Which is more important in ballistics?

[481]

Both those studies have flawed methodologies.

Of course they are.

I never said that the Wolberg research article was perfect. Both studies are "flawed", one (M&S) is "contrived". There is a difference.

Taken from the link provided above-

These greater than 100% stopping percentage or negative numbers (showing mysterious disappearing shootings) are fairly described as misrepresentations because they demonstrate conclusively that the Marshall & Sanow "data base" is not as it has been claimed to be. Specifically:

Marshall & Sanow have claimed to have continuously collected their "data base" of shootings over time; this makes having fewer shootings in particular caliber and load combinations at later dates impossible, but eight such conditions exist in their "data base."

Marshall & Sanow have eight particular caliber and load combinations that show a completely impossible greater than 100% "one-shot stop" percentages in their "data base".

 

[Nanuk]

I am not giving relevance to either study. I am saying that I have seen lot of real live people and critters shot with lots of different things and I tend to believe in things that I see.

Not everything can be replicated in a lab. The very proof of the lab is field testing. How do the rounds predicted in the lab to be great really work in real live shootings? Take that VS what DOES a 125 grn 357 mag bullet at 1400 FPS look like in gelatine? Why does it fail the FBI protocol when in fact it works very well on the street?

The 357 Sig is used by 10 State police agencies and works very well on real BG's. It is a modern high energy round.

What that means to the original question is energy is very important.

481, don't take this wrong, I am very much a proponent of shot placement, I have never stated otherwise. But, for anyone to tell me basically " Are you going to believe me or your lying eye's" speaks of BS.

What I have said all along is that none of the people doing these "studies" for coin are above fudging the data to make their point and I pointed that out. If the IWBA was not blowing smoke why then is it gone? Why did the FBI run them off?

 

[481]

I am not giving relevance to either study.

That doesn't seem to be the case here in post #116 where your language suggests otherwise-

Ok of 156 or 157 shootings he only used 27 bullets that met his "criteria" but M&S is made up RIGHT........

What I have said all along is that none of the people doing these "studies" for coin are above fudging the data to make their point and I pointed that out.

You'll have to do better than that. Not everyone acts dishonestly and "blanket accusations" of misconduct and dishonesty are worthless without proof. The article by Wolberg has never been debunked as being fraudulent in any way despite your claims. If you can prove otherwise, I'd happily invite you to show me a source (other than some anonymous internet poster) that refutes Wolberg's article, "Performance of the Winchester 9mm 147 Grain Subsonic Jacketed Hollow Point Bullet in Human Tissue and Tissue Simulant", as being fraudulent.

As I've posted before, here are the sources debunking M&S that I've cited-

Too Good to be True, Wishful Thinking?, The Best Defense by M. Fackler and C.E. Peters

Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow "Data Base": An Evaluation Over Time by M. van Maanan

Sanow Strikes (Out) Again by D. MacPherson

So, where is your citable source(s) that debunks the Wolberg article as being fraudulent here in post #94?

They drank their own cool aid and manipulated data to suit their agenda, Dr Wolberg at San Diego was one of the obvious ones with the paper on the subsonic 147 grain 9mm.

Source, please?

If the IWBA was not blowing smoke why then is it gone? Why did the FBI run them off?

The FBI ran no one off. IWBA simply disbanded for many reasons, none of which have anything to do with the individual researchers' integrity. You can distract with unsubstantiable claims of misconduct and dishonesty all that you want, but your lack of citable material in support of your claims produces a deafening silence all on its own.

I've shown the three (3) citable sources for my claims re: the M&S study.

Where are your sources in support of your claims of data manipulation re: the Wolberg article in post #94 (presented below once again)?

They drank their own cool aid and manipulated data to suit their agenda, Dr Wolberg at San Diego was one of the obvious ones with the paper on the subsonic 147 grain 9mm.

 

[Nanuk]

Believe what you want. Your sig kinda says it all. A book about a test protocol to simulate what a bullet will do based on a mathematical formula in a water to equate to media that is used to simulate human tissue with no regard for any other physiological reason people stop fighting. Because that cannot be quantified in a lab.

