Marshall & Sanow: What to do with a book I wish I had not bought?
- Thread starter Chuck Dye
- Start date
- Status
Mike Irwin
Staff
"It is a somewhat naive view of science to accept a position because of credentials."
You're absolutely correct.
But, it's also exceptionally naive to accept, unilaterally, that an individual has applicable expertise simply because the honorific Dr. is tacked in front of their name.
That you and your wife have doctorates in fields that are applicable to the study of terminal ballistics is far better than were you to have, say, a doctorate in philosophy and your wife a doctorate in meteorology.
You're absolutely correct.
But, it's also exceptionally naive to accept, unilaterally, that an individual has applicable expertise simply because the honorific Dr. is tacked in front of their name.
That you and your wife have doctorates in fields that are applicable to the study of terminal ballistics is far better than were you to have, say, a doctorate in philosophy and your wife a doctorate in meteorology.
FM12, I read the same articles you should have seen. Mr. Marshall had stated in some of his articles that he had altered the actual findings based on his opinion of how good he "thought" a caliber was. What's the use of collecting data to show scientific results if they are contaminated by his opinion.
His data also changed over the years to reflect the current market trends. (ie, which caliber or brand was more popular at the time.)
There was an article written by Mr. Sanow in the '90s where he was claiming a certain .45ACP round was 100% effective for one shot stops. It was written more as an advertisement than the results of a study. Just because it may have been 100% successful in a limited number of shootings doesn't mean it will always be 100% successful, but he never explained that to the reader.
I have other issues that I hope Dr. Courtneys papers will clear up.
That's just my opinion on it. I have nothing against the study of finding which caliber is better because I would like to know too.
His data also changed over the years to reflect the current market trends. (ie, which caliber or brand was more popular at the time.)
There was an article written by Mr. Sanow in the '90s where he was claiming a certain .45ACP round was 100% effective for one shot stops. It was written more as an advertisement than the results of a study. Just because it may have been 100% successful in a limited number of shootings doesn't mean it will always be 100% successful, but he never explained that to the reader.
I have other issues that I hope Dr. Courtneys papers will clear up.
That's just my opinion on it. I have nothing against the study of finding which caliber is better because I would like to know too.
Hardtarget
New member
How about making a "cut out" book. Glue the pages and make a cut out hidden compartment. The ultimate end for the "holes" in their conclusions...maybe?
Mark.
Mark.
Rimrod:
Thanks, that clears up things a little. I was a neophyte back then, and those two seemed to be head & shoulders above others, at least at the time.
I still think the dynamics of gunfights play an important factor that may not be able to be either qualified or quantified. I have seen some shot once with a .25 & keel over dead, others shot with at least medium calibers (9mm, 38/357) and recover fully. Strange things, handgun wounds, of all calibers. Even stranger things are the persons shot with them.
Thanks, Rimrod, for taking the time to post the info, FM12.
Thanks, that clears up things a little. I was a neophyte back then, and those two seemed to be head & shoulders above others, at least at the time.
I still think the dynamics of gunfights play an important factor that may not be able to be either qualified or quantified. I have seen some shot once with a .25 & keel over dead, others shot with at least medium calibers (9mm, 38/357) and recover fully. Strange things, handgun wounds, of all calibers. Even stranger things are the persons shot with them.
Thanks, Rimrod, for taking the time to post the info, FM12.
You're welcome FM12.
I quit reading gun magazines a long time ago. I remember an article that Mr. Marshall wrote long ago that while reading it, it didn't make sense. He stated he was going to a convienence store one night and picked up his Browning Hi-Power, but changed his mind because he wasn't going to a war zone. So he put the BHP down and picked up his model 60 and two spare speedloaders. (he put down the 9mm with 14 rounds and used a .38spl with two spare speedloaders for a total of 15 rounds and would have been just as bulky.)
While at the store a holdup ensued and he fired 5 rounds into the bad guys chest, which didn't stop him. Fortunately as he was reloading a tactical response team came in with long guns and finished the bad guy off. Given the time it takes to fire five rounds and start to reload the tactital team must have been walking up to the store, about the time the robbery started, to get a cup of coffee while carrying their long guns. The whole point of the article was to say the 9mm was better than the .38spl, which every gun writer in print was saying, because that was the popular market opinion for that time period.
