ONE SHOT STOP (just the facts, NOT a can of worms)

[Japle]

Posted by C0untZer0:
The FBI didn't buy into M&S and perhaps only by virtue of following the FBI, most major LEAs didn't buy into M&S conclusions or theories.

Most major LEAs? You mean like the Border Patrol (who got into more gunfights than all other Federal agencies combined), who adopted the 110 gr .357 and the 115 gr +P+ 9mm, followed by the 155 gr .40 S&W? The loads that scored high with M&S and were wildly successful on the street? Unlike the FBI who adopted the 1st generation 147 gr 9mm JHP which turned out to be a flop.

If M&S couln't (sp) have been discredited they wouldn't have been discredited.

And they haven’t been, except in the minds of Fackler and his followers.

If no one had ever found fault with their results I doubt they'd be saying "We're not scientists" "We're not statisticians." "There's nothing scientific about our books."

They said that from the beginning.

 

[tipoc]

Most major LEAs? You mean like the Border Patrol (who got into more gunfights than all other Federal agencies combined), who adopted the 110 gr .357 and the 115 gr +P+ 9mm, followed by the 155 gr .40 S&W?

I'm not so sure that M&S had anything directly to do with that. As I recall this occurred during the 90s. In one of M&Ss books, "Stopping Power" from 2001 John Jacobs who was a Border Patrol agent directly involved in the selection of some of the ammo mentioned above has an excelent article on the process they went through to select the ammo which was recommend carry ammo for the BP. He does not credit M&S as a source for their choices. M&S do not claim to have influenced the decisions of the BP at that time. Jacobs notes that when the BP was dissolved and merged the agency went to the 40S&W. Again neither he nor M&S claim that M&S influenced that decision either.

M&S writings did have some influence on some officers in some agencies it would be wrong to deny that. But it was not widespread.

tipoc

 

[C0untZer0]

The loads that scored high with M&S and were wildly successful on the street

What do you mean the loads scored high? You mean that Marshall or Sanow published something with a high number to the right of that particular ammunition?

How do you know they were "wildly" successful? Because Marshall or Sanow said so?

 

[Japle]

Posted by tipoc:
I'm not so sure that M&S had anything directly to do with that. As I recall this occurred during the 90s. In one of M&Ss books, "Stopping Power" from 2001 John Jacobs who was a Border Patrol agent directly involved in the selection of some of the ammo mentioned above has an excelent article on the process they went through to select the ammo which was recommend carry ammo for the BP. He does not credit M&S as a source for their choices. M&S do not claim to have influenced the decisions of the BP at that time. Jacobs notes that when the BP was dissolved and merged the agency went to the 40S&W. Again neither he nor M&S claim that M&S influenced that decision either.

My point was, M&S’s findings were confirmed by actual street results. Whether they happened before or after M&S published their results doesn’t matter. What counts is that loads that conform to M&S’s findings actually work in real life.

Posted by C0untZer0:
What do you mean the loads scored high? You mean that Marshall or Sanow published something with a high number to the right of that particular ammunition?

Yes. See below.

How do you know they were "wildly" successful? Because Marshall or Sanow said so?

No, because, as tipoc said, “John Jacobs who was a Border Patrol agent directly involved in the selection of some of the ammo mentioned above has an excellent article on the process they went through to select the ammo which was recommend carry ammo for the BP. He does not credit M&S as a source for their choices. M&S do not claim to have influenced the decisions of the BP at that time. Jacobs notes that when the BP was dissolved and merged the agency went to the 40S&W. Again neither he nor M&S claim that M&S influenced that decision either.”

According to Jacobs, during the time the .357 and 9mm loads were used by the BP, there wasn’t a single instance where a shooting failure could be blamed on the load. That meets my criteria for “wildly successful”. Also, according to Jacobs, “The performance of the .40 S&W 155 grain load has met and exceeded our expectations.” And guess what? The 155 gr .40 S&W loads came in at #2, 3 and 4 in M&S’s street results. The 9mm 115 gr +P+ load was #1. The 110 gr .357 load was #4 and 5, right behind the legendary 125 gr JHPs.

