Marshall/Sanow study

[KyJim]

We know that the M&S conclusions are statistically invalid. We know that the data collected has not been subject to peer review and, at the very least, contains inconsistencies. For this reason, I give the M&S data and conclusions very little credence.

This is unfortunate because their concept of quantifying qualitative data is attractive and could be useful. Any similar study would essentially consist of case studies, but case studies can be useful if enough are done and they are done properly. A lot of medical advances have been made through case studies.

Over the years, we have used a lot of anecdotal data to come to conclusions most of us accept. The Army depended upon anecdotal data in determining the .38 Long Colt to be deficient and reverted back to a .45 caliber pistol firing a heavier bullet at moderate speeds, a combination which it had previously used with good results (anecdotal). The .45 acp and the 1911 pistol were born and were proven many times over by anecdotal evidence. Most of us accept the military's long experience with the .45 acp as evidence it is a solid defensive round.

The .38 special 158 gr. LRN (standard pressure) bullet became known as "the widow maker" due to anecdotal evidence of poor terminal ballistics. This led to the development of hollow points and +P ammo. Most of us would consider the 158 gr. LRN in .38 special to be a relatively poor choice for a defensive round, even if ultimately deadly.

But, it would be a mistake to simply rely upon anecdotal evidence in choosing a handgun cartridge for defense. The variables are too complex and results may not be repeatable. Enter testing in ballistic gelatin. While not a perfect test medium, it approximates muscle tissue and is useful because it is repeatable and results can be easily compared. Subsequent anecdotal data often supports the gel test results, lending them additional credibility.

In summary, the M&S data and results are simply too flawed to accept as authoritative. Instead, any decision on caliber/cartridge should be based upon both ballistic gelatin results AND anecdotal evidence obtained over a long period of time.

 

[Webleymkv]

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.

No, they're not completely useless if you know how to look at the data. If we take, for example, the 125grn .357 Magnum and look at the volume of data used to calculate the OSS we find the following: the two loadings that scored 96% were those made by Federal and Remington. Between the two, 1,072 shootings were examined (641 for the Federal loading and 431 for the Winchester). Now, let's say that one of the people shot with one of those loadings fainted out of fear when he was shot. If we decided that we weren't going to count that as a one-shot-stop, that would make the overall percentage down to 95.9%.

By comparison, let's look at the .45 Long Colt Remington 250grn LRN data. This loading scored as a 70% OSS with a total data pool of 10 shootings. As with the .357's, lets again suppose that one of those was because the person fainted out of fear. If this time we don't count that instance, our OSS percentage drops to 60%.

This is how statistics work, the larger the sample of data, the more reliable the results will be. As I said in my earlier post, I don't really think that attaching a number value is the best way to do things, but I think we can at least draw some general conclusions about the cartridges with large pools of data. Because there is a large pool of data and the 125grn .357 Magnum JHP's scored very high, I think we can pretty safely say that a 125grn .357 Magnum JHP is a very effective cartridge as far as handguns are concerned. Similarly, a .22 Long Rifle Winchester solid also has a very large pool of data (1,644 shootings) and scores very low (21%). Based on that, I think it is safe to say that a .22 Long Rifle solid is not a very effective handgun cartridge.

Where we get into risky territory is when we try to use the M&S data by itself to compare cartridges that perform similarly to each other, particularly when we have relatively small pools of data from which to draw. For example, the 170grn .41 Magnum Winchester Silvertip loading scored as a 90% OSS while the 175grn 10mm Winchester Silvertip loading scored as a 88%. If you simply took the data at face value, you would say that the .41 Magnum loading is better than the 10mm loading. However, if you look at the published ballistics of these two loadings, you find that they are nearly identical (very, very close in both bullet weight and velocity), their diameters are almost the same (.410" vs. .400"), and they both use the exact same bullet construction. Because of this, I would chalk up the difference between them to some sort of statistical anomaly, particularly when the data pool is only 125 shootings combined, and I, personally, would rate them as equally effective.

At this point, you may be thinking "What's the point? I already knew that a .357 Magnum was better than a .22." While that may be true, I've seen several on this very forum advocate for .45 ACP FMJ over 9mm JHP. Looking at the M&S data again, we see that no .45 ACP FMJ loading scored over a 62% while no 9mm JHP loadings scored under a 78% with several scoring close to or slightly over 90%. Based on that, I think we can safely say that 9mm JHP is significantly better than .45 FMJ.

