In my last CCW class, I had somebody talk about the famous “Marshall & Sanow One Shot Stop Statistics” and about how this student was going to use a 97% round instead of a 92% round.
Okay, if you aren’t familiar with these, basically these two guys, Marshall & Sanow, supposedly looked at a ton of actual shootings, where people had been shot once in the torso with a bullet, and then they measured what percentage of those resulted in an immediate stop, i.e. immediate cessation of hostile action.
Then they published their work, and all bullets were rated. Immediately, people who were not given to critical thinking, accepted these percentages as gospel, and you could hear people arguing at gunshows and on the interweb about how they’re more tactically saavy because their handgun load was a 94% stopper, while yours was a meager 82% stopper.
Over time the flaws in this stuff became apparent, and luckily we don’t have to hear about it as often as we used to. But it still pops up once in awhile.
Let’s break this down as to why this idea is massively flawed. First, assuming that their data was not fabricated (because of lot of the shootings weren’t documented by anybody other than them), this wasn’t exactly scientific data. It wasn’t like they lined up 300 death row prisoners, shot each one in the chest with a different brand of .45 and then watched the clock until they quit kicking. Supposedly these were incidents from actual gun fights.
And since gun fights by their nature are fluid, dynamic, and always suck, we can also assume that they’re going to be different. To illustrate:
Shooting 1: Subject is 105 pounds, soaking wet. Pacifist. Faints at the sight of his own blood. His book club calls him “Todd.” Has never been in a violent encounter in his entire life. Plays Barbara Streisand records to get “charged up”. Gets shot in the abdomen with a Brand X .32. Bullet lodges in the belly button. Barely breaks skin. Subject faints because of loud noise. .32 Brand X = 100% stopper.
Shooting 2: Subject is 310 pounds of prison hardened muscle. Has a spider web tattooed over his whole face, and his friends call him “Death Train”. Subject 2 is high on coke, crack, meth, elephant tranquilizers, No-Doze, and Cherry Pepsi. While robbing a bank during a tri-state killing spree, Subject 2 engages in a running gun fight with police and is shot through the lung with a Brand Y .45. Subject 2 then carjacks a busload of handicapped nuns to escape. Later has friend who flunked out of Vet School remove the bullet with a pair of barbeque tongs. Subject 2 then goes to 50 Cent concert. Brand Y .45 = 0% stopper.
So from this illustration, you are far better off carrying the Brand X .32 than the Brand Y .45.
Now obviously, that is flawed, because of the nature of the subjects. Death Train and Todd are not equivalent in any way. Death Train would EAT Todd. However, they’re both people that got shot in the torso with a single round, therefore they are valid M&S stats.
Then you’ve got people shot in the heart vs. those shot in the gut. Both bad, but one is usually fatal in a matter of seconds by the basic facts of biology. However, both are one shot stops. So if the guy carrying an inferior round, is a better shot, that round gets a better percentage.
And then my personal favorite, they disregard multiple shots. Because if you shoot the guy twice, then that doesn’t count. I don’t know about you guys, but anybody worth shooting is worth shooting five to seven times. I’m not going to shoot the guy once, and then wait around to see what percentile he falls into. My gun is going to sound like a friggin’ jackhammer until he decides to leave me the hell alone.
Once again, before you jump onto any Gun World bandwagon, exercise a little critical thinking.
70 thoughts on “"One Shot Stop" Handgun statistics, and why they're a load of crap”
I haven’t heard someone go on about one shot stop percentages since I played Airsoft, and even there they were generally shouted down by the more sensible “shoot him till he stops moving” crowd.
Larry, Larry, you crack me up! I don’t know how many times I have heard people try to cite this rubbish as fact. Thanks for spelling it out for them – and giving me something to chuckle about in the process.
Your shooting examples are hilarious, particularly #2. Well done!
I don’t know…
“… goes to a 50 Cent concert.”
“My gun is going to sound like a friggin’ jackhammer…”
Both absolutely priceless, but the latter contains great advice.
Now thats just funny I sent it to my non-gun friends and they thought it was hilarious as well.
