Marshall & Sanow Findings & Methods
- Thread starter JohnKSa
- Start date
4thHorseman
New member
John, I'm sure this is gonna be a hot topic. I can only speak for myself on it. There's guys on this forum like Mike and Sam, only to name a very few, that are **** Hot on these subjects, very well versed. So again, I can only speak on what I feel.
I was in full agreement with M&S"s first book. It was the best thing since sliced bread. The second book, I began to have doughts. The third book, no doughts at all, I thought it was total B.S. To many inaccurate accounts, to many conflicts with their previous books. To little data to support their statements.
One example I can think of, while I sit here is, on a 38 cal bullet, 7 shoots out of 8 was a one shot stop (OSS). My God, man! How can anyone claim that statement with only eight shots, a 87.5% OSS from a certain bullet. What if that one bullet that was not a OSS hit a main artery and became a OSS. Now we have a 38 cal bullet with a 100% OSS. See what I mean? To little data to support their finding. Again as I stated, just my humble opinion.
I was in full agreement with M&S"s first book. It was the best thing since sliced bread. The second book, I began to have doughts. The third book, no doughts at all, I thought it was total B.S. To many inaccurate accounts, to many conflicts with their previous books. To little data to support their statements.
One example I can think of, while I sit here is, on a 38 cal bullet, 7 shoots out of 8 was a one shot stop (OSS). My God, man! How can anyone claim that statement with only eight shots, a 87.5% OSS from a certain bullet. What if that one bullet that was not a OSS hit a main artery and became a OSS. Now we have a 38 cal bullet with a 100% OSS. See what I mean? To little data to support their finding. Again as I stated, just my humble opinion.
I have my doubts about the accuracy of their data...
But that being said, the concept of compiling statistics on one shot stops I believe is a valuable real-world tool. No, its not "scientific" in the sense that not a single shooting, regardless of caliber, has measured the same situation and there are no control groups.
But the idea of using one-shot stops is a valid method of reducing comparisons of real-world shootings between calibers to the most equal level possible.
I agree that for most cartriges there is not enough data to become a relevant statistical sample. As far as their "predictions" are, they are just that. Predictions. As in opinions. As in everyone has one and....
I think that M&S are a valuable tool to use when evaluating cartrige choice, just as Fackler's info is as well. In the end, pistol cartriges are underpowered for reliable stopping power anyhow, regardless of caliber, but that doesnt mean it isnt fun to argue about it!
JT
as usual, IMHO, FWIW, YMMV, and all that....
But that being said, the concept of compiling statistics on one shot stops I believe is a valuable real-world tool. No, its not "scientific" in the sense that not a single shooting, regardless of caliber, has measured the same situation and there are no control groups.
But the idea of using one-shot stops is a valid method of reducing comparisons of real-world shootings between calibers to the most equal level possible.
I agree that for most cartriges there is not enough data to become a relevant statistical sample. As far as their "predictions" are, they are just that. Predictions. As in opinions. As in everyone has one and....
I think that M&S are a valuable tool to use when evaluating cartrige choice, just as Fackler's info is as well. In the end, pistol cartriges are underpowered for reliable stopping power anyhow, regardless of caliber, but that doesnt mean it isnt fun to argue about it!
JT
as usual, IMHO, FWIW, YMMV, and all that....
OK, I've held back on this topic for long enough. Some hear say they are the worlds leading experts and some say they are the worlds leading charlitans. I have looked at their work more than some/ less than others.
I believe that their work is important, but only when used in conjunction with all of the other methods. Sooner or later when you want to know what a bullet will do, you have to look at what it does in living bodies. Is their methods flawed, probably yes. Any time you deal with shootings like this, any recording method will be flawed because each is an anomoly. But they do have the largest collection of shootings to look at and compare of anyone I know of. That has to count for something.
I believe that their work is important, but only when used in conjunction with all of the other methods. Sooner or later when you want to know what a bullet will do, you have to look at what it does in living bodies. Is their methods flawed, probably yes. Any time you deal with shootings like this, any recording method will be flawed because each is an anomoly. But they do have the largest collection of shootings to look at and compare of anyone I know of. That has to count for something.
swifter...
New member
IMHO, if you want to get some facts, make friends with the folks in your local trauma center.