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.

From my understanding, ballistic gel is supposed to simulate the mean resistance of all tissues in the body. While you are correct that it is not a perfect test medium, it is the best we can practically and ethically use. Even cadavers react differently to gunshots than living people and since cadavers, like people, vary from one to the next they aren't a very good medium for a controlled test.

That being said, loadings that perform favorably in ballistic gel also seems to perform favorably in the real world. A .38 Special +P 158grn LSWCHP performs quite well in gelatin (expands readily, penetrates well, and holds together well) and also has enjoyed a reputation as one of the best .38 Special loadings available for decades.

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.

Actually, it can have an effect depending on what structure of the body is shot. The human body, as you pointed out earlier, is not homogeneous and different organs and tissues react to temporary cavity (the result of kinetic energy transfer) differently than others. Even Dr. Fackler, one of Marshall and Sanow's most vocal critics, noted this as the following excerpt shows:

"Unless the bullet passes through non-elastic soft tissue, which has little tolerance for stretching, such as kidney, liver, pancreas and spleen during the first few inches of penetration (these inelastic tissues often tear, split and rupture), the temporary cavity does not reliably increase wounding effectiveness."
emphasis added

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs2.htm

Now, in my view, kinetic energy and penetration are two components of a balancing act that must be considered when choosing self-defense ammunition. On the one hand, kinetic energy in and of itself isn't going to reduce the effectiveness of the bullet and may, depending on what body structure you shoot, increase it. On the other hand, many loadings with lots of kinetic energy get it from driving light-for-caliber bullets at higher-than-normal velocities. That combination, particularly with older bullet designs, is not conducive to deep penetration. The best course of action, in my opinion, is to select the loading with the most kinetic energy that does not sacrifice penetration or shootability (too much recoil). A good way to select such a loading is to pick one that does well in both the M&S study and the works of Dr. Fackler. A good example would be Winchester's Ranger-T 127grn 9mm +P+. This loading consistently expands to .64-.68" in bare gelatin, 4-layer denim, heavy cloth, and wallboard and consistently penetrates 12.1-12.3 inches. This type of performance is rated as "optimal" by the IWBA (the organization with which Dr. Fackler is closely associated) as they rate any JHP which reliably expands and penetrates 12-16" as "optimal". This loading also scored very highly in the M&S study rating as a 90% OSS. Based on the recommendations of both of the two rivaling theorists, I think it is a pretty safe bet that the above-mentioned loading is a very effective one.

 

[.357SIG]

No, they're not completely useless if you know how to look at the data. If we take, for example, the 125grn .357 Magnum and look at the volume of data used to calculate the OSS we find the following: the two loadings that scored 96% were those made by Federal and Remington. Between the two, 1,072 shootings were examined (641 for the Federal loading and 431 for the Winchester). Now, let's say that one of the people shot with one of those loadings fainted out of fear when he was shot. If we decided that we weren't going to count that as a one-shot-stop, that would make the overall percentage down to 95.9%.

It is useless in it's current state. Do you know where those bullets stuck the target? Without that knowledge, it would be impossible to even fathom that the bullet/load itself somehow contributed to the OSS. I'd be willing to bet, if one could dig up the details of each shooting, that almost all, if not all of them were either a person throwing in the towel, or a solid hit to a vital. In that case, the OSS data is not very useful, as ANY round would do that.

That's the point.

Actually, it can have an effect depending on what structure of the body is shot.

