Marshall/Sanow study

I suppose my reading of this thread is too fast because I still haven't figured out what those who think the M&S publications are worthless recommend themselves or why.
Click to expand...

BlueTrain,

That's exactly the point we've been making. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS DEFINITIVE DATA ON THIS SUBJECT. We cannot make "recommendations" because NO SUCH DATA EXISTS AND TO OBTAIN IT ACCURATELY IS NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE.

And it is senseless to use the M&S study to try and justify what they claim. Because it's broken. And useless. It's like trying to fill and empty window frame. You need a double-paned window. The M&S study is a bunch of shattered glass on the floor. No one in their right mind is going to say, "Well, we dont' have a window pane... so let's try to fit all this shattered glass back in the frame and we'll use it that way." It just doesn't work.

What we CAN use is the information that we CAN know. Service calibers are service calibers for a reason. They all work with significant efficiency. Yes bigger is better. Yes faster is better. To what degree will remain to be seen, but the difference is insignificant when compared to the differences that proper training and proficency can make in your defensive capabilities.
_______________________________________________________
^^^ That's a "bottom line" ^^^

~LT
 
It's M/S's opponents who find the onus on them to do a like study b4 they can **** on M/S's results.
Click to expand...

Good thing that is not how science works.

You do not have to repeat something to point out methodology errors or shortcomings in the work.
 
It's time to wake up.

There appears to be an American obsession with bullet caliber and one-shot stops.

I think those who know from experience (the New York Police) live a world apart from those armchair experts who comment on forums like this.

Let's see what the New York Police Department law has learned from experience and not from those armchair experts.


Subject: The SOP9 Report - An Analysis of NYPD Police - AIMED Point

Source: http://www.pointshooting.com/1asop9.htm

Results: BULLET EFFICIENCY

During the period 1970 through 1979, the Police inflicted 10 casualties for every one suffered at the hands of their assailants.

In all of the cases investigated, one factor stood out as a proper measure of bullet efficiency. It was not the size, shape, configuration, composition, caliber, or velocity of the bullet.

Bullet placement was the cause of death or an injury that was serious enough to end the confrontation.
 
Bullet placement was the cause of death or an injury that was serious enough to end the confrontation.
Click to expand...

They however do not seem to be taking there own advice.

When multiple officers fire a total of 20-30-40 shots at a person and achieve few (if any) hits something is very wrong.
 
I have to give M&S credit where it is due. In their books they have published some very useful information and some articles by people who disagree with their approach and have shown an alternate one. In their last book, from 2001, John Jacobs a former Border Patrol Officer discusses the methods of testing and caliber selection that the U.S. Border Patrol used for ammo selection from the period 1970 to 2001 (before the switch to .40 S&W). Jacobs was involved in ammo selection for the BP during that period. There are a few other articles along these lines in their books that make them worth while reading.

The only way to figure out what is wrong with their approach, as well as to see what is useful, is to read their stuff. Alot of fellas who claim to support them have never actually cracked one of their books.

tipoc
 
Bullet Placement

"In 1990 the overall Police hit potential was 19%." Quote from SOP9 Report

I fully agree that bullet placement is the first principal, be it hunting or combat. In Iraq, combat troops were given guidance to target the insurgents' pelvic girdle, the idea being that it was a target filled with major veins, arteries and load bearing skeletal structure. You smash a man's upper femur or pelvic bone with a high velocity rifle round and in all likelihood he will fall down. He may not have stopped functioning but he is now much easier to neutralize than if he was running around the corner with a knitting needle hole through his chest.
Bullet Placement, yes, I agree; however In a high stress dynamic environment where I am reduced to gross motor function and instinct, I want any hit that I can produce to achieve the maximum possible effect.

I do not believe that it is because the NY PD "are not taking their own advice". The high number of rounds fired and the 19% hit potential is just the reality of combat.
 