The most reliable indicator is actual police shootings, but most departments are somewhat tight lipped about this data unless you have an inside source. Which is why I go back to high energy rounds being the most reliable fight stoppers.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...A book about a test protocol to simulate what a bullet will do based on a mathematical formula in a water to equate to media that is used to simulate human tissue with no regard for any other physiological reason people stop fighting...

Exactly what are the other physiological reasons people stop fighting? Are you contending that there are physiological reasons beyond disruption of the central nervous system by trauma, or breaking major skeletal support structures, or tissue damage causing sufficient blood loss to incapacitate?

 

[481]

It is very interesting that you have yet to provide a citable source for your claim made on page 4 of this thread in post #94-

They drank their own cool aid and manipulated data to suit their agenda, Dr Wolberg at San Diego was one of the obvious ones with the paper on the subsonic 147 grain 9mm.

-that Wolberg manipulated data in his paper despite being offered several opportunities to do so. As a result, I believe that anyone reading this thread may now reasonably assume that you have no way to support the claim that you've made against Wolberg.

Believe what you want. Your sig kinda says it all. A book about a test protocol to simulate what a bullet will do based on a mathematical formula in a water to equate to media that is used to simulate human tissue with no regard for any other physiological reason people stop fighting. Because that cannot be quantified in a lab.

Given your recent history (above), it is hard to take this very seriously since the content of your commentary suggests that you haven't read the book.

Neither Schwartz nor MacPherson (in their respective books that present highly researched testing approaches employing water as a medium) claim to be able to quantify the physiological effects of bullet penetration beyond the amount of tissue that would be crushed during a bullet's penetration through gelatin/soft tissue.

What's next?

Are you now going to accuse Schwartz and MacPherson of intellectual dishonesty without any citable sources or having read their books?

The most reliable indicator is actual police shootings, but most departments are somewhat tight lipped about this data unless you have an inside source.

I believe that approach has been tried already by M&S. Of course, we are chasing our tails since their methodology has been thoroughly debunked.

Which is why I go back to high energy rounds being the most reliable fight stoppers.

I guess that if I was operating in an informational vacuum I might be inclined to do the same thing. Fortunately, we have the work of some pretty educated individuals (Roberts, Fackler, DiMaio, etc- in addition to those named above) to rely upon if we wish to avail ourselves of it.

Sure, believe what you want.

 

[Nanuk]

Exactly what are the other physiological reasons people stop fighting? Are you contending that there are physiological reasons beyond disruption of the central nervous system by trauma, or breaking major skeletal support structures, or tissue damage causing sufficient blood loss to incapacitate?

That is not what I am saying at all.

Why do people stop fighting? Some lose the will to fight some lose the ability to fight. To rule out one because you cannot quantify in a laboratory it is just as wrong as cherry picking the results you want.

I am just saying that gelatin testing is oversimplification. It has its place to be sure, but I have yet to see it presented in such a manner as "This is what success looks like". It has been presented as an educated guess.

I am at the end of this debate. I am not a Doctor.

For my career I spent 26 years of as a street cop in some of the most violent areas in the country and I was also an NREMT on the street for 9 of those years. I know what works and what just makes people angry.

When I say that high energy round work, that is my opinion based on personal experience, not something I read somewhere. Marginal rounds are unpredictable performers on the street. The 38 special, 380 ACP, Standard velocity 9mm. When you bump the 9mm up in velocity it works quite well.

 

[481]

Exactly what are the other physiological reasons people stop fighting? Are you contending that there are physiological reasons beyond disruption of the central nervous system by trauma, or breaking major skeletal support structures, or tissue damage causing sufficient blood loss to incapacitate?

That is not what I am saying at all.

Actually, it is...

From page 5, post #124 of this thread:

Believe what you want. Your sig kinda says it all. A book about a test protocol to simulate what a bullet will do based on a mathematical formula in a water to equate to media that is used to simulate human tissue with no regard for any other physiological reason people stop fighting. Because that cannot be quantified in a lab.

The most reliable indicator is actual police shootings, but most departments are somewhat tight lipped about this data unless you have an inside source. Which is why I go back to high energy rounds being the most reliable fight stoppers.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Why do people stop fighting? Some lose the will to fight some lose the ability to fight. To rule out one because you cannot quantify in a laboratory it is just as wrong as cherry picking the results you want...