Those parts of the body, while they contain a lot of blood and have important functions vital to life, do not cause an immediate incapacitation with reliability when damaged. Case in point, I recently saw a teenage girl who was shot in the liver with a .54 cal muzzle loader at close range. She probably would have been ambulatory in the days following surgery, had it not been for chest tubes confining her to bed. I think we can agree that a weapon of that type would do significantly more damage than any pistol we would carry. Besides, most people do not train to shoot the kidney or liver, but the heart and head. We're talking about stopping the subject's actions, not just seriously wounding them. In all but a few select areas, the KE and cavitation effect DO NOT add anything significant to the injury. More often than not, the cavitation creates disruption of fatty tissue and small vascular tissues. Basically, it creates a nasty bruise. In the head, it can disrupt brain tissue, but it may or may not do anything to aid in incapacitation, depending on the region of the brain hit (geographic center and brain stem are the only reliable areas to guarantee a OSS in the body). I've seen cases of people being shot in the head with various rounds and having non-life-threatening injuries. In one case, a man was shot in the head with a .40 round from a Glock 22 at near-contact distance and only lost his vision as a result. (Horrible,yes, but it could have been worse!) The unfortunate event in Tucson is another case. Granted, these wounds would likely end the fight, even without death, but again, a .22 LR would do it as well.

COM shots, even with a great or legendary reputation, can fail miserably. Trooper Mark Coates of the SC Highway Patrol was killed by a single .22 LR to the side of the chest, while the shooter survived 5 rounds to the chest from a .357 Mag revolver. A horrible thing to happen.

 

[Webleymkv]

It is useless in it's current state. Do you know where those bullets stuck the target? Without that knowledge, it would be impossible to even fathom that the bullet/load itself somehow contributed to the OSS. I'd be willing to bet, if one could dig up the details of each shooting, that almost all, if not all of them were either a person throwing in the towel, or a solid hit to a vital. In that case, the OSS data is not very useful, as ANY round would do that.

So if a solid hit to a vital organ is all that is needed, why are some cartridges decidedly better than others? A .22 Long Rifle is very easy to shoot and, with solids, has plenty of penetration to reach vitals so why is it universally considered to be such a poor stopper? The answer, of course, is that some cartridges do more damage to the organ that they hit than others. What we can take from the M&S study is very general: a .357 Magnum does more damage to the organs that it hits than a .22 Long Rifle, a 9mm JHP does more damage to the organs that it hits than a .45 ACP FMJ. However, to say that the study is completely useless for predicting anything at all is incorrect.

Those parts of the body, while they contain a lot of blood and have important functions vital to life, do not cause an immediate incapacitation with reliability when damaged. Case in point, I recently saw a teenage girl who was shot in the liver with a .54 cal muzzle loader at close range. She probably would have been ambulatory in the days following surgery, had it not been for chest tubes confining her to bed. I think we can agree that a weapon of that type would do significantly more damage than any pistol we would carry. Besides, most people do not train to shoot the kidney or liver, but the heart and head. We're talking about stopping the subject's actions, not just seriously wounding them. In all but a few select areas, the KE and cavitation effect DO NOT add anything significant to the injury. More often than not, the cavitation creates disruption of fatty tissue and small vascular tissues. Basically, it creates a nasty bruise. In the head, it can disrupt brain tissue, but it may or may not do anything to aid in incapacitation, depending on the region of the brain hit (geographic center and brain stem are the only reliable areas to guarantee a OSS in the body). I've seen cases of people being shot in the head with various rounds and having non-life-threatening injuries. In one case, a man was shot in the head with a .40 round from a Glock 22 at near-contact distance and only lost his vision as a result. (Horrible,yes, but it could have been worse!) The unfortunate event in Tucson is another case. Granted, these wounds would likely end the fight, even without death, but again, a .22 LR would do it as well.

Let us imagine, for a moment, a shot through the heart. Further suppose that this shot passes through the left ventricle just as it is beginning to contract. The temporary cavitation from the bullet is going to displace the blood in the ventricle, the greater the cavitation the more the blood is displaced. If the temporary cavity is large enough, it will displace the blood beyond its ability to be compressed and it will have to go somewhere. Now obviously some of it will go into the aorta and some will probably go through the entrance and exit holes in the heart itself, but if the temporary cavity is large enough, a lot of pressure will be applied to the bicuspid valve and chordae tendineae. Now, the bicuspid valve and chordae tendineae are quite fragile and inelastic, so if enough pressure from the temporary cavitation is applied to them, they will tear. If the bicuspid valve or chordae tendineae tear then there will be a large amount of backflow into the left atrium which along with the holes in the left ventricle, will cause a very rapid drop in blood pressure and thus the person who has been shot will lose consciousness very quickly.