It's anecdotal at best. Trying to quantify the inconsistent and unquantifiable. Some of their numbers are a little weird, they need to check their math and clean up some obvious errors (To be fair, maybe they have since I last saw it) like having more stops that shootings with a given caliber, etc.
 
Bullet Placement, yes, I agree; however In a high stress dynamic environment where I am reduced to gross motor function and instinct, I want any hit that I can produce to achieve the maximum possible effect.
Click to expand...

This is a good point. Once a fella has chosen a gun they can shoot well and has practiced a good amount and now wants to load a good self defense round that can help them some in a tight spot how do they choose between the Federal or Hornady or Cor-Bon round?

Truth is that over the last 15 or so years the performance of most quality self defense ammo is pretty similar in the standard service calibers anyway. This is because the FBI and the Justice dept., after many studies and much debate figured that if a round penetrated and expanded to 12-14" or so in 10% ballistic gelatin (and sometimes after penetrating various barriers) that it was good for them. The ammo manufacturers had a race to meet those criteria and have maintained them with JHP ammo in various calibers and bullet weights from 9mm to 10mm to 45 acp. They did all this, and more, without the help of M&S. Self defense ammo is pretty good these days at least from the major players.

M&S popped up about 20 years ago. They did not say that their info was useful for a person to take a look at as part of figuring out a good bullet to carry. Nope they claimed that their studies were "Definitive". The "Proven Street Results", etc. But they were not. Their OSS statistics were faulty.

tipoc
 
What they were attempting to do was get a handle on military reports from the Philippines which indicated that the .38 Long Colt cartridge simply wasn't up to snuff as a combat round in a way that seemed to be the most practical that didn't involve either going back to war with a trunk full of different guns. Or worse.
Click to expand...

Well, those who dared to "think outside the box" have always been criticized by those whose opinions came under scrutiny.

Maybe we should condemn the inventors of the very first firearms. How crude those weapons were. But look at the doors they opened up.:cool:
 
Comparisons with cars

I guess they are useless... except when they aren't.

In other words, there is such a thing as "too much." It could be too much car, too much motorcycle, or too much caliber.

Bigger and more powerful is better, except when it is too much for the user. The .357 that my arthritic mother can't handle well probably won't score good hits for her the way her 9mm will. The round may have more potential in the right hands, but in other hands that additional power is actually a detractor.

Same with a new rider hopping on a Hayabusa to learn how to ride. Yes, it's a fast bike, and should smoke the little Honda Rebel next to it. Right up until the new guy hits the throttle, wheelies up, and falls over backwards....

So perhaps analogies to other mechanical devices aren't completely useless...

The new rider is better off with the Rebel. The intermediate rider will probably get better times with a moderately stable 600 than he will with the Hayabusa (because he'll be correcting for throwing in too much power, a lot of the time).

The new shooter is probably not best served by a hot .357 or .44 loading. The extra power is only good if it still hits vital zones on the target. The extra recoil and blast probably won't facilitate those vital zone hits, for a low-skill or physically weak shooter.
 
"And some of the true "junk science" of yesteryear like the Thompson-LaGarde tests of 1904 which can't really tell of much of anything other than the fact that neither Thompson nor LaGarde knew how to run any sort of scientific experiment."

I wouldn't judge Thompson and La Garde too harshly.

Essentially, with their tests, as scanty as they might have been, they were the first to try to quantify this sort of information in anything even remotely resembling a standardized way.

Also, at the time, ballistics wasn't even approached as a science as we understand it today.

Finally, neither Thompson or La Garde were scientists, and more importantly, neither were attempting to create a scientifically valid set of experiments. Even had they been, what kind of testing media would they have used in 1904 that would have given the kind of terminal performance data that we today understand is viable?
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't judge Thompson or LaGarde harshly, I understand that they had limited resources and experience to work with. Who I judge harshly are the people who still try to use the T-L tests to try and support their pet theories today when we have much better information to go off of.
 