My wife worked several years as a recovery room nurse in our local TC. Some friends are ER nurses...
In this time frame, she saw people of all sizes and ages shot with everything from .22 rimfires to high power rifles come thru surgery (at taxpayers expense ).
In general, it depended on bullet placement with everything, and one remarkable exception...
.357 magnum...
People shot with the .357 rarely made it from the ER to surgery.
Of course, not all who made it to surgery survived, it is also a teaching hospital...
FWIW,
Tom
My wife worked several years as a recovery room nurse in our local TC. Some friends are ER nurses...
In this time frame, she saw people of all sizes and ages shot with everything from .22 rimfires to high power rifles come thru surgery (at taxpayers expense
).In general, it depended on bullet placement with everything, and one remarkable exception...
.357 magnum...
People shot with the .357 rarely made it from the ER to surgery.
Of course, not all who made it to surgery survived, it is also a teaching hospital...
FWIW,
Tom
4thHorseman
New member
Interesting note, Tom.
They make claims about their data, but refuse access to their data. Using their methods I could make wild claims, just like they do, and people everywhere will believe me (just like their followers do).
[impression of m&s]
My first claim is that there are magic bullets that can make 90 degree turns, in mid-flight, without losing any of their energy or momentum until striking the intended target. (The Warren Commission was right. There was only one shooter, but he was using magic bullets.) Oops, er...that is only part of my data, so if you get different results it is because you didn't have all the facts!(And you can't have mine because I said!)[/impression of m&s] :barf:
[impression of m&s]
My first claim is that there are magic bullets that can make 90 degree turns, in mid-flight, without losing any of their energy or momentum until striking the intended target. (The Warren Commission was right. There was only one shooter, but he was using magic bullets.) Oops, er...that is only part of my data, so if you get different results it is because you didn't have all the facts!(And you can't have mine because I said!)[/impression of m&s] :barf:
swifter, it is very difficult if not impossible to distinguish bullet calibers inside shooting victims/perps. Aside from no training in ballistics, a .38 looks like a .357, 9mm. .40 cal. I don't know of ER trauma teams ever asked to identify the bullet, they really don't care. Perhaps every fatality caused by a "hollow point" was attributed to a .357 Magnum bullet, one just doesn't know.
By the way, my mother was a surgical pathologist in a University here in the Bay Area and I've grow up around enough doctors & pathologists to understand that they do not look at these things in the manner that we discuss it here on this BB.
By the way, my mother was a surgical pathologist in a University here in the Bay Area and I've grow up around enough doctors & pathologists to understand that they do not look at these things in the manner that we discuss it here on this BB.
Bill G Gonzales
New member
My opinion of M&S (hey, that's S&M spelled backwards) will always be colored by one of their articles that stated that the 25 auto with some super duper bullet (I can't remember which one) would outperform .45 ACP hardball! I don't think they could put enough C4 in a 25 auto to make it outperform the .45! Just my opinion, FWIW.
They said the .32 Auto Silvertip equalled the .45 ACP in terms of one shot stops, not the .25.
I think the best bet is too try and find some middle ground between Marshall, Sanow (the two collaborate but they don't always think the same way), and Fackler, along with your own personal biases and abilities.
I think the best bet is too try and find some middle ground between Marshall, Sanow (the two collaborate but they don't always think the same way), and Fackler, along with your own personal biases and abilities.
Arizona Eric
New member
I think they are fullofit.
I never understood how they could say a .357 out-performs a .44 mag.
Also there is too much variable as to barrel length, shot placement, bullet design, size, strength and intoxication of the perp, amount and type of clothing, etc. etc.
And I will take .45 ball over .32 Silvertip anyday, as would any sane person.
I never understood how they could say a .357 out-performs a .44 mag.
Also there is too much variable as to barrel length, shot placement, bullet design, size, strength and intoxication of the perp, amount and type of clothing, etc. etc.
And I will take .45 ball over .32 Silvertip anyday, as would any sane person.
Shawn Dodson
Moderator
Do the results of this unscientific poll accurately reflect public opinion or do they merely mirror the opinions of the people who participated?
What is the precision of the "findings" with respect to "the real world" of public opinion?
Marshall's methodology is identical to this unscientific poll.