For another example, suppose we have a bullet that hits and shatters a bone. The larger the temporary cavitation, the more any secondary bone fragments will be displaced. Secondary bone fragments are particularly nasty because they can do things like cut blood vessels and tear vital organs, both of which would contribute to more rapid incapacitation.

A further example is a shot through the spleen. The spleen is a rather inelastic organ as was noted by Dr. Fackler. The spleen is also a very vascular organ so injury to it will cause profuse internal bleeding. The more profuse the bleeding, the more rapid incapacitation will be.

As a final example, suppose we have a shot that penetrates the skull and enters the brain. The greater the temporary cavitation from the bullet that does this, the more the brain tissue will be compressed against the inside of the skull. Because brain tissue is extremely delicate, compressing it in such a way can cause profound injury with very rapid incapacitation and death.

The point is, temporary cavitation can create very serious and quickly incapacitating injuries under the right circumstances. While it is certainly not guaranteed that this will happen, it isn't all that unlikely either. Because its effects are unpredictable, temporary cavitation in and of itself should not be depended upon to stop a threat. However, so long as you do not have to sacrifice adequate penetration or proper shot placement in order to get it, I see no reason not to choose a cartridge or loading that has a great deal of kinetic energy and will thus produce a larger temporary cavity.

 

[JohnKSa]

There is some value in the M&S data if we make the assumption that M&S did not intentionally alter the data. If we start with the assumption that M&S tried to bias the results then we have to agree that the results can't be used at all.

I don't believe M&S were malicious or unethical. I do believe they weren't statisticians and they weren't scientists.

Here's my take on the value of the M&S data.

There are a huge number of variables unaccounted for in this type of study. That's unavoidable. Therefore, to the extent that this study has any chance at all of providing any useful data it requires a very large number of data points. Even when that requirement is satisfied, one must understand that any "results" are still likely to have large uncertainties which will be very difficult to rigorously quantify.

My gut feel is that the M&S can be used to compare two calibers given the following caveats and conditions:

• Disregard all calibers that don't have a very large number of shootings catalogued. 100 is not a very large number. 1000 might be.
• Realize that the uncertainty margins are likely to be quite large. Perhaps as large as 15%--maybe larger.
• Understand that the figures do NOT provide any reasonable prediction of the probability of a one shot stop, they are only likely to provide a rough method for comparing one caliber to another.

A reasonable thing to do with the data:
Given two calibers to be compared, both with a very large number of data points and a significant difference between the ratings figures it would be reasonable to conclude that the caliber with the much higher rating is likely to perform better in practice.

Bad/misleading things to do with the data:
Caliber X has a rating of Y%. Therefore my chances of stopping someone with caliber X are Y%.

Caliber X (with 1000 shootings) has a rating of 20% and Caliber Y (with 900 shootings) has a rating of 30%. Caliber Y is definitely better for self-defense. (Not enough consideration given to uncertainty margin.)

Caliber X (with 10 shootings) has a rating of 10% and Caliber Y (with 33 shootings) has a rating of 90%. Caliber Y is definitely better for self-defense. (Not nearly enough data points to draw any conclusions at all.)

Caliber X (with 1000 shootings) has a rating of 50% and Caliber Y (with 900 shootings) has a rating of 80%. Caliber Y is much better for self-defense. (It's probably better, but saying it's MUCH better is probably going too far.)

 

[WESHOOT2]

open mind

We cannot predict projectile performance with math (yet).

We must not confuse lethality with cessation of behavior.

We must not insist on any outcome.

Even though that's what we really want; we want it easy. It ain't.

 

[Chesster]

I've been using the Marshall/Sanow data from the prebook days in my caliber/ammo selections. Even called Evan up @ DPD once while trying to put together a treatment strategy paper for PTSDed LEOs involved in incidents where multiple hits were ineffective on perps hopped up with PCP and other goodies. But I also use other data and factors in my selection process. The M/S data is a tool to be used with other tools and information in the decision making process.

If you go to the store, find the perfect cereal from the nutritional panel on the side of the box, get home and find out it tastes awful and don't keep movin' after a day or so, you don't buy it again despite what the "data" on the panel states.

So what would I prefer as my perfect short range one shot stopper? 12 gauge 00 3" buck. However, not practical for my CCW. I may have to carry that 4" .357 with 125gr JHP. What, me worry!!!!