With enough data, the Todd vs. Death Train would even out.. The real problem is ignoring all multiple hit encounters–Imagine if the data were IPSC and IDPA champions vs. noncompetitive license holders. The champions do near-perfect Mozambique drills on their attackers, while the ordinary people spray and pray. The champions would wind up with no one-shots…
If you read there book they do put that info in, they don’t ignore it it’s just another category
The worst of Marshal & Sanow’s so-called data is that it doesn’t seem to take into account where in the torso the bullet struck, what angle it entered, how deeply it penetrated, etc.
Obviously all of these are critical factors. A wound through the side of the abdomen is less critical than a wound through the heart.
There are too many variables to predict with any certainty how a person will react when shot with a given handgun round. Far too many variables. Any attempt to make such a prediction, muchless assign percentages to every handgun round, is utter nonsense.
Just curious – where were the torso hits by YOUR favorite cartridge in this race, and how many shooting samples are you going by? Or are you going to have to say that you own opinion is even worse nonsense? At any rate, no one can say you are letting too many variables go by you!
THANK YOU. Geez.
Yes, some people just don’t understand that correlation != causation.
I laughed so hard at the Death Train one that I choked. Was awesome.
So where do I purchase this brand x 32 round?! 100 % stops, eh? NICE!
Indeed sir, indeed. Mozambique, .5-1 second evaluation time, repeat. Ah screw it, empty magazine center mass, reload, repeat as necessary. Do the perps in Miami or Hollywood ring a bell?
Or, how about the Arab drill instead of the Mozambique? Start at the crotch and work your way up.
That works, but shooting a guy in the ding dong is just wrong unless he’s raw dogging your mom or something.
As I’ve said before, the only way any defensive shooting my easily-panicked self is involved in would count towards the “OSS stats” is if the dude fell over so fast from the first round that the other half-dozen in the air behind it sailed right over him.
Well, they make the determination during the autopsy. You knew that, didn’t you? :o)
Yes, the database for M&S was scant and used to make generic conclusions and those conclusions have been overblown by many writers to promote one caliber or bullet type over another. However, before M&S there was even less of a database on how shootings played out, and many writers over-hyped THAT lack of information to promote one caliber or bullet type over another.
Let’s give M&S credit for what they did: an honest, good-faith study, using the best available data, on some of the factors that affect how best to stop someone by using a handgun.
Theories of “stopping power” might posit that success will come with small fast projectiles, or large slower projectiles, or expanding projectiles, or fragmenting projectiles, or certain colors for the primer, or shooting during only one phase of the moon. The old “Box of Truth” website shows one test for these theories. Shooting ballistic gelatin is another test method. Shooting domestic or game animals is another way to test.. Shooting cadavers is another. Uses of the bullet type in the real world, accumulated as anecdotal information, is not really good data, but it is interesting information. And accumulating as much detailed data on real world shootings to allow statistical analysis for valid comparisons is yet another test of the theories. M&S made a big stride forward in that last test method. That their results are misused for hype is neither their fault nor was it their purpose.
I ascribe to the real estate maxim of value depending on “Location, location, location,” for both housing and shooting. I also agree (as I was taught in my CHL class in Texas) that one should “shoot to stop” an attacker, not necessarily to kill. If stopping an attack takes multiple shots or hits in multiple locations, that is the number of times I hope I would shoot, and the number of shots I plan on taking.
I don’t think their research time or efforts were wasted. Some of the data involves non-trivial amounts of shootings for a particular load, such as 125 gr. .357. Obviously spine/heart shots will work fastest, assuming minimal energy, but including off-center hits gives some idea of the relative differences in effect of penetration, expansion and energy. But to use their numbers for sole criteria would be folly, particularly for calibers with low-numbered events.
My feeling is this-if 9mm is very nearly as statistically effective as other chamberings, but 1/2 the cost in practice and allows significantly more ammunition in the gun, my choice was obvious. All that’s left for their research was guide me to the best 9mm factory offering for carry.
Law Dog had a couple of good stories, one of which involved a thug brandishing a .25 auto to encourage some rival thugs to leave “his” nightclub. They left, and our hero was so impressed with himself that he twirled the gun forward, twirled the gun backward, and, with a flourish, shoved it back into his pants, where it discharged, perforating Mr Happy and one of the “boys”, and probably rendering the other one as collateral damage.
One shot, and down he went.
As Law Dog put it, “I will never again disparage the one-shot stopping power of the .25 auto.”