Loads that score high with M&S also do the job on the street.

Quote from Evan Marshall: “The one-stop shot is a unit of measurement, not a tactical philosophy.”

 

[CastleBravo]

The reasoning behind the OSS % is fundamentally dumb. Here is one easy-to-understand explanation of why.

And if people actually read the links posted earlier they'd know that statistical analysis shows that there is a <1% chance that the data isn't manufactured.

Refusing to accept the glaring evidence that M&S are frauds doesn't refute that evidence, it just means you're sticking your fingers in your ears going LALALALALALA because you don't want to admit that your simplistic understanding of things is wrong.

 

[BGutzman]

You will get opinions of every kind on this... From people who think 17 HMR out of a derringer is the ultimate in deadly to 500 Magnum and beyond.

I am in the bigger and faster is better category... 45, 460 Rowland etc....

 

[tipoc]

What counts is that loads that conform to M&S’s findings actually work in real life.

I'm not sure that many people dispute that point. To be exact not many people dispute the point that M&S have favored some very good bullets and loads for them over the decades and that many of those loads have worked very well. It's hard to dispute that. But what is very easy to dispute is their methods and the OSS statistics that they promote.

The method of saying that because a round endorsed by M&S (usually higher velocity, lower weight, high energy rounds with well designed bullets) works in real life means that M&S's approach is correct is a mistaken one. A broken clock tells the correct time twice a day, but it is still a busted timepiece. M&S have favored many good bullets, calibers and loads. But their methods have been flawed. It is that that people dispute.

M&S do not design bullets or loads, neither do they select ammo for any agencies, others have done that and sometimes those bullets work well. Sometimes bullets not endorsed by M&S also work well. To credit M&S for the successes is to misplace the credit.

That debate has been done many times over the years, search results will turn it up.

tipoc

 

[44 AMP]

One can argue anything you want. You can choose to believe or disbelieve statistics, or believe them and dispute the conclusions.

If there was a clear, definitive, superior round then the market would make it dominant, fairly quickly.

There isn't one. Everything works under the right conditions, and everything fails, under the right conditions.

And when you start discussing what round, bullet, velocity, etc. is most likely to.....well, we can also discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, with about equal real world relevence.

There are some constants, however. Not absolutes, like in mathmatical laws, or physics, but things that while not absolute, do have a long track record of established trends. and one of them is....

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

There are some constants, however. Not absolutes, like in mathmatical laws, or physics, but things that while not absolute, do have a long track record of established trends. and one of them is....

That these threads always end the same way?

 

[C0untZer0]

The INS tests were a little bit different from the FBI tests:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume4/number1/article412.htm

 

[C0untZer0]

Theoretically there could be very good rounds for the Border Patrol - that wouldn't perform very well for other departments. For instance a round that was designed to do well in bare gel and WAS NOT designed to do well going through drywall and 4 layers of denim covered by a winter coat. Because most of the suspects shot by the BP are not wearing a T-shirt, a shirt, and a jean jacket under a heavy winter coat. And they're not shooting them through drywall (usually). That same round however, might not perform so well for the police in Fargo, North Dakota.

As far as I know the BP never had any systematic way of determining bullet effectiveness. They didn't do autopsies on bodies to determine penetration or expansion or anything like that. They weren't keeping track of where bullets hit, what the bullets did after they hit, did the bullets open a major artery, puncture the heart, damage the spine, or anything like that. They were generally happy with the rounds they had because they hadn't experienced any disastrous incidents with them like what happened to Trooper Mark Coates. The general tought though was that their rounds didn't do all that well in the FBI tests so John Jacobs was heading an effort to attempt to figure out why their actual results didn't jive with the FBI's results from their protocol.

 

[TxFlyFish]

If its so hard to come up with the best one shot stop...perhaps we should just agree with the worst. what do you think? 32acp, 22lr, 380?

