn 9mm, I prefer a moderately fast 124-127grn +P or +P+ 9mm like Winchester Ranger-T 127grn or Speer Gold Dot 124grn. Such loadings give me plenty of energy, but also penetrate adequately.
Playing the %s....
There are a few posts in this topic that really make that clear point.
If a handgun caliber & duty round was in use for 100/200/400/500 LE officer involved incidents(verified by LE reports, court records, ME exams, etc) and it had a rating of 95-96%(one shot stop record) that would drive a lot of PDs or private citizens to use/carry the same round too.
Those issues are not complicated. If a gun owner or CC license holder picks a round and says; "this was selected by X, because they had 200/300/400 use of force incidents and it worked extremely well."
That to me is a strong arguement. Those who rail on about .44magnums or big .45acp sidearms can go on & on but many firearm owners/professionals want what is most practical or best for their needs.
There are a few posts in this topic that really make that clear point.
If a handgun caliber & duty round was in use for 100/200/400/500 LE officer involved incidents(verified by LE reports, court records, ME exams, etc) and it had a rating of 95-96%(one shot stop record) that would drive a lot of PDs or private citizens to use/carry the same round too.
Those issues are not complicated. If a gun owner or CC license holder picks a round and says; "this was selected by X, because they had 200/300/400 use of force incidents and it worked extremely well."
That to me is a strong arguement. Those who rail on about .44magnums or big .45acp sidearms can go on & on but many firearm owners/professionals want what is most practical or best for their needs.
You forgot to add "as judged by what guns the PDs have tried."
If there are not a lot of PDs using .45 ACP, there will be no data to base a judgment on.
It says nothing about the round, the caliber, ot the platform.
Just that (for whatever reason) no OD bothered to try something.
PDs that supply officer's guns tend to have ONE driving factor above almost every thing else after does it go bang.
COST.
Gun cost.
Ammunition cost.
Training cost.
A lack of data says nothing about items not examined.
We would still be throwing rocks if it worked this way.
I've got all three books. I've read them several times over. Given equal shot placement, I can't see the advantage in making a smaller hole. Seriously, if the comparison was a 9mm Ranger T +P+ 127 gr. v. a 45 acp Ranger T 230 gr. both fired from a 4" barrel and both striking the center of the sternum on identical subjects, I do not believe the 9mm would be superior or equal in delivering incapication of the assailant. Would it matter? Don't know. I just can't visualize someone after a defensive shooting saying, "I should have used a smaller bullet".
They are not completely useless in the respect that they tell us how a round performed in a particular shooting. They are completely useless in determining which round will perform better/worse than another, mainly because of the very issues you admitted, and because it applies ONLY to the sample used. Get a new sample, and the 96% .357 Mag might become 65%, while the .32 Auto might be 100%. There's nothing useful about it for the purpose for which it was presented.
Most of the time, it does not, unless that target is gelatin or water. People are not either of those. While it's true that people contain a large amount of fluid in their bodies, it is not free water, just flowing around in a large bladder, and almost never reacts as such.
It has been shown over and over again, in the real world, that KE does not contribute to stopping ability with common SD handgun rounds. There is no case I'm aware of that supports the idea at all.
Guess it can be a strong argument to some. Of course, you have no idea whether all of those shootings involved perfect placement, or crappy placement, or people who can't handle pain, or people who can take more pain than you can imagine. If one ignores that critical info and wants to be oblivious to it, then it is a good argument.
Maybe they (M&S) could publish new stats that categorize the shootings a little better....then it MAY have a little more worth.
How about something like:
shots to the heart
shots to the aorta/vena cava
shots to the central brain
shots to the rest of the brain
Then, they could eliminate all of the possible "missed" shots to anything vital. Of course, they would likely have 99%+ OSS numbers in these cases for ALL calibers/rounds used, from .22 short to .44 Mag.
How about something like:
shots to the heart
shots to the aorta/vena cava
shots to the central brain
shots to the rest of the brain
Then, they could eliminate all of the possible "missed" shots to anything vital. Of course, they would likely have 99%+ OSS numbers in these cases for ALL calibers/rounds used, from .22 short to .44 Mag.
In the case of the bullet size alone, I can't argue with that. The thing is you lose something for everything you gain. In the case you listed, you gave up the following:
- lower recoil
- higher capacity
- size of weapon (comfort)
- increased controllability
- larger bullet size
In the case of .45 ACP, you get a sound reduction (~155 dB, vs ~160+dB with 9mm, .40, etc.), saving your hearing a little bit over some other rounds. That's a plus too.
One thing I like about my double-stack .45 Auto H&K USP is that I can handle the mags easier than I can with any other pistol, and my shot recovery time is very close to that of my 9mms (though still not as good). The fact that I can reload the gun faster than anything else I own trumps the lost shot time and capacity (in some cases...not with my 17-, 18-, or 20-round 9mms over my 12-round USP). After all, during a reload is your most vulnerable time.
In the case of destruction of a vital organ, it's the same. There is no organ in the human body that can be damaged beyond function (or to incapacitated state) any easier with a .45, .40, etc. than a 9mm, .380, etc. In the case of a less-than-perfect shot (hitting non-vitals), the larger bullet will physically cause more damage, but none of that damage could assist in incapacitation in a reasonable time*, unless the extra .0048" of bullet diameter was able to strike something important...then it would no longer be a non-vital hit, and the credit would then be given to hitting a vital organ, not extra damage. Of course, the 48 THOUSANDTHS of one inch you gain is almost completely insignificant. I am unaware of a single case in history where anyone linked the extra diameter to a good hit over a smaller defensive round, but agree it could have happened.
*time required to stop the fight, assuming the person will not give up at some point, regardless of injury
Last edited:
Kudos Mr. Irwin, very concise, well written and to the point.
Until the proponents of M&S can refute the statisticians and forensic pathologists who have invalidated their findings; they don't have a leg to stand on.