Just remember, guys: Location, location, location.
I used to really enjoy taking people out to the range to shoot a bowling pin after enduring the old, “One round of brand X ammo will knock a perp twelve feet through the air, step on his neck, take his wallet, have it’s way with his women and WRECK HIS RIDING LAWN MOWER!”
Yeah. They usually barely knocked a bowling pin off the table.
Assuming of course that the “expert” could even hit the pin with the vaunted cartridge.
Their method would be valid if they had enough incidents to average out who was hit and where, like say 1000 shootings for each ammo type.
You had me at Cherry Pepsi.
“I don’t know about you guys, but anybody worth shooting is worth shooting five to seven times.”
My rule is simple: if the gun ain’t empty, I should still be shooting. Helps in court, too:
Prosecuter: “How many times did you shoot the deceased?”
me: “I think it was three times”
Prosecuter: “Then why did the coroner find 16 holes in him?”
me: “Well, I was scared, and not really paying attention to how many times I shot”
It’s my understanding that police also make this mistake in court: claiming a handful of shots, when they actually went for slide-lock…
As the Death-Train story shows, we need more contorl over the evil Cherry Pepsi, It was the critical factor that enabled him to shrug off the devistating 45 round.
Just my 2 cents 😀
Posts like these remind me of why I keep coming back to your blog – that was great!
I’d swear that one of Evan Marshall’s old signature lines said
” One shot stop is a statistic, not a philosophy” but it might have been someone else from his site,
Also this discussion reminds me of why I liked the Idea of the five seven, I figured 20 shots on target were better than two wings and five near misses.
As has already been stated, citing one example in an attempt to discredit a statistic that involves a rather large sample size is worthless.
However, the item you gave very little attention to (the fact that the stats ignore multiple shot incidents) is the one that actually does reduce the value of the figures.
Simply put, if you toss out all the incidents where the person was shot multiple times you are automatically throwing out the data from times when that second (or third, etc) shot was necessary to stop the bad guy.
On the surface it seems somewhat reasonable to exclude multiple shot instances since there’s no real way of knowing if the additional shots were needed or just done out of training or fear. Yes, some of them would have added to the one-shot-stop category. Then again, some of them would have been a tick mark in the didn’t-git-er-done side. The problem is that you don’t know which one any particular event would have been.
THAT’s what makes the charts invalid, not the two scenarios you gave. Those would be minimized in the averaging process. That’s why we have averages, after all, to reduce the impact of the data that falls outside the normal range.
Geeze … I remember when .32 ACP was considered capable of killing. Even if you are going the hammer-of-god route, I would suggest:
Aiming at something the perp can’t live without.
Shooting until empty … then reload … if perp still moves, keep shooting.
I always figured that rounds that have slow follow up shots would get better “only one shot fired during the encounter” stats then rounds that allow for more follow up shots.
I can’t imagine many folks double tap .357 from an airweight, but three rounds of 9mm from a Glock is a snap.
eah, nice blog. I just read this article, the onf of handguns vs shotguns vs carbines, and … favorited your blog. so, yeah i agree, handguns at all, are a bunch of crap.
and Cherry Pepsi.
There oughta be a law!
Just remember boys and girls, a handgun is something you have with you when you suddenly discover you should have gotten the shotgun out of the trunk.
And if anyone wants to borrow that line, you may. It’s mine.
Yep. I mostly carry a chromed .25 loaded with Glasers. Keeps me humble, as I am embarrassed to pull it. And I keep a couple of mags in my shirt pocket, like Tic-Tacs. Takes the worry out of being close.
I’ll shoot til they stop twitching. Then a couple more times, Just to be sure. Hey, I’ve seen all those movies.
Of course, the 10mm Colt I sometimes carry, full of Hydrashoks, well, okay, he only gets two. Those suckers are expensive.
In 1994 two friends of mine where shot in the head during same incident with a .25.one friend hit once died instantly…second friend hit 5 times…fine. There really is no logic to a shooting and its effects but I suppose keep shooting the bad guy is as good a philosophy as any.As an aside the shootings where in U.K.
The “One shot stop” info is a great example of why “the plural of anecdote is not data.”