 

[tipoc]

The OSS statistics are invalid. There is some useful information in their books but overall their methods were seriously flawed. Nothing much can be based on their statistics. But again some of the information is useful, just not for what most think.

tipoc

 

[CDW4ME]

.375SIG: "Granted, some can shoot their .45s better because they have big bear claws for hands, and can't deal with a smaller gun. In cases where you just can't make something else work, no matter what, then you wouldn't lose much by getting the larger round. I believe there are people who can shoot their .45 with faster recovery time (split time) than a 9mm, but I've NEVER met one. I suspect most of it would be due to familiarity with the weapon if I did meet one".

I've not yet figured out the trick to making that quote box automatically happen on this forum.

.357SIG, I carried a Glock for years, usually a 23 or 27. I started messing around with a timer last summer and my Glock 19 was the quickest in accurate pairs on a 6'' circle placed 18 feet away. The 19 averaged .29 sec using +P+ in my hands. Just to compare, I got out my Lightweight Commander and after a few practice runs I obtained the same average of .29 using 230 gr. factory ball. Yes, I gave up magazine capacity, but he Colt is flatter and a little more comfortable IWB.

 

[nate45]

Caliber X has a rating of Y%. Therefore my chances of stopping someone with caliber X are Y%.

Thats one of my biggest problems with it.

Here on TFL we constantly see posts about the King of the Street coupled with the 96% statistic. Then followed by the implication, or more likely, out right declaration, that to be armed with it, is to be golden. It leads uninformed novices to believe that all they need do is make a COM hit with a 125 grain .357 and their threat is eliminated.

 

[LordTio3]

Webleymkv:

It is not logical to say, "We can make the M&S study useful... if we just throw enough assumptions at it."

This:

No, they're not completely useless if you know how to look at the data. If we take, for example, the 125grn .357 Magnum and look at the volume of data used to calculate the OSS we find the following: the two loadings that scored 96% were those made by Federal and Remington. Between the two, 1,072 shootings were examined (641 for the Federal loading and 431 for the Winchester). Now, let's say that one of the people shot with one of those loadings fainted out of fear when he was shot. If we decided that we weren't going to count that as a one-shot-stop, that would make the overall percentage down to 95.9%.

...actually detracts from the usability of the data. Making assumptions without a change to methodology INCREASES variability and inaccuracy.
"But..."
No... it does. Trust me.
"Well..."
-stop. It does. That's the way statistics work.
"You can..."
-No you can't. You can't defend statistical data with things like, "Well if you look at it THIS way." When you are trying to draw a numerical conclusion (~% of OSS) you need an incredible amount of raw data and the lowest possible amount of standard deviation. Statistical significance of standard deviation in measurement is either 0.05% or 0.01%. Here, we're talking about deviations bordering on 15%.

...15%...

That is Three Hundred Times Greater than the maximum standard deviation accepted by the scientific community. That is like weighing in for a middle-weight title fight. You make your weight at 160lbs, and the official tells you... "Sorry son, your opponent didn't make his weight. In fact he's actually a 24 Ton Dump Truck.... ... We're gonna have you fight him anyway."

NOW is anyone beginning to understand why we are insistent on it's statistical insignificance?

I'll agree that there is some useful information that they provide. HOWEVER...
in order to obtain that useful information, you need to approach the study, as a whole, in the following manner:
"These statistics are terrible. Any numerical conclusions I could draw will be incredibly skewed.... ... let's try to find SOMETHING I can use. It's probably going to take several hours and looking with a fine-toothed comb."

_____________________________
Anecdotally, you are safe with any reliable center-fire handgun caliber that you feel comfortable shooting. Each one has proven deadly in the hands of someone who is capable with it. There is no handgun caliber that will, "Knock someone off their feet." There is no handgun caliber that is a "Sure Thing."

Just pick one that you shoot well and get really good with it. Being competent with your weapon is literally 89% of the engagement. The squabbling is about the other 11%. Ace the first part and you can keep your head up without worry.

~LT

 

[comn-cents]

"Being competent with your weapon is literally 89% of the engagement"

Where is the data to draw a numerical conclusion on this random thought?

 

[LordTio3]

Where is the data to draw a numerical conclusion on this random thought?