What is the precision of the "findings" with respect to "the real world" of public opinion?
Marshall's methodology is identical to this unscientific poll.
I didn't post this poll with the intent of divining public opinion--in fact, it's not even intended to provid results that mirror the opinions on TFL.
When people stop responding to the poll, I'll publish the intent, analysis and conclusions on this thread.
Then you can tell me how unscientific it is. You're a bit premature at this point...
Shawn Dodson
Moderator
Hello...
It appears you missed the point of my post.
I'm not questioning the validity of your poll, because it's for entertainment purposes only.
The point of my post is to point out that Marshall's methodology is identical to your poll. It reflects reality no better than this poll reflects reality.
It appears you missed the point of my post.
I'm not questioning the validity of your poll, because it's for entertainment purposes only.
The point of my post is to point out that Marshall's methodology is identical to your poll. It reflects reality no better than this poll reflects reality.
The point of my post is to point out that Marshall's methodology is identical to your poll. It reflects reality no better than this poll reflects reality.
Thats not true at all. Marshall set up some operational definations of a stop (to reduce as many variables as possible), gathered as much data as he could and then fit his operational definations to the data he gathered and came out with the results. This is very simmular to many other studies. No it was not done in the lab it was more of a field study.
PAT
Thats not true at all. Marshall set up some operational definations of a stop (to reduce as many variables as possible), gathered as much data as he could and then fit his operational definations to the data he gathered and came out with the results. This is very simmular to many other studies. No it was not done in the lab it was more of a field study.
PAT
Shawn Dodson
Moderator
His data collection methodology is identical to this survey.
I disagee with M&S...and I disagree with the Fackler folks. Personally, I go with the "pure dumb luck" school of thought. Sure, I do everything I possibly can to be trained, equipped, ready, aware, etc, etc. But when I got home I looked in the mirror and thought to myself..."pure dumb f---ing luck"...
I thought that the first book was great but I never bought the others, though I looked through them on many occasions (too bad my local library doesn't carry them, huh?).
I have followed a lot of debate about their methods and findings. I believe the findings but take them with a grain of salt. After all, even they say in the book that SHOT PLACEMENT matters over anything else. It always seems that those who think that their work is crap also disagree with the results (i.e. "my .45 ACP hardball is 95% effective and ain't nobody gonna tell me otherwise"). Drawing the conclusion that their methods and findings are wrong just because they don't agree with what you believe is not really very bright. After all, they did a study and compiled data over the course of time and, even if their findings aren't 100% accurate or their methodology might be questionable, they still DID a study and anyone who wants to refute them probably did NOT...their detractors are probably working totally off of biased opinion rather than fact. Even ER doctors and such aren't a good source of information overall. I guarantee that M&S studied more cases (or, at least, compiled information about more cases) than any ER doctor has ever worked on.
It comes down to this...handguns suck as a killing weapon. In ALL calibers that are used for defense.
Much can be made of wound channels and terminal ballistics and this or that but, when it comes down to it, shooting someone with a handgun round is not a lot different from taking a rounded steel rod of the appropriate diameter and running it into or through someone. It doesn't make a lot of difference whether it is .45" in diameter or .36" in diameter. Handguns rounds don't really have the velocity to damage with their passage like a rifle round (which causes a lot of trauma), so it depends on WHERE they hit a little more. A .22 in the eye is more terminal than a .45 in the pinky toe.
I carry a hi-power with a couple of Mec-Gar magazines that accept 14 rounds instead of 13. With what is chambered, I have 15 rounds in the gun. I really don't care much whether they are ball or hollow-points. I don't feel safer one way or another. I know that, if I have to use it, that I will be shooting multiple times, anyway. I DO carry, at present, a magazine of Black Talons (found a box of them in the back of my gun chest) and a magazine of +P Golden Sabers. Until last weekend, I was carrying all ball and will probably do so again when I shoot up the carry ammo as I rotate it out. I feel fine with any of it. A friend of mine, who has shot people with .45 ACP, 9mm, .223, and .308, says that he feels comfortable with either of the handgun calibers and has never seen a difference like he has with rifle calibers of the damage inflicted when they hit (he carries 9mm now but admits that, psychologically, the .45 ACP makes him feel better to shoot because of his indoctrination in the "fact" that it's the best handgun round).
