Caliber wars redux

[JLL101]

No one who seriously studies wound ballistics gives any merit at all to Marshall and Sanow. No one at IWBA. No one at FBI. Fackler doesn't. Roberts doesn't. You're free to believe what you wish, but M&S are not respected in their field.

First of all, I am no expert on ballistics. I read the popular gun magazines and use their advice to select my defensive ammo.

However, anytime someone uses such all inclusive terms as NO ONE or ALL I begin to question their how really knowledgeable they are on a subject. How do you know everyone one at IWBA or the FBI disrespects the complete conclusions put forth by M&S? Stated differently, are you saying the entire document or portions thereof? That is an amazing amount of knowledge. I commend you for being so knowledgeable. If you have documentation of this, I certainly would like to see it. I fully understand from various articles that the M&S findings have many critics but I have see portions of their work cited in respectable gun magazines and certainly, in my opinion, portions of their conclusions are somewhat consistent with controlled lab results relative to ammo effectiveness. For example their stopping power analysis compares somewhat with an article published last fall in The American Rifleman magazine.

 

[Hohn]

I'd stipulate that all generalizations are false.

If you want to dwell on the semantics and ignore the larger point, that's your prerogative.

M&S are not trained scientists. Not that it really matters, because one need NOT be a scientist to see the shortcomings of inferring conclusions from their data.

M&S being invalid for drawing conclusions does NOT mean that at times actual lab date won't agree with them. Certainly there are cases where M&S's "findings" agree with lab data.

But M&S would chalk up the Zimmerman case as an example of 100% one-shot stop, while several other M&S cases (like the case we saw on INGO where the kid took a bunch of 180gr Gold Dots AND .223 rounds to bring down) would say the .40 was a failure.

M&S don't distinguish between a 9mm straight to the heart and a .40 in the neck. Both are considered, under M&S, to be equally valid representations of the caliber's wounding effectiveness.

My readings on the matter indicate that professionals study the terminal ballistics independent of shot placement. Right or wrong, this is the practice-- study the terminal ballistics in isolation.


One MIGHT argue that the recoil impact of a hotter round negatively impacts shot placement, so we should lump in shot placement and just take M&S at face value.

The problem comes in accepting one uncontrolled variable and ignoring the hundreds of other uncontrolled variables in the M&S "data". How many possible variations are there to human body position, range, clothing, build of person who was shot, etc? Infinite seems to be the answer to me.

Too many other variables can determine the outcome of the event, and caliber is just one of MANY different factors.

This is why the M&S data is not held by industry pros to be valid. I see no basis to question the position of these professionals, so I throw my lot in with them.

If you want a little more info, Dr. Gary Roberts is one of the preeminent experts on wound ballistics terminal ballistics. He's active on m4carbine.net as "DocGKR" and you can see some of his inputs here:

Terminal Ballistic Information - M4Carbine.net Forums

He is the source of the "recommended duty loads' that's all over the internet: Service Pistol Duty and Self-Defense Loads by DocGKR - WeTheArmed.com


Finally, keep in mind that the main reason gun writers exist is to sell gun magazines.....

 

[JLL101]

If you want to dwell on the semantics and ignore the larger point, that's your prerogative..

Response predictable. Do you even know/understand the meaning of the word semantics? I choose to dwell on substantive information based on sources I trust not BS with minimal backup. Your choice of terms sounds good but, as usual, lack definitive backup. Are you suggesting I should not trust The American Rifleman? That seems almost like blasphemy.

 

[dirtfarmerz]

9 for me. It's what I know.
I liken it to Electricity.
The more Volts you have,
the less Amps you'll need.
Cause the eventuality in this debate is Power for Capacity.

LOL it's funny because when i first registered i was all into .45 ACP because i didn't know any better and thought it was greater than others. My how times have changed, im all about 9mm now.

I was a licensed electrician in my youth so I enjoyed the electrical analogy. In 2008/9 I purchased Kimber 1911's and in 2012 I purchased Beretta handguns and a few other 9mm's. I prefer the Beretta 8000 with 15 rounds of Hornady 135gr +P JHP. Remington 124gr +P JHP is also good ammo. 45 acp or 9mm, it's just about what you like to carry. I'll probably be selling some Kimbers soon.

 

[cedartop]

Response predictable. Do you even know/understand the meaning of the word semantics? I choose to dwell on substantive information based on sources I trust not BS with minimal backup. Your choice of terms sounds good but, as usual, lack definitive backup. Are you suggesting I should not trust The American Rifleman? That seems almost like blasphemy.

You said earlier, "respectable gun magazines", thats pretty funny.

Anyway, Hohn is mostly correct here. M&S's study is not that widely respected. Not that it really matters. The difference in effectiveness in the most common of the "duty" calibers is so small as to be a non-issue.

 

[Hohn]

Not that it really matters. The difference in effectiveness in the most common of the "duty" calibers is so small as to be a non-issue.

That's the bottom line. M&S would have you believe that their "data" proves that there is a difference that matters.

 

[JLL101]

You said earlier, "respectable gun magazines", thats pretty funny.

Anyway, Hohn is mostly correct here. M&S's study is not that widely respected. Not that it really matters. The difference in effectiveness in the most common of the "duty" calibers is so small as to be a non-issue.

So you too think that The American Rifleman and Guns and Ammo is "pretty funny"? But you, as others almost always do, provide no proof of this comment.

I have consistently stated that the M&S body of work is labeled by many who reference it as controversial but I have yet to read an article (including your post) that details and then documents the apparent serious flaws in the work. There must be such documents out there but in deference to my lack on willingness to become a ballistics expert I have not spent time tracking down such documents. Thus, I personally do not have an opinion about the M&S work as a whole. However, I have seen portions of their work cited in several articles over the years with the caveat that the work as a whole is "controversial". As stated earlier, I am no ballistics expert and have no desire to be one, thus I rely on publications that, to me, appear to be relatively mainstream.

Just based on my readings of the funny gun magazines, I agree with your comment about minimal performance differences in what you describe as duty ammo. However, I have no basis in knowledge to agree with any of your other comments irrespective of your listed credentials.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I have consistently stated that the M&S body of work is labeled by many who reference it as controversial but I have yet to read an article (including your post) that details and then documents the apparent serious flaws in the work.

Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow "Data Base": An Evaluation Over Time

Too Good to be True, Wishful Thinking?, The Best Defense

or if you want to get technical:

http://cds.cern.ch/record/1012843/files/0701266.pdf

M&S *may* be a reasonable comparison tool, but even its supporters in the academic world tend to see it as such and as inaccurate. In other words, the exact percentages are almost certainly wrong, but the relative differences between them might be right if you believe the underlying data and method used. If you don't believe in the underlying data and method (and obviously many don't), then the whole thing is borderline useless.