Your statement is ridiculous.
I typically follow the guidance suggested in the link below:
Thoughts on Service Pistols, along with Duty and Self-Defense Ammo Recommendations - M4Carbine.net Forums
This is an interesting video:
9mm vs .45 vs Rifle A Dr's View of Gunshot Wounds - YouTube
I'm just the messenger.
Even though I am a "heavy for caliber" kinda guy, none of the loads on this list look like an idiotic suggestion to me:
Barnes XPB 115 gr JHP (copper bullet)
Federal Tactical 124 gr JHP (LE9T1)
Federal HST 124 gr +P JHP (P9HST3)
Remington Golden Saber 124 gr +P JHP bonded (GSB9MMD)
Speer Gold Dot 124 gr JHP
Speer Gold Dot 124 gr +P JHP
Winchester Partition Gold 124 gr JHP (RA91P)
Winchester Ranger-T 124 gr +P JHP (RA9124TP)
Winchester Ranger Bonded 124 gr +P JHP (RA9BA)
Winchester Ranger-T 127 gr +P+ JHP (RA9TA)
Federal Tactical 135 gr +P JHP (LE9T5)
Federal HST 147 gr JHP (P9HST2)
Remington Golden Saber 147 gr JHP (GS9MMC)
Speer Gold Dot 147 gr JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 147 gr JHP (RA9T)
Winchester 147 gr bonded JHP (RA9B/Q4364)
Barnes XPB 155 gr JHP (copper bullet)
Speer Gold Dot 155 gr JHP
Federal Tactical 165 gr JHP (LE40T3)
Winchester Ranger-T 165 gr JHP (RA40TA)
Winchester Partition Gold 165 gr JHP (RA401P)
Federal HST 180 gr JHP (P40HST1)
Federal Tactical 180 gr JHP (LE40T1)
Remington Golden Saber 180 gr JHP (GS40SWB)
Speer Gold Dot 180 gr JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 180 gr JHP (RA40T)
Winchester 180 gr bonded JHP (RA40B/Q4355/S40SWPDB1)
Barnes XPB 185 gr JHP (copper bullet)
Federal HST 230 gr JHP (P45HST2)
Federal HST 230 gr +P JHP (P45HST1)
Federal Tactical 230 gr JHP (LE45T1)
Speer Gold Dot 230 gr JHP
Speer Gold Dot 230 gr +P JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 230 gr JHP (RA45T)
Winchester Ranger-T 230 gr +P JHP (RA45TP)
I'd carry anyone of these and feel just fine about it.
I do have a master's degree in physics. However since ballisticians likely have similar education to mine and work solely in the field at hand I will leave ammo designing up to them.
If we all ran fmj or hard cast ammo then the F = ma and K = 1/2mv ^2 argument would be hard to refute. However once we introduce things like expansion into the mix, the topic quickly goes beyond a standardized physics debate.
I personally just stick to the well respected and reviewed speer gold dots most of the time. The exception being pdx 1 in my j frame.
sent via iCarry
It's amazing to me how many people throw this dispersion around on Marshal and Sanow. Do you have a source,(facts) to back this claim up?
From Evan Marshall's website: " The one thing I've been disappointed with is the feeble attacks by those individuals from the wrong side of the tracks. Their "research" has involved efforts such as calling the Homicide Section of the Detroit Police Department and asking the individual who answered if they knew Evan Marshall. When that unknown individual responded that he had never heard of me, they considered that "proof" that I had never worked there. The problem with this simple-minded approach is that any number of readers, editors, other writers, and friends had called me there on a number of occasions. Additionally, there are a number of files there with my name on them as the officer in charge.
Another individual from the wrong side of the tracks wrote a critical review of HSP. In it he listed all my criteria for including my shooting in my statistical base and then started to dispute some Glaser shootings. This is at best sloppy and at worst deceptive. Readers can search HSP&SS and not find a single Glaser or Mag Safe incident, which included the actual shooting database. One of the wrong side of the tracks gang saw me sitting in the Cor Bon booth at a Shot Show years ago and took that as proof that I was a paid consultant for Cor Bon. I reserve the right to visit with friends and if this same person had followed me, he would surmised I was also a paid consultant for Remington, Federal, Winchester, etc. Besides, I'm curious why that when the gang from the wrong side of the tracks do consulting work it's an honorable effort, but the thought of me doing it compromises my objectivity and in their eyes destroys my credibility. Again, if this is best they can do I'm not impressed.
I find it curious that they constantly whine that nobody has seen my database. What they are really saying is they haven't. A number of years ago I got a letter from one of the lads from the wrong side of the tracks saying that they thought my shooting results for 9MM 115gr jhp +P+ were fraudulent based on the fact they would not penetrate 12" in their beloved 10% gelatin. When I sent this individual 10 autopsy reports where these loads had averaged between 16-18" penetration in people, the response was to ignore it. I especially find the complaint about not publishing the sources for the data curious, since when one of their own was collecting data on actual shootings for a police publication, the "what's the source for this data crowd" were strangely silent. I guess it depends on agendas not the search for the truth.
Additionally, there have been individuals who have sent e-mail to the various servers claiming to be me and asking that this web page be removed from their directory. Such individuals are the worst kind of cowards. If this is as fraudulent as they claim it is they should be anxious to see it available as it should collapse like a house of cards.
A special thanks to a select group of people around the world know informally as "Evans Marshal's." These individuals have supplied data at great personal risk and I deeply appreciate their efforts."
The Marshall & Sanow "Data" - Statistical Analysis Tells the Ugly Story
M&S have been debunked (statistical manipulation, see underlined quote text below) by M. van Maanen, D. MacPherson, and M.L. Fackler.
The statistical analysis cited above states:
That the second set of results came out to later confirm the M&S study in the way that they did (and as perfectly as they did) in M&S's second book is a highly unlikely 1 to 3,246,000,000,000.Quote:
The "case probability sum" 62 increases example used above is the actual result for the comparison of the 1988 to 1992 Marshall & Sanow "data sets". From Table 1, the equivalent probability for the 1992 to 1996 Marshall & Sanow "data sets" comparison is about 4.29 (10)-6. The probability that both of these results would be obtained by chance is calculated by multiplying the two individual probabilities, which gives a combined probability of about 3.25 (10)^-13; this is about 1 in 3 trillion or 1 in 3 million million.
Like it or not, the M&S study's data was manipulated. It's results are an outright fabrication.
As I have posted in lots of places including here, when I run out of my Stock of Cor-Bon DPX I am moving to Winchester Ranger T's in all of my pistol calibers with the heaviest bullet that is sold. They are street proven and cost way less than the Cor-Bon Bullits.
I have read this study before & it for me anyway trumps all other "stopping power" studies.
Clearly there is no magic caliber there is no magic make of bullet.
It all comes down to making center hits. Some times again & again irrgardless of the caliber or the chosen load.
We could not have been given better advice.
Theory & engineering are the sizzle for caliber choice. LE statistics for stops are...the steak.
Best Choices for Self Defense Ammo
"More information from Doctor Roberts: "With few exceptions, such as the Speer 135 gr +P JHP and Barnes XPB, the vast majority of .38 Sp JHP's fail to expand when fired from 2" barrels in the 4 layer denim test. [...]"
Thanks for sharing, Wiggity!
As always, it doesn't matter what caliber or pressure ammunition you are shooting. Put as many on center mass as it takes to stop the threat.
Some test data on page two of this article:
Handgun Stopping Power: Sizing Up Your Options