Marshall & Sanow Findings & Methods

[355sigfan]

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...

Yes and no. Most cops are trained to fire a minimum and I repeat a minimum standard response of 2 rounds and then a head shot or more if needed. So you would count a double tap that had the desired effect as a defacto failure.

PAT

 

[Shawn Dodson]

So you would count a double tap that had the desired effect as a defacto failure.

I'd count a double tap as "indeterminable." There's simply no way of knowing if the bad guy would have been incapacitated by the first hit, or whether the second hit was necessary.

 

[Elvis]

Swifter,

Are you implying that wounds caused by a .357 Mag were more devastating that wounds caused by high-powered rifles?

A .357 Mag is a terrible deer round; a crippler. A .243 will reliably take most deer w/o a hitch. And a .243 is a light deer rifle.

From my exposure, a .357 Mag revolver is a marginal defensive round. If I were forced to use a .357 Mag for defensive purposes I'd opt for 180 grain projectiles that were designed for hunting purposes (most probably out of a rifle).

I've seen people shot by handgun rounds, and I've seen big game felled by high-powered rifles. There is no comparison in devastation. In fact, the two deer I very recently saw that were shot with high-powered rifles suffered destructive wounds that can only be understood by actually seeing them.

Good luck,

 

[Elvis]

Additionally, from what I understand about M&S, they're of the opinion that the .357 Mag is the king of defensive rounds. If anyone were to even remotely intimate to me that their research puts the .357 Mag is in the same ballpark as a .308 Win, well, I think you know what I'd think of their scientific research methodology.

Adios,
E

 

[355sigfan]

From my exposure, a .357 Mag revolver is a marginal defensive round. If I were forced to use a .357 Mag for defensive purposes I'd opt for 180 grain projectiles that were designed for hunting purposes

Your exposure to the 357 mag is not in line with most other peoples. It has a good reputation for stopping badguys with the 125 grain jhp. No one who ever carried one that I have meant had stopping power complaints. The 180 grain choice is a great deer choice but a poor people choice as it will expand little and over penetrate.
PAT

 

[Tim Burke]

Yes and no. Most cops are trained to fire a minimum and I repeat a minimum standard response of 2 rounds and then a head shot or more if needed. So you would count a double tap that had the desired effect as a defacto failure.

Don't be putting words in my mouth. I pointed out the main problem with M&S's methodology. I know why they did it that way, it's still wrong. As Shawn points out, a "double tap" is indeterminable. If the M&S methodology removed all "double taps" prospectively from the database, then it would make the sample size smaller, but it would not skew the statistics. M&S's methodology removes all "double taps" that result in two hits from the data base. If the guy still needs to be shot after the "double tap," M&S do not count it as a OSS failure. If the officer meant to do a "double tap," and the suspect drops like a rock before the officer can hit him a second time, it does get counted as a OSS.
Since most "cops are trained to fire a minimum and I repeat a minimum standard response of 2 rounds", then by design, if not intent, the M&S database is going to be composed almost exclusively of atypical police shootings. You can't work backwards from the results of atypical events to compute the probabilities of a given outcome in more typical scenarios.

 

[Elvis]

Pat,

Do you have actual knowledge of people wh have used the .357 Mag with 125 grain bullets in defensive situations? By actual knowledge I mean talking with people who have actually used this round in defensive situations or have actually seen it used so used. My personal knowledge of this caliber is not favorable. In all honesty, though, Pat, handgun rounds leave a lot ot be desired for defensive use.

I cannot fathom the utility of a one shot stop index. It strikes me as being a gimmick. No one I have ever met in law enforcement, and I'd have to say I have met many thousands, has ever used it as a guide in any manner. Cops are just not trained to anticipate success with one shot. Even if one shot were to be successful, expect other shots to precede or follow it. In fact, at this very momnent I cannot recall a single gunfight save maybe one, in which only one round was fired. However, I do know of dangerous fleeing felons defined by "Gardner" who were stopped with one shot. All were with the .38 Special and 9MM. Did they stop because a single bullet forced them to or because they figured out the cops really meant business?

