FBI Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness

[sgb]

It's amazing to me how many people throw this dispersion around on Marshal and Sanow.

{SNIP}

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."

M&S were merely attempting to establish a metric of measurement, they never advocated one shot stops.

HORSE HOCKEY

Sure. Here you go-

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.

Like it or not, the M&S study's data was manipulated. It's results are an outright fabrication.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[481]

Thanks, sgb.

I am sure that you've also noticed that nobody has ever bothered to refute the findings of these three separate, independent investigations into the debauch of M&S.

The reason: even a first year statistics major can see that the data has been tampered with.

[Kilowatt3]

Awesome article based on pure fact...

You're kidding, right???

[Wiggity]

You're kidding, right???

Nope

[armado]

I sent this link regarding a multi caliber shoot out on another post. Open with caution.

http://concealedcarryholsters.org/wp...e-Shootout.pdf

[troutkiller]

Here's a doctor's view on gunshot wounds. The MD says long guns are more destructive and that 6 out of 7 handgun vicitms survive.

[glockman10mm]

What to say here; first of all many people take this stuff way to seriously. Certain people with nothing better to do, continually search for printed ballistic studies to make them feel secure in their choices, and then use said information to try and convince others that they should " hop on" the wagon.
And these same people jump from forum to forum adding to their vast library of knowledge until they arrive as the " enlightened" ones.

Unfortunately, those same people have never put a bullet in living flesh of anything, which is the only real way of knowing how things actually work. But oh yeah, there is the scientific evidence of gelatin results.

Then I'm always amused at the equations produced by the junior ballisticians among us using mathematical data to prove their points.

It's time to get off the outer universe orbiting and get planted here people.

Whether your security blanket is mosquito legs at 4000 fps or a freight train at 25 fps, bullets have been killing the same way since lead balls and black powder. Sure, we have improved designs and powders, more efficient cartridges, and lighter launching platforms, but at the end of the day, it's really about how well you use your gun.

If you feel that you need to rely on the latest 1$ a pop bullet design, then it's your dollar.
And I'd say making expensive holes in paper are about as close to shooting in SD are most of these types will ever get.

Bunch of BS over nothing.

[481]

What to say here; first of all many people take this stuff way to seriously. Certain people with nothing better to do, continually search for printed ballistic studies to make them feel secure in their choices, and then use said information to try and convince others that they should " hop on" the wagon.
And these same people jump from forum to forum adding to their vast library of knowledge until they arrive as the " enlightened" ones.

You make it sound like a crime to attend more than one forum. I take it that this is the only forum that you participate in?

Unfortunately, those same people have never put a bullet in living flesh of anything, which is the only real way of knowing how things actually work.

How do you know that? Have you taken a poll of those who frequent more than one firearms-related forum to see if this claim is true?

But oh yeah, there is the scientific evidence of gelatin results.

It is one of the best tissue simulants (besides water) we have until we can find an ethical way to shoot "the real thing". Are you saying that you can suggest a better medium?

Then I'm always amused at the equations produced by the junior ballisticians among us using mathematical data to prove their points. It's time to get off the outer universe orbiting and get planted here people.

The professionals (like D MacPherson, C Schwartz, and C E Peters) have some incredibly accurate models that are based soundly in physics and fluid dynamics- is there some reason that they and their work should be discredited?

Whether your security blanket is mosquito legs at 4000 fps or a freight train at 25 fps, bullets have been killing the same way since lead balls and black powder. Sure, we have improved designs and powders, more efficient cartridges, and lighter launching platforms, but at the end of the day, it's really about how well you use your gun.

Of course, it is. It ain't the arrows, it's the indian. Don't you think?

If you feel that you need to rely on the latest 1$ a pop bullet design, then it's your dollar.
And I'd say making expensive holes in paper are about as close to shooting in SD are most of these types will ever get.

The SD ammo I buy is a bit more expensive than that, but I am worth it. Like everything else, you get whatcha pay for.

Bunch of BS over nothing.

Nope.

[bmcgilvray]

"The tail wags the dog" in so many folks' minds with regards to this FBI data. It would be helpful to remember that if a load truly is good, it isn't because it is on the FBI's approved list. Some appear even to think that the data itself drives the best loads' effectiveness!

We also need to make our peace with the notion that there are really good loads and cartridges out there not appearing in FBI data that are fully equal to those appearing on the revered FBI list for effectively dealing with an assailant. We need to come to realize that intrepid handloaders are not necessarily going to be enamored with any such data to the extent that users of factory ammunition may be. While we're embracing the experts of the labs we might also give some consideration to handgun hunters' observations in the field rather than to dismiss them out of hand. Collectively, that experience is a large body of work.

And, when we open our minds enough to accept that bullet placement is far more important than bullet style, and that expensive loads with fancy bullets that are "FBI approved" will still do a crummy job of making up for poor hits, then we won't cling so tightly to FBI data.

Meanwhile it's just up to the individual to choose where he derives his comfort in his ammunition selection.

[bmcgilvray]

It's rude to shush people, Wiggity.

Thank you for removing that portion of your comment.

[BigJon10125]

So much for cilvility...

[Wiggity]

So much for cilvility...

How is debating a topic not civil?

[sgb]

"The tail wags the dog" in so many folks' minds with regards to this FBI data. It would be helpful to remember that if a load truly is good, it isn't because it is on the FBI's approved list. Some appear even to think that the data itself drives the best loads' effectiveness!

We also need to make our peace with the notion that there are really good loads and cartridges out there not appearing in FBI data that are fully equal to those appearing on the revered FBI list for effectively dealing with an assailant. We need to come to realize that intrepid handloaders are not necessarily going to be enamored with any such data to the extent that users of factory ammunition may be. While we're embracing the experts of the labs we might also give some consideration to handgun hunters' observations in the field rather than to dismiss them out of hand. Collectively, that experience is a large body of work.

And, when we open our minds enough to accept that bullet placement is far more important than bullet style, and that expensive loads with fancy bullets that are "FBI approved" will still do a crummy job of making up for poor hits, then we won't cling so tightly to FBI data.

Meanwhile it's just up to the individual to choose where he derives his comfort in his ammunition selection.

Bullet placement means nothing if the bullet can't penetrate deep enough to get the job done as highlighted by Agent Dove's 9mm silvertip hit. No one is proclaiming that the ammunition that meets the current FBI criteria are going to make poor hits anything other than poor hits. What the ammunition that passes the FBI criteria gives you is ammunition that will ballistically do the job asked of it. Ammunition designed to give adequate penetration with consistent expansion. Ammunition scientifically tested in controlled conditions by experts instead of the backyard by bubba.

[Wiggity]

Glockman10mm, what personal experience do you have with wounding ballistics and what qualifications do you have concerning anatomy and physics that validates your opinion?

[glockman10mm]

Wiggity, not trying to be rude here, ok? But, I would rather let you think I am a complete idiot, than to have to drag up the past to explain some things that I don't think it's good for me to talk about.

However, I have also made it a life long effort to shoot medium game which more closely emulates the physical traits of an average adult human male, and use all manner of bullets both factory ammo and handloads to observe the effects. Different calibers, weights, and bullet types were used.

You are welcome to search my threads where you will find alot of pictures and descriptions.

Of course, as always, it's up to each person to evaluate my findings and compare the to other tests performed by others.
Many times my findings contradict popular opinions in the field.