 

[K_Mac]

TxFlyFish I really don't think we would have anymore success with worst than best.

 

[nate45]

If its so hard to come up with the best one shot stop...perhaps we should just agree with the worst. what do you think? 32acp, 22lr, 380?

How about instead, we just all realize that the 'one shot stop' is a nonsensical idea.

Twenty five years ago I was laughing at M&S's 'data' and I'm still laughing at it now.

The reasoning behind the OSS % is fundamentally dumb. Here is one easy-to-understand explanation of why.

Your linked article sums it all up nicely.

I like this quote from it. I've thought this many times myself.

The average defensive handgun student desperately wants an objective way to measure his gun and ammunition, so he can know he has The Best.
emphasis mine

People who have never shot any living thing. People who are afraid. People who are less than competent/well practiced with a handgun want confidence and validation.

They want to believe if they buy a certain gun and certain ammunition 'one shot' somewhere on their assailants torso will stop them.

 

[Japle]

Posted by tipoc:
The method of saying that because a round endorsed by M&S (usually higher velocity, lower weight, high energy rounds with well designed bullets) works in real life means that M&S's approach is correct is a mistaken one.

Really? If their approach leads to the correct conclusion, one that correlates with real life shootings, how can that approach be called incorrect? You think they just got lucky?

Posted by C0untZer0:
Theoretically there could be very good rounds for the Border Patrol - that wouldn't perform very well for other departments. For instance a round that was designed to do well in bare gel and WAS NOT designed to do well going through drywall and 4 layers of denim covered by a winter coat. Because most of the suspects shot by the BP are not wearing a T-shirt, a shirt, and a jean jacket under a heavy winter coat. And they're not shooting them through drywall (usually). That same round however, might not perform so well for the police in Fargo, North Dakota.

This assumes that all the BP shootings were with perps dressed for the desert summer daytime heat. I lived in Tucson for 4 ½ years. It gets damned cold on that desert at night in the winter. Smugglers know they may have to hide, keeping still, for hours. They dress accordingly.

As far as I know the BP never had any systematic way of determining bullet effectiveness. They didn't do autopsies on bodies to determine penetration or expansion or anything like that.

Of course they did. I used to shoot with BP officers, AZ State cops and Pima County Deputies. They all had stories of autopsies that they or their buddies had attended. It was part of the OIS process.

The general tought though was that their rounds didn't do all that well in the FBI tests so John Jacobs was heading an effort to attempt to figure out why their actual results didn't jive with the FBI's results from their protocol.

The FBI-sponsored tests used gello. The BP used armed smugglers. I would expect some discrepancy.

 

[MLeake]

Japle, the problem with M&S is that instead of saying something like, "these rounds have seemed to work pretty well in a wide variety of circumstances," they went too far and tried to assign hard, predictive numbers.

If they had said, "high velocity rounds, that expand well but have decent penetration, seem to perform better than lower velocity rounds," they probably wouldn't have received so much criticism.

If they had submitted their data and findings for external scientific review, that might also have helped.

Instead, they more or less told us what we could have figured out (kind of like undergrad psychology classes), but tried to assign statistics using faulty methodology.

I haven't spoken with Jim Cirillo. I have spoken with Mas Ayoob, though, and while I don't wish to put words in Mas's mouth, his take seemed to be that M&S findings were good if looked at in general, and not in specific numbers; and that Mas likes fast but big, with sufficient mass to break bone as well as tear up soft tissue. IE hit hard, expand well, AND penetrate.

 

[Chesster]

My only interaction with EM was by phone, in the late 80s I believe, when his works were just a magazine article. He was still at Detroit PD. At that time he stated he was gathering historical data on OSS, conversely, I was doing a study on post traumatic stress in officers involved in shootings where the perp failed to stop after a significant hit. He seemed to be sincere and the percentages in the books reflect historical performance from the data set provided and may suggest, but does not guarantee future performance of any particular round. If the historical data collected indicated an 80% OSS, that same data suggests the set reflects a 20% failure.