But I digress...
Everyone can have their opinions but please keep in mind that, unless you've spent years doing a study, that your opinions are probably, at best, no better than the M&S studies and most likely a lot worse.
I have followed a lot of debate about their methods and findings. I believe the findings but take them with a grain of salt. After all, even they say in the book that SHOT PLACEMENT matters over anything else. It always seems that those who think that their work is crap also disagree with the results (i.e. "my .45 ACP hardball is 95% effective and ain't nobody gonna tell me otherwise"). Drawing the conclusion that their methods and findings are wrong just because they don't agree with what you believe is not really very bright. After all, they did a study and compiled data over the course of time and, even if their findings aren't 100% accurate or their methodology might be questionable, they still DID a study and anyone who wants to refute them probably did NOT...their detractors are probably working totally off of biased opinion rather than fact. Even ER doctors and such aren't a good source of information overall. I guarantee that M&S studied more cases (or, at least, compiled information about more cases) than any ER doctor has ever worked on.
It comes down to this...handguns suck as a killing weapon. In ALL calibers that are used for defense.
Much can be made of wound channels and terminal ballistics and this or that but, when it comes down to it, shooting someone with a handgun round is not a lot different from taking a rounded steel rod of the appropriate diameter and running it into or through someone. It doesn't make a lot of difference whether it is .45" in diameter or .36" in diameter. Handguns rounds don't really have the velocity to damage with their passage like a rifle round (which causes a lot of trauma), so it depends on WHERE they hit a little more. A .22 in the eye is more terminal than a .45 in the pinky toe.
I carry a hi-power with a couple of Mec-Gar magazines that accept 14 rounds instead of 13. With what is chambered, I have 15 rounds in the gun. I really don't care much whether they are ball or hollow-points. I don't feel safer one way or another. I know that, if I have to use it, that I will be shooting multiple times, anyway. I DO carry, at present, a magazine of Black Talons (found a box of them in the back of my gun chest) and a magazine of +P Golden Sabers. Until last weekend, I was carrying all ball and will probably do so again when I shoot up the carry ammo as I rotate it out. I feel fine with any of it. A friend of mine, who has shot people with .45 ACP, 9mm, .223, and .308, says that he feels comfortable with either of the handgun calibers and has never seen a difference like he has with rifle calibers of the damage inflicted when they hit (he carries 9mm now but admits that, psychologically, the .45 ACP makes him feel better to shoot because of his indoctrination in the "fact" that it's the best handgun round).
But I digress...
Everyone can have their opinions but please keep in mind that, unless you've spent years doing a study, that your opinions are probably, at best, no better than the M&S studies and most likely a lot worse.
M&S's data is interesting, and perhaps even useful, anecdotally. They aren't statisticians, though. The problem is that they do their OSS statistics only on those shootings that consisted of one shot, after the fact.
Now, if someone needs shooting, and after you shoot them once, they still need shooting, what do you do? Right! You shoot them again. M&S do not count this shooting as a OSS failure... they drop it and don't use it in their calculations at all. On the other hand, if you shoot once, and the target drops like the proverbial rock, then you get a OSS, stop shooting, and it is counted as such. Thus, their methodology selects for OSSs, and OSSs are bound to be over represented in their database. This is the reason the M&S OSS numbers are so high, when everyone tells you that pistols are pathetic, underpowered stoppers.
I'm not sure what the M&S statistics mean, if anything, but they certainly are not the likelihood of stopping an armed assault with a single shot of a particular load.
Now, if someone needs shooting, and after you shoot them once, they still need shooting, what do you do? Right! You shoot them again. M&S do not count this shooting as a OSS failure... they drop it and don't use it in their calculations at all. On the other hand, if you shoot once, and the target drops like the proverbial rock, then you get a OSS, stop shooting, and it is counted as such. Thus, their methodology selects for OSSs, and OSSs are bound to be over represented in their database. This is the reason the M&S OSS numbers are so high, when everyone tells you that pistols are pathetic, underpowered stoppers.
I'm not sure what the M&S statistics mean, if anything, but they certainly are not the likelihood of stopping an armed assault with a single shot of a particular load.