There really is no scientific validity to their methodology and having the results expressed as percentage points justs confuses the issue by making the info look like it’s scientifically valid when it really is just a mildly interesting look at certain shootings.
And don’t even get me started on, as Dean Speir put it once, “Those goddawm goats.”
REALITY CHECK!!!!!! You are talking about this topic like your knowledge on the subject is at the forefront of everything. Let’s be realistic here…how many of you have indured an ARMED encounter where lives were at stake?(YOURS).One where someone lost their life? Reality is this: All of the plated parts, fancy tactical special holster of the week, and oh yes, those magic bullets that are 110% proven to provide one shot stops go right out the window….at that moment what matters most….and actually takes over the confrontation is the TRAINING AND PRACTICE that took place prior to the situation. 96% or 92% or 1%, one well placed shot by a confident shooter will fair well in many instances.Get outside, shoot your guns, teach others to shoot guns. Pass this sport or passion in some cases, along while we still can legally do so.
M. I don’t know if you’re reality checking me or somebody else that’s posted, but if you’re reality checking me, and chiding me to go teach people or something, you might want to back up a smidgen and see what I do for a living.
Armed encounter. Check.
Lives at stake. Check.
Somebody lost their life. Nope, son of a bitch decided to surrender. Problem solved. 🙂
Teaching people: I’ve got a 35 person CCW class starting in 45 minutes. I’m the teacher.
And I’ve got another class on Monday, and two on Tuesday.
I’m not sure that you have actually read the Stopping Power series of books. However, your over-simplification of their work and snide comments that cast doubt on their honesty doesn’t make you seem terribly bright. I know that you are a gun dealer and teach CCW classes, but what does that really mean? You passed an ATF background check and completed a 16-hour instructor class?
Agree or disagree with Marshall’s work, the fact of the matter is he is a retired Detroit homicide sergeant. He spent years on the toughest streets in the nation and won more gunfights than any one person should have to face. Because he has actually been there, he only interest is in finding out what works.
Surviving a single armed encounter where some coward surrendered to you doesn’t gift you with any special knowledge…I’ve had three of those this week alone. Get out here at the ‘pointy’ end of life and learn a few things before running your trap.
But then again, should any of us be taking advice from a guy who drops his wife’s gun on the floor of a grocery store because he is really rushing to get batteries for his X-Box controller? Seriously.
Richard, I’m sorry that I’m just a regular dude, and not a bad ass snake-eating operator. I’m also man enough to admit when I do something wrong, or stupid, like dropping my gun. I’m sure a badmotorfinger gunslinger such as yourself has never made a mistake like that!
On the other hand, I don’t need to be a badass gunslinger to read M&S and apply a tiny bit of critical thinking to it to realize that it is deeply and fundamentally flawed.
I don’t care of Marshall and Sanow are really Jack Bauer and Dick Marcinko and they’ve killed the entire population of North Korea twice over. That doesn’t make them statisticians. The one shot stop data sucks.
And rather than point out my flaws (which I’m the very first to admit, because though I work with legions of “cool guys” I’m basically a cake-eating civillian accountant who happens to really like guns) why don’t you point out where I’m wrong about M&S methods?
I once had the pleasure of trying to stay awake in a seminar given by Evan Marshall on the “one-stop shot.” Everyone went out and bought Cor-Bon 95 grain 9mm after that.
Anyone want to comment on Martin Fackler?
I find it interesting that many individuals looks at the data and assume it means the authors recommend using X-caliber and shooting the aggressor one time. I understand that the study does not cover a lot of situations and may ignore others. I suppose someone could try and do a study that tries to establish how many times you should shoot an aggressor with every available caliber. That way you could decide what caliber to use based on how much ammo you can carry. You could look at the data as under W circumstance, Y occurred at Z rate.
The plan is obviously to shoot until the aggression stops. However if we look at actual shootings, we can see that people do not always hit what they are shooting at, especially under the stress of mortal combat. In the Miami-Dade Shootout, the good guys fired 70+ rounds and scored 18 hits. What does that mean, intentions aside we may only hit the aggressor one or two times. Based on that, I want my hits to be as effective as possible. So, while 7 hits from a .25 ACP may prove fatal I’d prefer not to have to depend on my hitting a moving target 7 times while it is trying to cause me major harm. I would also hate to think about where the rounds that did not hit ended up. Given these factors I believe you should carry the most effective round you can shoot accurately. Then hopefully if I did have to fire multiple rounds to end an encounter I might only have to discharge 3-4 rounds to end things rather than 8-10.