I quit reading gun magazines a long time ago. I remember an article that Mr. Marshall wrote long ago that while reading it, it didn't make sense. He stated he was going to a convienence store one night and picked up his Browning Hi-Power, but changed his mind because he wasn't going to a war zone. So he put the BHP down and picked up his model 60 and two spare speedloaders. (he put down the 9mm with 14 rounds and used a .38spl with two spare speedloaders for a total of 15 rounds and would have been just as bulky.)
While at the store a holdup ensued and he fired 5 rounds into the bad guys chest, which didn't stop him. Fortunately as he was reloading a tactical response team came in with long guns and finished the bad guy off. Given the time it takes to fire five rounds and start to reload the tactital team must have been walking up to the store, about the time the robbery started, to get a cup of coffee while carrying their long guns. The whole point of the article was to say the 9mm was better than the .38spl, which every gun writer in print was saying, because that was the popular market opinion for that time period.
Sorry Pax:
Nyeti is one of the older members here:
View Profile: nyeti
nyeti nyeti is offline
Member
Last Activity: 08-12-2005 02:41 AM
Add nyeti to Your Buddy List Add nyeti to Your Ignore List
Forum Info Contact Info
Join Date: 12-30-1999
Posts
Total Posts: 66 (0.02 posts per day)
Find all posts by nyeti
Find all threads started by nyeti
Email:
Send a message via email to nyeti
Private Message:
Send a private message to nyeti
Additional Information Group Memberships
Interests:
Law Enforcement/P.I.
Nyeti is one of the older members here:
View Profile: nyeti
nyeti nyeti is offline
Member
Last Activity: 08-12-2005 02:41 AM
Add nyeti to Your Buddy List Add nyeti to Your Ignore List
Forum Info Contact Info
Join Date: 12-30-1999
Posts
Total Posts: 66 (0.02 posts per day)
Find all posts by nyeti
Find all threads started by nyeti
Email:
Send a message via email to nyeti
Private Message:
Send a private message to nyeti
Additional Information Group Memberships
Interests:
Law Enforcement/P.I.
Now I have the same dilemma as Huck Phinn, what to do with Dr. Courtneys reports?
It sounds like Dr. Courtney is to validate Marshall and Sanow because they validate his own theories.
Although it did remind me of a statement Elmer Keith made in his book 'Sixguns'. He said that an animal that was alerted of his presence before being shot seemed to be harder to kill than one he was able to shoot without being noticed. It sounds like the effects of a "shock wave" may not be as strong if the target is under the influence of adrenalin.
And defending Marshall and Sanows credibility might have been easier if they had not written most of their magazine articles. They put themselves under much more scrutiny than someone who just writes a book claiming it is valid scientific data.
It sounds like Dr. Courtney is to validate Marshall and Sanow because they validate his own theories.
Although it did remind me of a statement Elmer Keith made in his book 'Sixguns'. He said that an animal that was alerted of his presence before being shot seemed to be harder to kill than one he was able to shoot without being noticed. It sounds like the effects of a "shock wave" may not be as strong if the target is under the influence of adrenalin.
And defending Marshall and Sanows credibility might have been easier if they had not written most of their magazine articles. They put themselves under much more scrutiny than someone who just writes a book claiming it is valid scientific data.
CarbineCaleb
New member
I am ambivalent as to how much effort to put into reading this... but, my impressions after a quick browse are:
- The criticisms of Dr. Fackler are also rather one sided, ironically, echoing the manner in which he purports to show that Dr. Fackler's criticisms were one sided, but of course, invalidating Fackler serves his purpose of basing his own studies on the M&S data
- I will say that although I found Dr. Fackler by far the most credible author on these matters to date, it wasn't my opinion that he had the whole truth, so I do think there is room for improvement on Fackler's ideas - I consider them a solid beginning, not the final word
- The "pressure wave hypothesis" really just states that there is a nonzero contribution to incapacitation from the pressure wave arising from projectile impact/deceleration - that is not a great leap, because it doesn't say a lot, so I don't have difficulty believing it as far as it goes.