Webley, seems we agree on almost everything. It looks like the fact that I'm speaking of common defense rounds, and that you're speaking of all rounds in the spectrum, is the reason for the debate.

A .22 short will do nothing (essentially) when compared to a .454, but a 9mm, when compared to a .45 ACP, is almost identical.

The only place I can't really agree 100% (but still see validity) is with the importance of temp. cavitation when striking a vital organ, specifically with regard to the differences between rounds, since most often the penetrating trauma is enough itself, and the cavitation intensity isn't much of an issue. I do understand the temp. cavity does have an effect on the organ's ability to recover, but feel it is generally "played up" in the gun community by those who do not understand it (and I'm pretty sure you agree here). These people will hang onto this concept as if it means everything. The presence of the cavitation aids in damage, as that is physics...agreed. How much that really differs is dependent on the velocity differences of the rounds being compared more than anything. How much the difference of the cavities matters is something that can be debated.
 
The presence of the cavitation aids in damage, as that is physics...agreed. How much that really differs is dependent on the velocity differences of the rounds being compared more than anything.
Click to expand...
Temporary cavity size is dependent on rate of change of energy in the projectile. It's true that more velocity creates the potential for larger temporary cavity, but that potential is wasted (not used to create a temporary cavity) if the projectile doesn't expend a significant amount energy in the target medium.

How much difference temporary cavity makes in terms of creating actual damage/wounding (when talking about handguns) has more to do with what organs/tissue are impinged upon by the temporary cavity than anything else. Some organs & tissue are so elastic that temporary cavity is not going to cause any damage beyond bruising. Others are not very elastic at all and temporary cavity will cause significant damage to them if they are near enough to the wound channel or if the wound channel goes through them.

The generally accepted statement about temporary cavity is that it is not a reliable wounding mechanism. That is true due to the amount of elastic tissue in the body. However, some people take that to mean that it should be totally dismissed. That interpretation is not supported by the facts. The fact that it's not a reliable wounding mechanism doesn't mean that it has no effect at all, it's just that the effect it has is going to vary widely depending on what type of tissue is near enough to the wound channel to be affected by the temporary cavity.
 
The generally accepted statement about temporary cavity is that it is not a reliable wounding mechanism. That is true due to the amount of elastic tissue in the body. However, some people take that to mean that it should be totally dismissed. That interpretation is not supported by the facts. The fact that it's not a reliable wounding mechanism doesn't mean that it has no effect at all, it's just that the effect it has is going to vary widely depending on what type of tissue is near enough to the wound channel to be affected by the temporary cavity.
Click to expand...

I agree with this and I'll add something. The physical condition of the person or animal being hit is also a factor. How well hydrated they are, if they have recently eaten a meal, the outside temperature (very cold or very hot), whether the body is tensed up or at rest, etc. All can effect how damaging a bullet wound can be due to trauma other than the size of the hole.

There should be no question that the temporary cavity and other factors like the pressure wave have an effect, and sometimes a very effective one. But the effect can vary widely and is hard to quantify. You can count on a hole though.

tipoc
 
When I explain the difference between permanent crush cavity and temporary wound cavity potential of self defense calibers to beginners, I use the terms "cut" and "punch". (Admittedly these are not perfect analogies, but they work to explain this to beginners.)

The permanent crush cavity is like being stabbed with a metal dowel or pick. it actually destroys and punctures tissue. The thicker the dowel is, the more tissue it can destroy. A 7" Ball-point-pen will do more damage than a 7" ice pick. The more you cut, the worse the wound is; but the important thing is WHERE the wound is. Someone can survive a stab to the arm or stomach much more easily than a stab to the chest.

The temporary wound cavity is like being punched. You feel the impact and your insides are damaged by it, but it doesn't do much, if any, visceral damage. It's a blunt-force trauma. Now as everyone knows, taking a punch anywhere is going to hurt, and in some cases it can kill you depending on how hard the hit is, but it's not a very reliable way to end a fight. Some boxing matches are over in one good strike, some go 15 rounds with the guys beating the sense out of each other. So, while it's not something to ignore, you can't rely on it to stop the fight, otherwise everyone would load their weapons with "rubber baton" rounds and leave the killing to the court systems.