So in that context, I feel that 65 shootings where an aggressor was hit once in the torso with X-load and 40 of stopped their actions has application. Because to date I have not heard of gelatin molds reeking much havoc in people’s lives.
I just came across this during an ammo search.
I’m not a specialist, just your everyday Neveda CCW gun nut.
Back in the late 70’s, a friend of mine was shot basically point blank, within 6 feet, 6 times with a .357 in the torso while he was sleeping in bed. (He survived. Don’t ask how because even he doesn’t know.)
He was hit in vital areas and was listed pretty much dead when brought in, and spent close to a year in the hospital recuperating
Was the first shot the stopper? If so, why didn’t 6 shots kill him? I don’t know what type of ammo / loads were used, but they were commercial. We think he survived due to a strong will to live, and get even.
– – – – – – –
This doesn’t really go with the discussion except that what correia45 said was valid in the scope of things. Caliber and type of ammo are factors. So are many other things.
Size, weight, body conditioning, etc. are factors. Besides the “drug crazed” scenario he presented, there is also natural frame of mind.
How do guys break a stack of bricks with their bare hand? Would a bullet affect their hand like it would the average guy on the street?
As noted in this thread, there are so many variables that any scientific study is pretty much still guesstimation. You can use pig flesh, ballistic gel, phone books or whatever for tests, but if you haven’t faced a PO’d wild boar that had a death wish, and your kill shot ended in the “crap sack” via the throat, all the technical stuff is worthless.
Stopping power is relative – whattya got and what are ya stopping?
– – – – – – –
All I know is that as a civilian, I have never had to use my weapon in a situation, and I hope I never will. But if I do, the “Jackhammer Rule” wil probably apply. And the bigger, the better.
– – – – –
Jesus mught love a .45, but God made the Garand!
Thanks for the info you give out correia45…
Now I know who NOT to ask about ammo info and that ‘who’ is you correia45…
Folks, I’ll share that many years ago, when I thought I knew something, I carried an ancient 5-shot .38 S&W-short revolver. Now, many years later, and yes after having read M&S and other relevant material I realize they’re not attempting to preach about any magic bullet, rather, they recommend relevant training and carrying street worthy gun(s) & ammo combos. I now carry three or four handguns, minimum 47 rounds of ammo and pray the Gods I’ll never have to use any of what I know.
Working as a sometimes armed guard I’m forced by company policy to carry a 4″.38 while in uniform. The REAL secret to understanding M&S’s info is to understand survival strategy.
PS: I sometimes have a 5.56 rifle available also : )
Time to add my two cents. Nobody has all the answers. I have spent over 20 years in law enforcement, worked major case and spent 7 years as a full time firearms instructor. It comes down this; If a modern hollow point bullet is propelled fast into soft tissues it will be successfull despite of caliber. If the bullet is slowed down by distance, excessive clothing ect. ….then the biggest bullet / hole wins. Spray and pray only works when you are close enough or lucky enough to hit something vital. Sanow and Marshall’s concept wasn’t necessarily wrong but there are not enough properly documented shootins to quantify their study. In other words….they made judgements they didn’t have stats to back up.
I read the above. Lots of good comments. I would argue that M&S is a useful data point. All cartirdges are compared equally as far as possible I think, I don’t see any advantage for any cartridge or class of cartridges. Yes, someone should start a multishot study that looks at all the variables (as many as you want). I bet the results come out very similar and there will be plenty of critics for that study too 🙂
I have 19 years in law enforcement (2 in Detroit, including 2 shootings) and over 10 years as a firearm instructor and I have done numerous ballistic tests for various ammunition selections. In court I am qualified as a balistics expert…although one thing I am NOT is an expert in statistics, even with my bachelor degree in math.
I think the author of this blog, and several of the posts here, has missed that point of the Marshall work that flawed numbers do not necessarily mean the study doesn’t have value.