- It does not state that the pressure wave is the sole or even the dominant contribution, it just states that it makes *some* contribution (with the direct tissue crush mechanism advocated by Fackler as the other main contribution)
- The ideas are fairly messy/muddled - at the very least, they need work. For example, much effort is put into advocating that neurological incapacitation can be effectively induced by bullet impacts even on extremities throughout these papers, and yet the statement made when it comes to formulating some kind of conceptual model about ammunition, is that the pressure wave must be applied deep within the body to major organs to be effective. This kind of confusion/contradiction between ideas mutually put forth seemed to occur frequently.
- At least to the extent of the "pressure wave hypothesis", which merely states that it has some effect, I believe there is some merit in that idea, but in my opinion, based on admittedly a quick scan, this needs work yet.
FM12
"Still no reply on what these guys did that was considerd either wrong or inaccurate."
One thing that can be done is to use the search function here. There have been many discussions of Marshall and Sanow's work over the years and much reading can be done. Below is a link to a website that takes up the criticisms of M&S' earlier work.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm
tipoc
"Still no reply on what these guys did that was considerd either wrong or inaccurate."
One thing that can be done is to use the search function here. There have been many discussions of Marshall and Sanow's work over the years and much reading can be done. Below is a link to a website that takes up the criticisms of M&S' earlier work.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm
tipoc
juliet charley
New member
Unless he's changed his tune again, he even hedges his bets even further in that it *might* make *some* contribution (i.e., sometime it does, and sometime it doesn't make *some* contribution).
I suppose with enough jargon, sophistry and misdirection, you could probably make a case that sometimes the phase of the moon *might* make *some* contribution.
It's a bit of a read, but, this is from Lee Jurras:
Greg, you got my ear, but I'm not sure I can answer in a brief e-mail...here goes... Remember, these are my HO based on experience, as I am still working on my Doctorate in Ballistics Engineering...If fact having trouble finding a school that offers it. To my knowledge the U. of Berlin was the last. Think they closed the doors in '45....Oh well, I think today’s serious junior Ballistics engineer should Major in Chemical Eng, with a dual major in Mechanical, and a minor in Wound Ballistics from one of the Major one's after he got his MD...There are some sharp dudes out there with some great specialists...But I think you have to compile a Blue Ribbon committee to get all the answers. Kind of reminds me years ago we bought a lot of brass from Federal. If we had a problem with incoming QC, I'd have to go to the factory, and could not talk to an individual...The Pres, would call a meeting and each dept head would be present. As I would ask a question, he would refer to each dept head for the answer....Maybe something as simple as case hardness gradient...Personally I thought it was BS... But you have to remember each of these guys was a specialist in his field.. Combined, they couldn't pull the trigger and hit a target, but combined they could make a product that you could hit the target with....A reporter once asked Werner Von Braun what it was like in layman language to land a man on the moon? He replied after a moments thought...." riding a merry-go-round, shooting a BB gun and hitting a BumbleBee @ a 100 yards"...see how many people NASA has ....Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to put myself in class with these guys, just explaining what happens when guys think one bullet, one load, one caliber should do it all under all circumstances... Well hell I've rattled on here and haven't even started to answer your question....digest this and I'll get back this evening and try to answer your original question...Have to get some work done right now....ATB Lee
...you guys are making my head swim also...Yes I can relate story after story of failures and successes with both high velocity and heavy slow moving bullets..As I mentioned in previous posts; " its a never ending debate , that has no real ending 'cause both have there place....On my first trip to Africa I took a 458 Browning and a SuperBlackHawk 44 Mag. 20 Rds of 500gr. SP and 20 rds of 500 Solids plus 100 rds of 180 gr. JSP for the 44 Mag... When my Pro Hunter saw the 500gr, Soft Points for the 458 he said, "what are you going to do with those", told him I thought probably Lion...He said, "you been reading too much Jack O'Conner"...then he said what are you going to do if a Cape Buff charges without notice or, we come up on an Elephant? He said "we only use solids ", solids will kill a Lion OK, but you don't want to get caught with SP's in the magazine when