I don't know about that I got some bullets from a guy named Jack that was standing next to the biggest bean stalk I ever seen,I asked him what was so magical about these bullets,he said they were Speer Gold Dots but didn't have any real gold in them just 230 grains of whoop ass
As a career experimentalist in aerospace I am keenly aware of the issue of predicted vs. measured phenomena, and I have spent a long time bridging the gap between closely-controlled events and those observed in the real world. It serves no one well when the analysts and the experimentalists stonewall and refuse to accept the other's findings.
Real world data can be analyzed using a statistical approach, it is done all the time- it just requires significantly larger sample populations and involves greater margins of error and variance, and reduced confidence with identical alpha. The problem with M&S fudging their analysis is that such intellectual dishonesty taints the result even if they were to "luck into" one or more correct conclusions. Even if M&S were to draw a correct conclusion or two, that does not mean that the corrupt analysis is suddenly justifed or correct- it just means that they "lucked into" a correct conclusion or two. Fackler et. al. are correct in dismissing the study- it is exceptionally flawed and highly suspect.
Selective filtering can be a valid analytical instrument- when it is used to screen or eliminate data that is inapplicable to the analysis according to an appropriate selective or reductive criteria. Elimination of data that does not fit a preconceived notion or standard simply to arrive at some desired objective is not selective filtering, it is data manipulation. That's what M&S did and the analysis by MacPherson, Fackler and van Maanen conclusively demonstrates it. Their (MacPherson, Fackler & van Maanen) analysis (or mantra, if you wish) of M&S's work stands ready for refutation if you believe that you can manage it. I'd certainly be interested in seeing your results.
Maybe there is something to be learned from the data that M&S collected, but we'll never know. M&S have refused to release their data for examination insisting that their analysis stands as it is. If they were to release it, perhaps a correct analysis of the data could be conducted, one that might even vindicate their postion- 'til then we are up the creek so to speak.
If someone wants to accept M&S's conclusions in spite of their faulty analysis and methodology, that's up to them. While I can make no such "leap of faith", I am sure that there are others who can and I recognize their right to do so.
Well there is a magic bullet now
Short Sharp Science: Light test for laser-guided bullet
That is 1:3.5,000,000,000,000 chance, sorry with that many zero's my BS meter pegs (unless we are discussing the national debt).Quote:
There are also those of us who would include those aspects of value from both perspectives. Of course, there have been large steps backwards in the analysis of combat data- the M&S "study" being the worst of them, having been debunked as a 1 in 3.5 trillion exercise in data manipulation. Still, I believe that if done honestly, the analysis of combat data can lend itself to a comprehensive understanding of the field.
I am in the camp that they selectively filtered data which did not fit into their criteria. But then the Gelatin guys never did that.
481, you are no stranger to this controversy. Here is a thread you posted into in 2010 of GT. It is discussing "research" from the very guy you quote as casually dismissing the M&S work. If you are going to use quotes to dismiss someone else's work it really should be from an unimpeachable source.
Originally Posted by 481 View Post
Simply your opinion.
Can you provide an actual source citation (another article, published academic paper, or professional journal) that supports your assertion as quoted above? I would really like to see an example of factual refutation of Wolberg's work since I see this claim made all the time and have yet to see any supporting documentary evidence.
Otherwise, no one can take this as anything other than your factually unsupported and uninformed opinion.
Please understand that I am not attempting disrespect towards you here. I am simply seeking an actual source citation for the claim you've made above.
Sorry for not getting back to this thread earlier. And no, I'm not annoyed with you . Anyway, I'll try and explain why I tend to frown upon Wolberg's article that pops up every now and then. It may be a little long so bear with me.
I'm not sure exactly when the Win 147JHP was officially adopted by the FBI, but my earliest sample round is dated '87. Also in my collection is one dated '88, one from an earily Win Super-X "Deep Penetration Subsonic" box and a fairly current ('08) USA brand load. All measurements are the same for all 4 loads; cavity depth, cavity diameter at the meplat and length of jacket cuts at the bullet tip. Esentially, they are all the same bullet. I even confirmed this with a friend who's a Winchester Rep in So.Cal. and he contacted his contact at Winchester who confirmed that the bullet used for their USA brand 147JHP load is the same bullet as the original OSM load.