Instead of looking at the percents as some form of absolutes or guarantees of stopping power, I believe they can be VERY valuable as a single piece of a bigger puzzle in compairing rounds vs rounds. Ignore the idea that X round can stop 97% of the time, and instead look at the value that X round, stops more frequently than Y round at 44%. I’m not even saying that X stops more than twice as often than Y (even though 97% vs 44% would seem to sugest that), but just that it has a greater stop potential.
Using this as “a piece of the puzzle”, you can combine that with things such as: recoil and follow up shot, energy, bullet diameter, test expansion, accuracy, etc.
I’m just pissed M&S didn’t include my TC Contender chambered in 50 BMG,
If I had one. Which I don’t. Dammit.
So you’re citing TWO hypothetical examples of “one shot stop” and stating that is the equivalent of researching a few years worth of gunfights where only one hit was needed. Congrats! You’re the genius that everyone overlooked!
Tim has it right. Whether M&S’ conclusions are valid is ONLY a matter of the statistical sampling. Ie: If large enough samples were offered and the use of samples is unbiased and sufficiently random, it could ABSOULTELY be the most definitive statement on stopping power available or even the most humanly POSSIBLE.
These are actual events from the real world he’s talking about here, folks…!
With a large enough random sample, the individual differences comprising those who were shot would even out.
I realize that this is difficult to wrap one’s head around if you’ve never had any experience with statistics but I assure you that this is the whole POINT of statistical sampling.
For example, what sized random sample would I need to get within a 5% margin of error for some outcome based on a population of 300 million people?
Answer: Less than 2,000. Samples of 1500 – 2000 is LARGER than most Gallup polls use for the entire Unites States.
So the only question here is: How good are his samples – are they large enough? Are they sufficiently random? etc…
So while correia’s comments are amusing, they are not particularly useful.
A hard look at M&S’ samples and methods would be.
Valid statistical sampling? Well, I’m glad I can be amusing but not useful, but why don’t you think this through critically. Maybe it is because I was an auditor, but my first question is going to be how many people actually get shot in America? Second question, how many get shot one time in the torso? Third, how many get shot with each of the brand/bullet weights in the M&S study? Over the time frame, #1 is in the tens of thousands, #2 is going to get down into the hundreds. #3 is going to take that down to a handful. Anybody with half a brain can look at that statistical representation and laugh.
So I would say your comment on this several year old blog post, while amusing, isn’t very useful. :p
Well, I was all ready to launch a defence of the M&S OSS data as at the least a useful reference point among many. . . then I decided to not make a fool of myself based on my now 15 year old impression of the OSS, and that from a magazine artical I don’t recall reading. In an attempt to locate the actual tables from the OSS reports so that I could apply some common sense in deciding if the results published jived with my perceptions (ie if they listed a .22lr as outperforming .44Mag JHP, then the data would be suspicious at best), I instead found this very interesting article, which if accurate cast serious dispersion on the M&S work having any accuacy or value at all. (In fact it suggests it’s a fabrication and explains how).
Having read the article in the above link I think we can put this debate to bed. . . though for fun we could then debate the veracity of the above article of course.
Reblogged this on RealDefense.
Reblogged this on disturbeddeputy and commented:
It has been found that a person shot with a .22LR tends to avoid a repeat of the experience. Now, I love my .45ACP, but I’ll shoot what is close at hand. The French experimented by shooting live goats back in the 80’s and if you can find that data, you’ll see that not everything that is supposed to be a ‘One Shot Stop’ really is. I think a GE minigun probably provides a ‘one burst stop’ every time, but other than that “Bigger is better, but placement is everything!”
Monster, the reason their statistics were given credence was because they were not citing one x and one y to draw their conclusions, they used many, many instances of x and y to draw on for their findings. That’s why they did not conclue that a .32 auto was better protection than a .45 acp. I’d like to see you try to refute their findings yourself. Seriously, though! Collect data from police shootings yourself. Not from 1 or 2 shootings like your example would do, but a few years worth. And change the criteria to include double taps and “2 to the chest and 1 to the head” like I was taught to engage a single gunman when I was attending the police academy. I’m sure you can obtain more accurate ratings than they did, but as it stands you said nothing to refute their findings. Sorry I disagree with your statement, but you could convince me (and many others, I’m sure) if you draw your opinion from actual data that backs you up.