I figured I'd just jump on the bandwagon and start throwing out numbers.

But it's nice to finally see a measure of scrutiny regarding statistics.

Lord knows I could throw together a ton of data and omit everything else to make an 89% statistic. But what would my standard deviation be? 11...12%?

~LT

-I also didn't read an argument regarding the sentiment of that phrase. Selection of a defensive caliber from those that are widely used is of much less importance than competence and proficiency. Yes, no?

 

[BlueTrain]

OK, so the authors are fools that have no idea what they're talking about. What do the real scientists recommend? Are their results dramatically different? Should we go back to shooting carcasses hanging in the slaughter house? And if, as one person said, a vital region is hit then anything would work, does that mean it doesn't matter at all what bullet and cartridge is used? Or is it more likely that some bullet and cartridge combinations are more likely to hit a vital zone?

 

[Webleymkv]

Webleymkv:

It is not logical to say, "We can make the M&S study useful... if we just throw enough assumptions at it."

This:

Quote:
No, they're not completely useless if you know how to look at the data. If we take, for example, the 125grn .357 Magnum and look at the volume of data used to calculate the OSS we find the following: the two loadings that scored 96% were those made by Federal and Remington. Between the two, 1,072 shootings were examined (641 for the Federal loading and 431 for the Winchester). Now, let's say that one of the people shot with one of those loadings fainted out of fear when he was shot. If we decided that we weren't going to count that as a one-shot-stop, that would make the overall percentage down to 95.9%.

...actually detracts from the usability of the data. Making assumptions without a change to methodology INCREASES variability and inaccuracy.
"But..."
No... it does. Trust me.
"Well..."
-stop. It does. That's the way statistics work.
"You can..."
-No you can't. You can't defend statistical data with things like, "Well if you look at it THIS way." When you are trying to draw a numerical conclusion (~% of OSS) you need an incredible amount of raw data and the lowest possible amount of standard deviation. Statistical significance of standard deviation in measurement is either 0.05% or 0.01%. Here, we're talking about deviations bordering on 15%.

...15%...

That is Three Hundred Times Greater than the maximum standard deviation accepted by the scientific community. That is like weighing in for a middle-weight title fight. You make your weight at 160lbs, and the official tells you... "Sorry son, your opponent didn't make his weight. In fact he's actually a 24 Ton Dump Truck.... ... We're gonna have you fight him anyway."

You've taken a segement of my post completely out of context. If you re-read my post, you will see that the point I was making is that uncontrolled variable will have a much lower effect on the outcome of statistic calculated from a very large pool of data than they will on statistics calculated from a very small pool of data.

Also, if you re-read my previous posts, you will see that I've repeatedly said that the stopping percentages should not be taken at face value. From the M&S study, I think we can safely conclude that a 125grn .357 Magnum is better than a .22 Long Rifle. I say that we can safely conclude that because A) both cartridges had very high numbers of shootings and B) The OSS percentages were much greater for the .357 Magnum than they were for the .22 Long Rifle.

When you look at the study in the manner I suggest, the results really aren't all that suprising: major calibers (9mm and up) with JHP's are very good as far as handguns are concerned, major calibers with FMJ are marginal, minor calibers like .32 ACP and .380 ACP are marginal, and very small calibers like .22LR and .25 ACP are poor. Is any of that really all that suprising or contradictory to what any other credible expert says?

Really, JohnKSa had a very good analysis of the M&S data. I would not agree, based solely on the M&S data, that a 125grn .357 Magnum with a OSS of 96% is necessarily better than a 127grn 9mm +P+ with a OSS of 90%. The 6% difference is not great enough for me to be comfortable with given the degree of uncontrolled variables (a margin of error of 15-20% is probably reasonable for this type of work. However, saying that a 127grn +P+ 9mm JHP which scored 90% is better than a .45 ACP FMJ which scored 62% is a statement that I would be pretty comfortable making.

Also, I think the M&S data is more useful when it is looked at along with the work of Dr. Fackler and the IWBA. I do not think that it is coincidence that so many of the loadings which did very well in the M&S study such as the 125grn .357 Magnum JHP, the 127grn +P+ 9mm JHP, or the 230grn .45 ACP JHP are also rated highly by the IWBA.