Now, over the years, those in the shooting/training industry who have had access to shooting data involving the OSM bullet have reported this load as being an erratic performer in actual shootings, including underexpansion and overpenetration. In previous threads about this particular load, several GT members have noted, from actual experiences in investigating shootings, that the OSM is an erratic performer.
Now, having said that, I became aware of Wolberg's article about 5 years ago. After reading and re-reading it again and again, some questions came to mind that just doesn't jive with his findings, including:
If SDPD had been using the OSM load for roughly 4 years, why was only 28 bullets examined? I'm sure they had more shootings than that. It's very unlikely that they had only 28 shootings that ALL expanded as reported by Wolberg. No, I'm pretty sure that they had more shootings than 28 (though I have no personal proof of that), so what about any other shootings in which the bullets didn't expand or possibly even overpenetrated on torso shots? Where are they at? If you're going to evaluate a load, all shootings to the torso must be included; the good, the bad and the ugly. Not just the picture perfect rounds that meet your given criteria. With as many people who have seen or had actual hands on experience investigating shootings that have reported erratic performance from this round, it's highly improbable that SDPD never had such expansion/excessive penetration problems. But without access to all SDPD shootings, we will never really know just how effective or ineffective the load was for SDPD.
And the use of ballistic gel. There's no way that gel can recreate human tissue. The shooting of gel in a labratory at a given temperature at a given distance cannot recreate the distances and angles of actual shootings. Not realistic at all.
But what really caught my attention was the fact is that Wolberg's article didn't touch upon how really effective this load is/was. When the BGs were shot were they immediately incapacitated or did it take multiple shots to bring them down? It really doesn't mean much looking at expanded bullets dug out of corpses if it took multiple bullets to immediately stop someone. All Wolberg's report states is that the OSM bullet when shot into calibrated 10% ballistic gel mimics bullets removed from corpses.
But those are just my observations and musings regarding this load, Wolberg's article, and from the reported experiences of others who have first hand knowledge about this load and it's use.
But the thing that confirmed my suspicions I had years ago about Wolberg's article regarding cherry-picked bullets was when two people, who are both GT members, on another gun forum while in a heated discussion, one of them who knew Wolberg confirmed that the Coroner did in fact cherry-pick the bullets used in Wolberg's article.
I'd rather not toss that GT member under the bus for confirming my suspicion. So you can either take my word for it or you can dismiss it as bolony. But I think that those of you who have read my comments over the years should realize that I'm very straight-forward in my comments and I'm not out to pull the proverbial wool over peoples' eyes.
Until you can refute the results of the Fackler/MacPherson/van Maanen analysis and show that an error occurred somewhere in their debunking of M&S's "study" all we have is your claim that it pegs your BS meter and no one is going to take that as a valid refutation of the Fackler/MacPherson/van Maanen analysis that debunks M&S. Your dislike of the analysis is proof of nothing.
Obviously, you've been around long enough (2010) to recall the post you that quoted above so you're no stranger either.
If you are going to claim that I've cited Wolberg as being one of those who was responsible for debunking M&S's "study", it would be to your benefit to make sure that I actually did so before claiming (falsely) that I did (see post #19, above).
Your claim is erroneous and completely without basis. Please get your facts straight.
I never mentioned Wolberg as being one of those who was involved in the debunking of M&S's "study" because he was not involved in that process. The only people involved were Fackler, MacPherson, and van Maanen as per my post above (see #19).
You did not need to mention his name, its on the paper he co-authored.
Book Review: Handgun Stopping Power - The Definitive Study
My point is, please do not use data from someone who may have manipulated the data to slander another person who you claim has manipulated theirs.
Can we please get back on track now?
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
You'll have to do better than that. You see, the article by Wolberg that you cited has never been debunked as being fraudulent in any way. Even if Wolberg were somehow in the wrong (I've never seen any substantiated proof that he is), there are still several others who've debunked M&S. They can't all be wrong.
Wolberg's research paper that you quoted earlier as some sort of proof still stands as valid.
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.
the best bullet, is one that hits where you want it, when you want it, and does what you want it to do when you need it most.
The best bullet is the one you have at the time you need it.