First off, my name isn’t Monster. My name is Larry Correia. I’m best known for being a writer, but if you want my resume as it relates to gun related things, see the article on this blog called An Opinion On Gun Control. It is one of the most widely read pro-gun articles ever written. So yeah, not super impressed by your having attended the police academy. If you think that is some sort of appeal to authority, then you don’t know much about my average readership.
Second, this blog post is like 6 years old. Thank goodness in that time, even fewer people are still quoting these percentages.
Third, I don’t need to come up with better statistics, because you kind of missed the point. Any stats you come up with using their criteria will be by nature bullshit, because shooting people isn’t exactly a laboratory environment. Any list you generate is going to be bullshit. Passing said list off to the gullible as being some sort of reliable indicator would also be bullshit.
Fourth, my goal isn’t to convince anybody of the superiority of X over Y, my goal was to point out that anybody who regurgitates percentiles for one cartridge over another, is repeating nonsense.
Larry just got an early visit from the Christmas Troll!
David, that was not an example of trolling. That was a fairly respectful and calm disagreement. (Yeah, it’s weird that it was on such an old article, but whatever.) If you think that’s trolling, you clearly haven’t been on the internet very long.
(And don’t read my comment as any sort of response to the article itself, as I am in no way qualified to even have an opinion on that subject. How words are used, however, I do feel a little qualified to speak on. And you used “troll” wrong.)
Random dude on the internet resurrects a SIX YEAR OLD post, to not so politely inform Larry that “He is doing it wrong” classifies, in MY book, as a sub species of “concern” Troll.
If it looks like a troll, sounds like a troll, makes the same style arguments as a troll…..its probably not a duck.
That said, please fell free to believe in your own, just as valid, personal opinion.
God bless your heart.
Thank you for responding so politely, David.
M&S paper and supporting tables of data, is actually about whether pressure waves can contribute to fatality and or incapcitation of a living being. It is a study on the effects of pressure spikes in the fluids of living bodies caused by impacts with high energy projectiles. The primary function of the paper was an attempt at enabling LE and military to predict statistically what the effect of a given ammunition would be to enable these organisations to select and develope effective ammunition, without having to test ALL the ammunition available at selection time. Their research has narrowed the testing sets for these organisations radically and is VERY succesful at reducing the costs of ammunition and projectile testing.
The much maligned tables comparing calibres and loads are actually the research’s empirical data set, and is used to corrilate the statistics prediction against real world data. M&S themselves say that the data is not to be used for direct comparison between loads.
Just a thought – Read the actual work, before you respond, maybe?
Finally someone who actually read the damn thing, which I have and use only as a starting point in ammo selection.
Look guys you’re overlooking the real reason behind these stats. This data is designed to give you a starting point to make an informed decision as to which load or loads to look at for carry in your particular firearm in your chosen caliber. It was not designed or intended to be taken as gospel. To just dismiss this data out of hand is kind of foolish. Just use a little common sense. As an example I keep watching so called experts, I.E. shooting instructors and cops around the country. advocating the use of FMJ ammo in .380 auto. Their reasoning for this, the FBI requirements for duty ammo. HOG WASH!!! Those standereds were set for duty ammo not personnel defense, FMJs will over penetrate almost every time PERIOD ! Pick a round with a hollow point that is designed to expand at the velocities you will see in your weapon and will function reliably. I carry a .380 stoked with CorBon 90 gr +P, CorBon Powerball or Glaser Safety Slugs. What causes fast incapacitation? Extreme energy dump in the vitals, meaning a hollow point that expands reliably and quickly enough to create as large a temporary stretch cavity as possible without fragmenting which means 8 to 12 inches of penetration for self defense. Which causes a hydro static shock wave that ruptures organs and blood vessels that cause rapid blood loss that causes rapid blood pressure drop which causes incapacitation. This is scientific fact not conjecture, ask a trauma surgeon I did. By the way who gives a fart in a whirlwind what angle the shot entered the target if one or two shots stopped the fight. It’s one thing to be thorough but now your just being an ass to justify your pet theory.
those two walked the walk on the streets – you have not
And that makes them statisticians? No. And what about the thousands of other gun nut firearms experts who “walked the streets” also think these discredited stats are bunk? Respect for doing the job, but being smart at one thing doesn’t make you an expert at something else.