Today I got two new books in the mail. The books are both by Marshall and Sanow, with me mostly looking at "Stopping Power" so far. I was a bit put off by the price , but figured what the heck it is a reference manual on defensive rounds. The book at 342 pages is a well documented and informative book, and almost every page is new information. I think that of all the books that I have gotten about defensive guns that this book might very well become one of my favorite, even though it is just about bullets, and not guns. This is a well written reference manual, that will be dog eared before I get it all digested. I know that I will also pass this book around to my shooting group, to much information in one place not too.
Be careful with that one, the work therein has been largely discredited. :ziplip:
just wondering, why do you say that? never heard of the book nor the authors. any references on why it's been "largely discredited?" again, just wondering.....
Originally Posted by JD
Here's a couple of articles for starters, there's tons of debate on this topic, I'm not looking to stir the pot, just making people aware that before citing this info, look really hard at some of the following articles.
The Marshall & Sanow "Data" - Statistical Analysis Tells the Ugly Story
Book Review By Martin L. Fackler, MD
Marshall & Sanow's stats - believe it or not? State your case here.
A couple of articles here: Home
Fackler, Marshall and Handgun Stopping Power tests
As a paramedic who has run on a great many gunshot wounds, I don't really know how much credibility to place in the lab people.
I've transported enraged felons who were instantly stopped by a .25 from a cheap raven, and drug-crazed felons who were shot three times by a .357 Magnum before they stopped their violence.
I always place my trust in shot placement. A .38 Special allows me to recover faster than the brutish .44 Magnum which, incidentally, beats up my wrists and elbows. I practice more with my 9mm and my .38 Special since it doesn't beat up my joints and because smaller calibers are easier to use when engaging multiple opponents, as follow-up shots can be cranked out faster.
In my work experience, shot placement was always more relevant to stopping a criminal than the caliber of the weapon. In fairness, there are some exceptions that I'm omitting from this post . . . like a 12 gauge shotgun which trumps all but, then again, we're only talking about handguns in this thread.
I pick my stuff based on my work experience, not on what I read in a book from a ballistics lab.
All my best.
See, I could have saved you all that money by sharing the truth: 45 ACP
(Come on... SOMEbody had to say it...)
Seriously, though, Pale Horse is right: placement trumps all ballistics.
Now people who have seen it is what i like to hear about.
I would say "contested" rather than discredited.
Originally Posted by JD
The observations of Marshall & Sanow are not really in dispute, although their conclusions are.
Not trying to stir the pot here, but the major detractors of Marshall & Sanow (Fackler et al) are also not above reproach in their findings, although they clearly have science on their side.
ah yes.....you mean God's caliber. I am carrying a full load of .45 acp on my hip as i type this :danceban:
Originally Posted by jumpwing
As far as stopping power goes, there is, evidently, a lot of controversy about 'hydrostatic shook' and a lot of experts who claim it doesn't even exists, or, if it does, that it's a minor factor in stopping a criminal.
As far as my work experience goes . . . I don't know but I suspect that HS is a big deal in at least some shootings.
Mas Ayoob wrote about a gelatin experiment in the 4th edition of Combat Handgunnery where pig aortas were suspended in ballistic gelatin (maybe like fruit in Jello?) and rounds were fired into the gelatin some distance from the pig aortas. As you may have suspected, the pig aortas were, indeed, severed even though the bullet track was nowhere near them.
If hydrostatic shock is BS, then why do fish float dead to the top of the water when stupid idiots through explosives into lakes?
I have seen people die from seemingly superficial gunshot wounds, but I have no way of deciding--given the circumstances--if it was from hydrostatic shock.
What are your thoughts?
as a Paramedic and gun guy, I think there is a lot of good information in those books. Probably the argument over the difference between a 80% and 81% rated load is bogus, but there's lots to be learned from those books.