~LT
 
Fatal Flaw.....

While studies of what, and how bullets work are interesting, and worthwhile, to me the fatal flaw in Marshall/Sanow and similar studies is the basic "one shot stop" concept, and conclusions drawn. Also the tendency of readers to take the conclusions at face value, and as absolutes.

I'm not accusing the study of "massaging the data" (and yes, I have read it), only of not being able to use data that provides a true comprehensive comparison. They couldn't, nobody can, because that data does not exist. One can draw accurate general comparisons, (such as my sig line), but precise comparisons cannot be done, there are too many factors that are not and cannot be included in the shooting reports, or duplicated in the lab.

It is a fallacy to regard anybody's numbers and rating system for ammo performance against humans as absolutes. The most ineffective rated round does the job some of the time, and the highest rated round fails, some of the time, even under "perfect" conditions.

I recognize that one torso hit is the minimum, and if the round produces a one shot stop, that is the best that can be done. The mistake in reasoning come in when we assume that one is "more stopped" with a higher rated round, and assuming that the overall effectiveness rating applies to any specific shooting. Stopped is stopped (and if they die, dead is dead). A .25 that stops an attacker is just as effective as a .357 that stops an attacker. And while the "best" round may rate a 97% effectivness in the data, the odds are basically 50/50 that any specific shooting will be in the 97%, or in the 3%.

Looked at overall, yes, the 97% stopper is a better choice, there's nothing wrong with playing the odds to get every possible advantage. Just remember that even when everything is "done right" its a coin toss. And that's why I don't put much stock in "one shot stops". If it was an absolute, we wouldn't need repeating handguns!
 
I have to conclude from re-reading this thread that people don't like the study because it didn't give the results they wanted to read. As I take it, Marshall was interested in the subject and went out and did his study. His approach was what made sense to him and to me to, for what it's worth. I also think that shooting bullets into something like ballistic gelatin is useful, too. No, I don't think the results are perfect from either method but I don't expect perfection. But they are useful up to a point. But there are limitations in their results in both methods, either of studying the results of actual shootings or shooting Jello. Or even whitetail deer, which remains important to a lot of people.

First, the studies only concern themselves with cartridges, or more correctly, bullets. That is hardly the only consideration with selecting a weapon, if in fact you have a choice.

Second, the differences in performance between a lot of cartridges is quite close and if one cartridge is three percentage points ahead of another, is that significant? But you might suspect that few people carry revolvers in .38 S&W anymore. It was certainly popular for a long time and was even a service cartridge in the British Army and the lowly .380 was also a service cartridge in more than one army. In other words, does it make any difference what cartridge you use if hits to the right place is all that matter?

I'm not going to but anyone of you is free to do your own study and you are free to keep anything about it private that you care to. But we would all be interested in the results.

Just leave out freak cartridges and trick bullets.
 
I'VE GOT IT!!!

I've got a proposition that'll solve all of this nonsense and debate about outdated and inconclusive studies.

>>>Upon enactment of such a bill, it shall now be lawful for an individual to decide
>>>(Whereupon the death of such person is imminent or expected, and provided the individual is of legal consenting age (18 years))
>>>In their last Will and Testament, or upon public record,
>>>To donate their bodily remains (enacted upon the event of death) to the specific area of scientific study known as Ballistic Science.
>>>The personal gift of donation shall be received by accredited and recognized officials in the field of Ballistic Science and at a regularly inspected and privately regulated facility whereupon accepted studies will be performed using the remains donated by the individual.
>>>Upon completion of usefulness to research, or at the behest of the Head of study, the donated remains shall be disposed of in accordance with state law and the wishes of the deceased (i.e. burning, burial, etc...).

Booya. Great idea or what?

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