you need solids...Think about it....Well I said I'll trade you these 20 SP's for 20 Solids, he said NO we'll sell you 20 solids, take the SP's home and shoot them at Deer or something....The Point being that your favorite manstopping load might not cut the mustard if it has to go thru a car door, glass, brush or some body armor. I've seen guys load their revolvers with three different loads so as to be prepared for all circumstances, and they actually believed that these events should follow in a orchestrated manner????The 14" of gelatin is fine for lab analysis and a theoretical situation, someone has to explain to the widow why that theory didn't hold water after the fact: now maybe thats a little rash, but it has happened...You say you feel ALL handguns are not consistent stoppers on man sized targets"...I SAY if the caliber starts with a 4, and weighs at least 250 grs, moving at least 950 fps. IT WILL be consistent if properly placed...Thats the big secret. I also believe if it starts with a 3 and weighs 110 grs, traveling at least 1350 fps, it can be a consistent stopper also....provided its properly placed...Now before I hear the onslaught of disbelief....remember the little tail about the solids and the SP's I mentioned....Use the right equipment...Guys usually know the general scenario they will be facing...The NYC detective 's will probably differ from The Montana Highway Patrolman, just as the guy going after Grizz with his favorite 44 or 45, or 475 and 500 will differ from the Eastern Whitetail hunter...Now this might not answer all your questions Greg BUT...I don't believe there is a pat answer...I personally have tried to choose the equipment for the job...And or offered the Individual a choice. I took my choice, design, and finished product at tested it in a good portion of the world under a variety of circumstances....My choice today for Grizz or Moose in Alaska, My 375 Howdah or my 475 Linebaugh...All lesser game my Ruger 44 Mag SuperBlackhawk.Jurras 180 gr. JSP.... Personal defense My 70 Series 1911.or 4" 25-5....All-around one gun...Probably 44 Superblackhawk....But who wants just one gun.....If I could only own one, I'd probably have to say my Linebaugh 475, could load in down for squirrel or up for bear....All around bullet design Keith style SWC....Hope I haven't confused the issue...For those of you that might mistake my trivia for just an old man...thats what worked and continues to work for me....Onward and upward...the Curmudgeon
http://www.automagpistol.com/leejurrasautomagshooting.htm
Mr. Jurras has credentials in the Firearm industry, and ammunition industry, that allow him access to information in ammunition development that M&S could only dream of.
Combine that with his love for hunting, ability to shoot, ability to design firearms, and their cartridges, and his maybe 500,000 rounds of 44 magnum shot in his lifetime, and, you have a true expert in the field of ammunition, it's development, it's platform development, and, it's terminal effects, not through just hypothesis, but, through the entire scientific process. The true irony is Mr. Jurras was the developer of the 'light fast' 357 rounds, that
turned the .357 into the 'death ray' the M&S data make it out to be. I'd rather go to the source, the inventor and creator of that round, then get hearsay evidence from M&S...
Greg, you got my ear, but I'm not sure I can answer in a brief e-mail...here goes... Remember, these are my HO based on experience, as I am still working on my Doctorate in Ballistics Engineering...If fact having trouble finding a school that offers it. To my knowledge the U. of Berlin was the last. Think they closed the doors in '45....Oh well, I think today’s serious junior Ballistics engineer should Major in Chemical Eng, with a dual major in Mechanical, and a minor in Wound Ballistics from one of the Major one's after he got his MD...There are some sharp dudes out there with some great specialists...But I think you have to compile a Blue Ribbon committee to get all the answers. Kind of reminds me years ago we bought a lot of brass from Federal. If we had a problem with incoming QC, I'd have to go to the factory, and could not talk to an individual...The Pres, would call a meeting and each dept head would be present. As I would ask a question, he would refer to each dept head for the answer....Maybe something as simple as case hardness gradient...Personally I thought it was BS... But you have to remember each of these guys was a specialist in his field.. Combined, they couldn't pull the trigger and hit a target, but combined they could make a product that you could hit the target with....A reporter once asked Werner Von Braun what it was like in layman language to land a man on the moon? He replied after a moments thought...." riding a merry-go-round, shooting a BB gun and hitting a BumbleBee @ a 100 yards"...see how many people NASA has ....Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to put myself in class with these guys, just explaining what happens when guys think one bullet, one load, one caliber should do it all under all circumstances... Well hell I've rattled on here and haven't even started to answer your question....digest this and I'll get back this evening and try to answer your original question...Have to get some work done right now....ATB Lee