Deep pepetration and performance when striking bone are the reasons why I'd prefer 180 grain bullets in a .357 Mag. Also, this bullet should perform well on barriers; i.e., common obstacles than can be expected to be found in homes.

Pat, stay safe while going in harm's way.

Sincerely,
E

 

[355sigfan]

I have no personal friends that have had to shoot someone with any guns so far. I have talked to instructors and others via the internet that have had to do this and none has complained about the 357 mag. I understand you want penetration. The 357 mag with 135 grain loads goes the 12 inches that the deep penetration schools of thought believes is a good minimum. If you like penetration you don't have to go with a heavier bullet the gold dot 125 that I used to use and dropped because of excessive penetration goes 16.5 inches in bare gelatin and 20 after heavy clothing. You stay safe too. If you like heavier bullets your better served with a 40,10mm or 45 acp in my oppinion.
PAT

 

[Elvis]

Pat,

Thanks for your reply. It was clear and well thought out, as are your other posts that I've read.

It is not so much that handgun users agree, or that they can sway others to their beliefs, but rather the debate, as Socrates would have admonished, that is so critical to learning.


Take care,
E

 

[Sweepr]

The following site has quite a few articles discussing various ballistic information. You may find this site helpful.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/

Sweepr

 

[Chris Pinkleton]

I'm not suprised that most others here seem to be voting the way I did, i.e. "M&S data and conclusions are pretty close to worthless."

I saw Marshall's first "OSS figures" article when I was first becoming interested in firearms. I bought it, hook, line and sinker. It seemed like a reasonable way to figure real world stopping power.

Since, I've had a little more experience with statistics, and the whole OSS concept makes exactly zero sense -- mostly for the reason many have already stated-- if you only take encounters where one shot actually hit the attacker, you will be looking at totally atypical situations. Most "stops" involve multiple hits.

But this is just the begining of the trouble for the OSS. To get a representative sample of shootings in a given caliber, it would take data collected from a sample(certain police departments) selected before the infromation collection began. Otherwise, it's very likely that the departments who contact M&S are going to do so because of the great record they have had with a certain load. What department is going to talk to anyone about hideous failures to stop with shootings that their officers were involved in?

The consistency of M&S figures over the years is also extremely disturbing. If shot placement is the most important factor in stopping power, why do similar loads in a caliber(same weight&velocity) stay so close to each other over time, regardless of sample size. The 125gr. .357 loads were all in the 91-96% OSS in Marshall's first data set, and they are still there now.
The similar .357Sig loads are all in the same 90% and above range, even with less than a tenth of the number of shootings sampled. If these figures represented the reality of primacy of shot placement, they should vary much more --- say all the way from 25% to 70% M&S "data" point towards primacy of load, which we all seem to agree is nonsense.

It seems most of Marshall's defenders fall back on the "Marshall is a nice guy" defence. I'm sure he is. But he has a lot of money and reputation riding on the OSS concept, and his only response to the massive flaws many have pointed out in his study seems to be "they have big egos and I know my methods are valid, so I don't care what real professionals have to say about how I come up with OSS numbers. "

I am sure Marshall cares about officer survival, but he doesn't seem to have the insight required to realize that presenting his OSS numbers as valid factors in choosing loads means basing life-and-death decisions on "data" that has not the faintest shred of scientific basis behind it. The "I'm not a scientist" plea does nothing to blunt this. If Marshall wants to get serious about presenting "studies" he'll get serious about doing those studies in a solid scientific way.

I think Marshall initally did the handgunning community a great service by stirring debate about adequate loads and calibers. When I read that first OSS article, the common wisdom was:
1) Hollowpoints are useless.(I even remember a column in some gun rag where the author"proved" this fact by making an analogy to the crush-zones designed into current cars -- old, ridgid cars damage telephone poles better, so ridgid bullets will stop people better)
2) The .45ACP is a superstopper and the 9mm is inadequate to stop gnats.

The debate since then has given us better designed hollowpoints, acceptance that many handgun loads are extremely similar in their "stopping power" and a host of other good things.

But I don't think that M&S have much useful to contribute now.

To PAT and others who think I am a Facklerite drone -- I feel quite well-heeled with the Marshall's darling caiber, the .357SIG. Plenty of penetration and accuracy --- I think it measures up just fine next to the .45ACP.