The biggest area of argument that I can see are the cases in which M&S disagree with Dr. Fackler and the IWBA. A great example of this is the performance of 115grn 9mm JHP's and 147grn JHP's. The 115's are rated highly by M&S and this is attributed to aggressive expansion and high kinetic energy while the 147grn JHP's are rated highly by Fackler/IWBA because of deep penetration. Conversely, the 147grn JHP's are rated poorly by M&S and this is attributed to unreliable expansion and low energy while the 115grn JHP's are rated poorly by Fackler/IWBA because of shallow penetration. Because these reccomendations are completely opposite of each other, it would appear on the surface that one group must be totally wrong. However, let us examine the reasoning behind these conclusions:

Most of the 147grn JHP's that M&S rate poorly are dated designs like WWB JHP's. At the rather sedate velocities at which they are driven, I think M&S are probably correct that these are poor choices. However, many newer JHP's such as Winchester SXT, Federal HST, and Speer Gold Dots expand much more reliably at low velocity and are much better than the older 147grn JHP's. Because their data is dated, many of these newer JHP's either were not included in M&S's work or were drawn from a very small pool of data.

On the other hand, Fackler/IWBA rates the 115grn JHP's poorly becuase of shallow penetration. This is mainly based on the reccomendations of the FBI that 12-16" of penetration is optimal. However, in order to understand this one must know why that degree of penetration is considered optimal. The FBI reccomends deeper penetration in order to prepare for not only a straight-on frontal shot on an average sized individual, but also a shot to a very large individual, a shot at an oblique angle, and/or a shot through an extremity or intermediate barrier. Also, Fackler/IWBA/FBI do not place a high priority on kinetic energy because they do not consider it to be a reliable wounding factor. This is mostly correct because penetration and permanent crush cavity are much more predictable than injury from temporary cavitation. This, however, does not mean that kinetic energy/temporary cavity has no effect whatsoever. As I noted in a previous post, Dr. Fackler himself noted that certain tissues of the body can suffer significant damage from temporary cavitation.

So, we come back to the disagreement between the two studies. I suspect that had M&S examined more shootings with modern 147grn JHP's, their results with that weight would have been much better. Likewise, I suspect that the majority of the shootings they documented with the 115grn JHP's were probably frontal shots on small-to-average sized individuals in which the degree of penetration reccomended by Fackler/IWBA/FBI wasn't necessary. I also find it telling that the 124-127grn JHP's, which have more penetration than the 115's and more energy than the 147's, were rated very highly by both groups. The conclusion that I draw is that a 124-127grn JHP is probably the best choice for a 9mm as it gives you the best balance of everything.

 

[pax]

Not going to get involved in this one. Not, not, not.

However, here's a link to an old thread that might be of interest: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249109

And here's another link, this one to some researchers who were active a few years back. I don't know if they still are. I don't actually know anything about them. I'm providing the link as a public service to those who like to argue about this stuff. http://www.ballisticstestinggroup.org/

And now I'm going to go do something more enjoyable than reading yet another interminable ballistics thread, like poking a knitting needle into my left eyeball.

pax

 

[comn-cents]

pax "like poking a knitting needle into my left eyeball".


Sounds like a OSN but I didn't see it's stats in the book?

 

[Nnobby45]

Always a controversial subject.

Seems that the bulk of criticism still comes from those who would quote the same decade plus old sources of criticism, and makereference to the same articles by the same authors.

It's also apparrent that not much, if any, criticism came from LE agencies that chose their duty ammo based on their recommendations.

I always felt that, without respect to their methods, it was a good way to compare different bullet performances.

With all the new technology available in modern ammo, there is no street data available. And who can blame anyone for not wanting to take on a project that will get them villified, accused, and insulted by some, whose long held beliefs they might challenge?

Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[.357SIG]

Webley, the cavitation is almost identical in displacement between common SD rounds. We've all seen the picture of the gel tests comparing the 9mm up to the .45 (including the 10mm as a joke sometimes). Beyond that, it doesn't do all that much to aid in incapacitation itself, especially when considering poor placement, until you get into very fast-moving rounds, like rifle rounds, where it can cause much greater damage. Of course, it does add damage regardless, as I've said previously, but not a whole lot. Much of the stronger tissues in the body will not give as easily, and much of it will not be damaged beyond minimally. This is assuming the round passes close by the organ, not into it. When the round strikes the organ, the cavitation is the very least of the problem. Cavitation effects from a .22 LR pistol and a .44 Mag pistol will differ...no question. Assuming you made a clean shot to a vital area, the placement of that bullet is going to be the stopping factor, not the side-effect (cavitation). Assuming you shoot a non-vital area, that cavitation difference itself is not enough to shut the body down any faster. It comes down to shot placement in these cases, once again.

An injury to the heart (penetrating trauma) will be almost always fatal, whether a .22 or .45, or knife, or piece of rebar. The cavitation being present adds to complication of the injury, but an increase by an ever-so-slight level is not going to make a difference in time-to-incapacitation, as the heart is essentially "finished" by the bullet. The head shot is something I've discussed, and your words are very similar to what I said in that discussion, though I do not put as much emphasis on the pressure.

In your examples, you mention the cavitation effect when striking the organ. The key part of your discussion is a properly-placed shot (since it actually strikes the organ, causing damage/destruction). Cavitation may or may not have the effects you listed (impossible to say with certainty), but even so, it will be present with all rounds fired. Between a 9mm and a .40, what difference do you really think you will see?

A big thing is variability in the body. Someone in the world may fall to side effects of a bullet, as I'm sure some have. But, that is the exception, rather than the rule.

Is bigger better? Sure; you get more margin of error. Is faster better? Sure. Cavitation effect is a function of velocity. Is it enough difference between the commonly-used self-defense rounds to give a clear advantage? No. Is the difference enough between a .22 LR and a .454 Casull? I'm sure it is.

I guess an analogy to this issue can be made using cars. You could have a bone-stock car (9mm), or one that is stock other than a new exhaust system (.40, .45...). The new exhaust makes it more efficient, but who are we kidding...it does nothing noticeable when the "rubber meets the road". Of course, the website of the mfg. says it will increase horsepower by 5-10 (usually BS, but let's use it for this argument), so it is better only technically. Practically, it does nothing different, and you won't be winning any races because of it. The skill of the driver will be the deciding factor here (shot placement).

So if a solid hit to a vital organ is all that is needed, why are some cartridges decidedly better than others?

Decidedly by whom? A bunch of gun writers and shooting instructors? It is NOT 'decidedly so' by anyone who has actually had to treat these wounds. The thing is they all are equal as stoppers. None better, none worse...it is decided by shot placement and not caliber, when speaking of defensive handgun rounds.

The only reason many feel it is possible that these rounds can actually be ranked is because they read books on the subject, written by people who are not qualified to do such ranking. That, and the "tall tales" told over the years giving some rounds legendary status for all the wrong reasons. Of course, we didn't know any better back then. We didn't use aids, such as CT/MRI, to image soft tissue damage, wound tracts, etc.

 

[Jeff22]

Evan Marshall

Evan Marshall's first research into the "one shot stop" occurred in the mid 1970s when he needed a topic for his Master's thesis.

And on the face of it, it was an interesting effort. At Detroit PD he did have access to some autopsy results on a regular basis and did have a limited data base of anectodal results on a few different loads in a few different calibers.

In his articles from 25 years ago or so he admitted the limitations of his "research" and emphasised that his conclusions that they were anecdotal and advisory in nature. Unfortunately, about 20 years ago Mr. Marshall started portraying his results as being more certain than they were, and allegedly based some of his conclusions on faulty or limited information.(there were a number of documented cases in the last 10 years where he made reference to various shootings in different magazine articles, and then it was discovered that the actual fact set and results of those shooting incidents were different, calling into question the sources of his information)

Then he went into partnership with Ed Sanow, who is a devotee of doing gelatin tests, and they combined to produce several books and a bunch of magazine articles.

They attempted to find a correlation between the performance of rounds that anecdotally were reputed to work well on the street and the way those same rounds performed in ordnance gelatin. ((the "Fuller Index")A potentially valid attempt hampered by flawed research, inacurate statistical measurements, and apparently a whole bunch of tests where the jello wasn't mixed up properly.

There are so many variables in terminal ballistics that it is difficult to draw comparisons between what happens in a test with gelatin and what happens in a real confrontation.