...you guys are making my head swim also...Yes I can relate story after story of failures and successes with both high velocity and heavy slow moving bullets..As I mentioned in previous posts; " its a never ending debate , that has no real ending 'cause both have there place....On my first trip to Africa I took a 458 Browning and a SuperBlackHawk 44 Mag. 20 Rds of 500gr. SP and 20 rds of 500 Solids plus 100 rds of 180 gr. JSP for the 44 Mag... When my Pro Hunter saw the 500gr, Soft Points for the 458 he said, "what are you going to do with those", told him I thought probably Lion...He said, "you been reading too much Jack O'Conner"...then he said what are you going to do if a Cape Buff charges without notice or, we come up on an Elephant? He said "we only use solids ", solids will kill a Lion OK, but you don't want to get caught with SP's in the magazine when you need solids...Think about it....Well I said I'll trade you these 20 SP's for 20 Solids, he said NO we'll sell you 20 solids, take the SP's home and shoot them at Deer or something....The Point being that your favorite manstopping load might not cut the mustard if it has to go thru a car door, glass, brush or some body armor. I've seen guys load their revolvers with three different loads so as to be prepared for all circumstances, and they actually believed that these events should follow in a orchestrated manner????The 14" of gelatin is fine for lab analysis and a theoretical situation, someone has to explain to the widow why that theory didn't hold water after the fact: now maybe thats a little rash, but it has happened...You say you feel ALL handguns are not consistent stoppers on man sized targets"...I SAY if the caliber starts with a 4, and weighs at least 250 grs, moving at least 950 fps. IT WILL be consistent if properly placed...Thats the big secret. I also believe if it starts with a 3 and weighs 110 grs, traveling at least 1350 fps, it can be a consistent stopper also....provided its properly placed...Now before I hear the onslaught of disbelief....remember the little tail about the solids and the SP's I mentioned....Use the right equipment...Guys usually know the general scenario they will be facing...The NYC detective 's will probably differ from The Montana Highway Patrolman, just as the guy going after Grizz with his favorite 44 or 45, or 475 and 500 will differ from the Eastern Whitetail hunter...Now this might not answer all your questions Greg BUT...I don't believe there is a pat answer...I personally have tried to choose the equipment for the job...And or offered the Individual a choice. I took my choice, design, and finished product at tested it in a good portion of the world under a variety of circumstances....My choice today for Grizz or Moose in Alaska, My 375 Howdah or my 475 Linebaugh...All lesser game my Ruger 44 Mag SuperBlackhawk.Jurras 180 gr. JSP.... Personal defense My 70 Series 1911.or 4" 25-5....All-around one gun...Probably 44 Superblackhawk....But who wants just one gun.....If I could only own one, I'd probably have to say my Linebaugh 475, could load in down for squirrel or up for bear....All around bullet design Keith style SWC....Hope I haven't confused the issue...For those of you that might mistake my trivia for just an old man...thats what worked and continues to work for me....Onward and upward...the Curmudgeon
http://www.automagpistol.com/leejurrasautomagshooting.htm
Mr. Jurras has credentials in the Firearm industry, and ammunition industry, that allow him access to information in ammunition development that M&S could only dream of.
Combine that with his love for hunting, ability to shoot, ability to design firearms, and their cartridges, and his maybe 500,000 rounds of 44 magnum shot in his lifetime, and, you have a true expert in the field of ammunition, it's development, it's platform development, and, it's terminal effects, not through just hypothesis, but, through the entire scientific process. The true irony is Mr. Jurras was the developer of the 'light fast' 357 rounds, that
turned the .357 into the 'death ray' the M&S data make it out to be. I'd rather go to the source, the inventor and creator of that round, then get hearsay evidence from M&S...
Dr. Courtney
New member
First of all, I would not call the pressure wave theory "my own theory." Goransson et al provided the first data suggesting remote cerebral effects. Suneson et al showed that the pressure wave can travel through the body and reach the brain causing neural damage distant from the impact site. Wang et al. confirmed and expanded Suneson's findings. The work of my co-author (Dr. Amy Courtney) and I is building upon these ideas. I agree with the pressure wave theory, because there is significant evidence supporting it. However, it would be wrong to suggest that the idea originated with me.