Just more spouting from an amateur(but I"m not in the gun rags!),

Chris P.

 

[355sigfan]

Only got one thing to say to M&S detractors. What right is not always popular and whats popular is not always right.
PAT

 

[Chris Pinkleton]

And what's published constantly(M&S OSS figures) without a shred of solid science may not be right either. When did non-M&S "stopping power" articles sell magazines? They wouldn't have all those sexy percentages and would have to admit we have no idea what the OSS for any load is.

M&S seem pretty popular with many on this forum -- the OSS figures are trotted out in almost any "load selection" thread. Firearms Tactical is mentioned nearly as often. I take neither as gospel truth, but at least Mr. Dodson has a solid, consistent methodolgy. What does Marshall offer? "Trust me. I care about you."

The truth isn't always presented by the most pleasant and entertaining voice.

Chris P.

 

[JohnKSa]

Here's what I get from the results of this poll.

Nobody likes M&S methods unless they like M&S conclusions.

Most of the people who don't like M&S methods don't like M&S conclusions either.

So, what's the point?

Debate on this topic is useless. There is no common ground to start from.

The only people who are going to defend M&S techniques are the people who like M&S findings. Just what you'd expect. They are going to defend the techniques because the findings agree with their opinions.

The people who DON'T like M&S findings are just about in 100% agreement that they also don't like M&S techniques. Also just what you'd expect. If they don't agree with the results, why would anyone expect them to do anything but attack the methods?

 

[LIProgun]

I can't speak for anybody else, but my problems with the M&S methodology have absolutely nothing to do with whether I agree with their conclusions. Sometimes they rate rounds I like highly. Sometimes they don't. It matters not to me.

My disapproval comes from my considered analysis of their methodology, their database, their lack of peer review, and unwillingness to disclose data to allow peer review.

As they say in computer programming lingo, GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out).

 

[CaesarI]

What it tells me

Someone (well 3 voters anyway) didn't remember their Logic 101 class.

As of the moment I'm typing the votes are:
22.4% Agree with methods + Conclusion
14.1% Agree with methods, but not conclusion
60% Disagree with Conclusion and methods
3.5% Disagree with conclusion, but agree with methods.

Logic says: A true conclusion can be drawn from false premises.

Hence, once can agree with the conclusion even if the methods used to arrive at such a conclusion are entirely faulty.

Logic says: A sound argument, with true premises, MUST be true.

Hence one who agrees that the data M+S have is accurate, and that their data leads to telling us how effective or ineffective a cartridge is, is FORCED (at the threat of being illogical) to accept the conclusion of the argument.

Logic says: One can form a sound argument with true premises, arguing that something is false.

Hence if one proves that it is impossible for M+S data to be correct, and that even if it were, that it wouldn't prove anything, one is correct in stating that the conclusions of M+S are false, because their reasoning leads to X, instead of something that is true.

Logic says: If you agree with the premises, and the argument is sound, and you disagree with the conclusion, you are illogical.

This explains the last 3.5% unless these are people who believe M+S data, but do not believe that the argument is sound (i.e. the data might be real data, but it doesn't prove their conclusion).

It does not prove, that everyone has a conclusion in mind, and is only looking for a person to vindicate that conclusion. Proving that requires a heck of a lot more evidence, and a belief that the majority of people here are irrational. Since there aren't too man Democrats here.... I think I've proven successfully that we are not irrational (most of the time), and that we are all interested in the truth regardless of preconceived notions, even if some of us are more stubborn than others.

X and Y (disbelieving conclusions and disbelieving methods) being present at the same time, does not prove that X came before Y.

Nobody agrees with M+S methods unless they agree with M+S conclusions because agreeing with the method, and not the conclusion is IRRATIONAL.

Most people who disagree with M+S methods are likely to disagree with Conclusions as well, because a good conclusion based on bad methodology isn't a very well supported argument, no matter HOW true the conclusion.

But neither you nor anyone else HAS to agree with me, no matter how well reasoned my argument. As Caesar said, "Homines id quod volunt credunt" Men believe what they want to.

But logical men, believe what they have good reason to believe.

-Morgan