We know that many, perhaps even most, aggressors stop when shot because they choose to. They effectively give up. The real question is what will force the person physiologically to stop if he doesn't give up.

The following data from this study offers an interesting perspective on that question:

The assailants not incapacitated are the ones who can still hurt you.

And as Ellifritz says (emphasis added):

...Take a look at two numbers: the percentage of people who did not stop (no matter how many rounds were fired into them) and the one-shot-stop percentage. The lower caliber rounds (.22, .25, .32) had a failure rate that was roughly double that of the higher caliber rounds. The one-shot-stop percentage (where I considered all hits, anywhere on the body) trended generally higher as the round gets more powerful. This tells us a couple of things...

In a certain (fairly high) percentage of shootings, people stop their aggressive actions after being hit with one round regardless of caliber or shot placement. These people are likely NOT physically incapacitated by the bullet. They just don't want to be shot anymore and give up! Call it a psychological stop if you will. Any bullet or caliber combination will likely yield similar results in those cases. And fortunately for us, there are a lot of these "psychological stops" occurring. The problem we have is when we don't get a psychological stop. If our attacker fights through the pain and continues to victimize us, we might want a round that causes the most damage possible. In essence, we are relying on a "physical stop" rather than a "psychological" one. In order to physically force someone to stop their violent actions we need to either hit him in the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine) or cause enough bleeding that he becomes unconscious. The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this....

 

[SFsc616171]

Take the velocity/energy list of the following:

.45 long colt, nominal bullet weight 250 grain 750/312

.45 A.C.P., nominal bullet weight, 230 grain = 835/365

.38 Special, nominal bullet weight, 158 grain. = 800/199

You will find that the velocity is pretty close for all three.
However, it is the energy that will increase. For the numbers above alone, a lot of folks love and live by the .45ACP. A lot of us, like me, like the .38, because of the package size, and carry ability.

 

[Nanuk]

Frank,

The following data from this study offers an interesting perspective on that question

Great study, It coincides with what I have been saying. At least that is how I read it.

 

[Mello2u]

IMTHDUKE

Which is more important in ballistics?
In a defensive rd for a handgun which is more important to consider....muzzle velocity or muzzle energy?

IMTHDUKE Sets before us two different questions.
First there is the question "Which is more important in ballistics?"
Then there is the far different question "In a defensive rd for a handgun which is more important to consider....muzzle velocity or muzzle energy?"

The first presents a large area to consider because the question is so open ended. It needs to be more specific.

The second question is a bit more specific. At least it focuses on defensive rounds for handguns. This indicates to me that we are not discussing those handgun cartridges either too powerful or too weak to be considered "defensive" handgun cartridges. Also we are not to consider rifle or shotgun cartridges.

I think the second question is what IMTHDUKE meant for us to address.
We must keep in mind what the primary task of a "defensive" handgun cartridge is. The task or goal of a defensive" handgun cartridge is to incapacitate an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death as quickly as possible. To be successful, this cartridge must be fired from a handgun which the shooter will have on their person at the moment the threat is recognized which limits its size and weight. Further the defensive shooter must me able to competently respond to the imminent threat within a time frame that saves the shooter from great bodily harm or death which requires shooter awareness and skill.

As has been stated in this thread, what the projectile must do over 95% of the time to stop a threat is to cause bleeding to such an extent that the threat is incapacitated. Most of the time this bleeding is caused by crushed vascular tissue.

So we are not so much discussing external ballistics as we are anatomy and the destruction caused inside of the body by handgun projectiles which encounter various tissues at various velocities.

So in the context of elastic vascular tissue destruction, constrained within the parameters of "defensive" handgun cartridges; which is more important muzzle velocity or muzzle energy? We are still left with a great deal to consider. Muzzle energy is dependent upon muzzle velocity. One can not stand on its own. Each must be related to other factors such as bullet construction, bullet mass, diameter, sectional density, etc.

An interesting though exercise.

One thing to consider is that incapacitation due to bleeding takes time. This time frame is highly variable.