My father shot a cow 6 times in the head with a .25 ACP. All she got were freckles on the face and a mild headache. I dispatched her with a single 12GA rifled slug to the head from 10 feet. In THIS particular case, 6.35mm Browning 0% OSS, 12 gauge rifled slug 100%.

Who among you can argue with that data?????

 

[Japle]

Posted by MLeake:
Japle, the problem with M&S is that instead of saying something like, "these rounds have seemed to work pretty well in a wide variety of circumstances," they went too far and tried to assign hard, predictive numbers.

No, they didn’t. They reported what they saw. There was no prediction. In fact, they reported stories of failures of many of the “best” loads.

If they had said, "high velocity rounds, that expand well but have decent penetration, seem to perform better than lower velocity rounds," they probably wouldn't have received so much criticism.

But that’s not the case. The 230 gr Federal HS .45 round was at the top of the list, but it barely breaks 800 fps in most carry guns. It beat the high velocity, high(er) energy 185 and 200 gr loads.

If they had submitted their data and findings for external scientific review, that might also have helped.

“External scientific review”? What for? They never claimed their work was scientific at all.

Instead, they more or less told us what we could have figured out (kind of like undergrad psychology classes), but tried to assign statistics using faulty methodology.

The “what we could have figured out” approach led us to Hatcher’s formula and similar “theories” that sounded good, but turned out to be wrong.
And again, the work wasn’t statistical.

I haven't spoken with Jim Cirillo. I have spoken with Mas Ayoob, though, and while I don't wish to put words in Mas's mouth, his take seemed to be that M&S findings were good if looked at in general, and not in specific numbers; and that Mas likes fast but big, with sufficient mass to break bone as well as tear up soft tissue. IE hit hard, expand well, AND penetrate.

Too late to talk to Cirillo, but I squadded with Mas in IDPA matches in Orlando. He doesn’t agree 100% with M&S, but he’s the last guy to criticize them. His opinions are very close to theirs.
Here’s a quote from his Self-Defense Forum on Glocktalk:

“Whatever criticism there might be of how the available data was correlated and analyzed, the criticism always seems to come from people who never made the effort to collect, correlate, and analyze such data themselves. So it was with Marshall and Sanow, so it is with Ellifritz, and so it will be with the next person who attempts this Herculean task.

It is easy enough for critics to toss off a catch phrase such as "the plural of anedote is not data."

The critics should realize that the plural of anecdote IS "collective experience."

 

[tipoc]

“External scientific review”? What for? They never claimed their work was scientific at all.

Actually they did. And if it's not than what value does it have? They also claimed that there statistics were "definitive", the "last word" and settled any debate on the subject. The OSS statistics were and are the heart of their work the rest is derivitive of what others have done. And this was the heart of the problem. Had they relied on the "collective experience" gathered it and relayed to others that would have been very valuable. But they tried to erect a statistical structure and account to it that did not work. When others explained that it did not work they vigorously defended their errors. The value of the collected information began to recede and fall to their "OSS statistics". They way they gathered their statistics were flawed, the way they presented them flawed and misleading and the conclusions drawn misleading. The premise of the OSS wrong and misleading.

They have sometimes chosen good bullets because they know something about bullet design, guns and shooting and ammo companies. They are not fools. But the OSS statistics are none the less flawed. Citing Mas Ayoob don't change that.

Ellifritz made no major effort to gather data and is not in the same category as M&S.

“Whatever criticism there might be of how the available data was correlated and analyzed, the criticism always seems to come from people who never made the effort to collect, correlate, and analyze such data themselves. So it was with Marshall and Sanow, so it is with Ellifritz, and so it will be with the next person who attempts this Herculean task.

A bizarre thing to say.

Centuries ago a monk sat on a mountain top and said "everything is everything!". Later science discovers the structure of subatomic particles as common building blocks of all matter. I don't credit the monk.

tipoc

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Folks, keep it to the facts. Don't personally bicker.

Had to delete some that were going that way.

Thank you.

GEM