Hi, Long timer lurker decided to start posting (and collecting). I have a thorough scientific background, so I figure I should point out some things. Plenty of people have done a decent job showing that M&S, while planning a good approach, executed it poorly. I'd say that TFLs own Dr. Courtney is much more scientific and unbiased then either of these ego-driven monsters.
I feel the need to comment on Fackler and his claim to being "scientific", particularly since he is "easy to support," particularly if you are a 1911 fan. I will admit I haven't read all either of them have written, but I do have a good idea.
First of all, Fackler clearly has an agenda. I'm not sure why, but he is hellbent on proving M&S wrong to the point of insanity. For example, the link above to the statistical problem (http://www.firearmstactical.com/mars...l-analysis.htm) is entirely misleading. First of all, they attempt to calculate the probability that "exactly this number increase would happen" and attempt to use it to prove that "it would never happen." They do not account for the very real fact that the effectiveness of same bullet most likely would change (i.e. changes in firearm training and mind-state of targets). Furthermore, the chances of many things happening are extremely improbably. Powerball is a good example of this effect. Every combination of numbers that come up in Powerball have an incredibly low probability of occurring, but one of those combinations will occur. Fackler's argument is akin to saying "There is no way the numbers 47 11 23 01 02 came up last night because my calculations show it's extremely improbable." Proper statistics, never, ever, ever calculate the probability something would happen within the data set.
Fackler's biggest fault, however, is his entire array of assumptions he conveniently ignores. Among everything else, Fackler operates on the assumption that the most important factor in rapid incapacitation is rapid blood loss. 100%. Bull. Sh. t. Unless you tear the pulmonary artery or shoot the heart (even then they'll have a second or two to shoot back), you are not going to get a one-shot stop out of rapid blood loss or general tissue destruction.
Let's think about the many ways a bullet can incapacitate a target (this is by no means an exhaustive list, off the top of my head):
-Central Nervous System: Fackler only touches on this and is extremely dismissive, yet the central nervous system is ultimately the "deciding factor" in whether or not the stops. Blood loss or halting the circulatory system deprives the oxygen of brain. A spinal shot will instantly paralyze the target. Dr Courtney has already done some research into distal effects as well.
-Respiratory System: Have you ever punched someone in the diaphragm? They will absolutely buckle from the pressure. It is possible that one of the more defining factors in a "one-shot stop" into the center of mass is that it causes the target to gasp for air, which makes it very difficult for anyone to continue running.
-Psychology: Fackler is very dismissive about this, but it is impossible to ignore. Maybe a high velocity bullet just hurts more (from what I hear, getting shot does hurt more than getting impaled so it might follow) and is more likely to break the will of even a drugged out target. Maybe the horrible feeling of the pressure wave feels like you've just been punched in the gut from the insides. Maybe bullets that make a bigger bang just make people want to fall over more...
Even if you dismiss all but psychological effects, you will see that Fackler's research is very scientific, but it only proves the effectiveness of calibers in ballistic gel. Inferences to real life situations, however, are both wildly presumptuous, illogical, and unscientific. I understand Fackler went to great lengths to reproduce the mean consistency of the human body, but its just like Psychology/Sociology: You can't draw conclusions based on one experiment on "average joe."
I feel the need to comment on Fackler and his claim to being "scientific", particularly since he is "easy to support," particularly if you are a 1911 fan. I will admit I haven't read all either of them have written, but I do have a good idea.
First of all, Fackler clearly has an agenda. I'm not sure why, but he is hellbent on proving M&S wrong to the point of insanity. For example, the link above to the statistical problem (http://www.firearmstactical.com/mars...l-analysis.htm) is entirely misleading. First of all, they attempt to calculate the probability that "exactly this number increase would happen" and attempt to use it to prove that "it would never happen." They do not account for the very real fact that the effectiveness of same bullet most likely would change (i.e. changes in firearm training and mind-state of targets). Furthermore, the chances of many things happening are extremely improbably. Powerball is a good example of this effect. Every combination of numbers that come up in Powerball have an incredibly low probability of occurring, but one of those combinations will occur. Fackler's argument is akin to saying "There is no way the numbers 47 11 23 01 02 came up last night because my calculations show it's extremely improbable." Proper statistics, never, ever, ever calculate the probability something would happen within the data set.
Fackler's biggest fault, however, is his entire array of assumptions he conveniently ignores. Among everything else, Fackler operates on the assumption that the most important factor in rapid incapacitation is rapid blood loss. 100%. Bull. Sh. t. Unless you tear the pulmonary artery or shoot the heart (even then they'll have a second or two to shoot back), you are not going to get a one-shot stop out of rapid blood loss or general tissue destruction.
Let's think about the many ways a bullet can incapacitate a target (this is by no means an exhaustive list, off the top of my head):
-Central Nervous System: Fackler only touches on this and is extremely dismissive, yet the central nervous system is ultimately the "deciding factor" in whether or not the stops. Blood loss or halting the circulatory system deprives the oxygen of brain. A spinal shot will instantly paralyze the target. Dr Courtney has already done some research into distal effects as well.
-Respiratory System: Have you ever punched someone in the diaphragm? They will absolutely buckle from the pressure. It is possible that one of the more defining factors in a "one-shot stop" into the center of mass is that it causes the target to gasp for air, which makes it very difficult for anyone to continue running.
-Psychology: Fackler is very dismissive about this, but it is impossible to ignore. Maybe a high velocity bullet just hurts more (from what I hear, getting shot does hurt more than getting impaled so it might follow) and is more likely to break the will of even a drugged out target. Maybe the horrible feeling of the pressure wave feels like you've just been punched in the gut from the insides. Maybe bullets that make a bigger bang just make people want to fall over more...
Even if you dismiss all but psychological effects, you will see that Fackler's research is very scientific, but it only proves the effectiveness of calibers in ballistic gel. Inferences to real life situations, however, are both wildly presumptuous, illogical, and unscientific. I understand Fackler went to great lengths to reproduce the mean consistency of the human body, but its just like Psychology/Sociology: You can't draw conclusions based on one experiment on "average joe."