There is plenty of support for the pressure wave hypothesis unrelated to the Marshall and Sanow data set.
However, we could not say we had tested the hypothesis against all the available data without considering the Marshall and Sanow OSS data base.
Our research group had concluded that the criticisms of Marshall and Sanow were exaggerated long before we performed the regression analysis showing significant agreement with the pressure wave hypothesis. We would not have taken the time and effort to perform the regression analysis on the OSS data set had we not believed the data to be valuable.
Magazine authors have no editorial control over what actually gets printed after they hand their manuscript to an editor. I would be very slow to hold a magazine author accountable for what gets printed under his byline, because I know how much the text can get hacked up in the editorial process. Authors have much more control over the editorial process when writing books, so we have focussed on the content of the Marshall and Sanow books rather than the magazine articles. For this reason, it is quite common for scientific journal articles to reference books, but they almost never reference magazine articles.
Michael Courtney
Dr. Courtney
New member
Please show explicitly where our review paper contains ad hominem attacks or other logical fallacies.
Rather than say that our criticisms of Fackler are "one sided," why not show where our reasoning is in error?
The question of "one sided" is a subjective matter of your personal opinion.
In contrast, the presence or absence of ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies can be demonstrated objectively.
Opinions of recognized, identified authorities might have some merit.
Opinions of anonymous internet posters are not interesting. Anonymous contributions only have value to the degree that they are supported by evidence and reason.
You are right, this is all the hypothesis itself says. But the data analysis contained in the papers goes further to suggest specific pressure leves at which the contributions of the pressure wave become significant.
Actually, these papers do not suggest the possibility of pressure waves causing incapacitation in humans from hits to the extremities. The Suneson and Wang experiments in pigs and dogs show brain injury from hits to the thigh, but the distance from the thigh to the brain in these test subjects is half a meter, and there is a clear path for the pressure wave to propagate to the brain (the femoral artery).
In humans and larger animal test subjects, the distance from the femoral artery to the brain is much larger. In humans, other than direct hits to the head and neck, the only way to impact major vascular tissue within 0.5m of the brain is to reach the major blood-bearing organs of the upper thoracic cavity.
Of course. We make no pretension that these papers are the final word in understanding and quantfying pressure wave effects. This initial round of papers establishes the reality of remote pressure wave effects and begins the work of quantifying the pressure magnitudes at which they occur.
Our main purpose is to show that the pressure wave mechanism is not a myth, as many have claimed, and that there is a contribution to incapacitation beyond the tissue directly crushed by the bullet.
Michael Courtney
juliet charley
New member
S&M published many articles advocating essentially the same point. Those articles were published over a number of years by the same publication and editor. When that editor moved to another publication, S&M maintained their relationship with that editor and continued publish articles under him for his new publication. Evidently the editorial changes (if any) were not sufficient to present any sort of integrity issues/conflicts for S&M because they remained with that particular editor for many years and different publications.
Dr. Courtney:
Thank you for your postings.
Your posting comes at a perfect time. Recently, a friend ham shot a deer with a .475 Linebaugh. Non-fatal hit, no artery, just very long penetration, and a very large hole. 420 grain lfn at 1350 fps. Deer went about two bounces, keeled over dead. We had conjectured that the pain of full length, large bullet penetration might have done him in, but, we kind of know from other shootings that deer don't feel much, and, often, with lesser calibers, don't even know they've been hit.
However, we 'forgot' about your theory, and, I think in this case, it explains the quick, otherwise unexplained death of this deer. I suspect the bullet came close enough, and put enough pressure on a large artery to cause the effect you mention.
I find it odd that there would be any discussion as to the existence of such wounding ability. I think the discussion would be more along the lines of what kind of projectile, size, weight, surface area, velocity, and shot placement combine to create it, and, what are the likelyhood of that happening on a human?
M&S, at least in my reading of their work, never focused on the shot placement, rather on if the shot was a 'one shot stop'.
While Nyeti may not want to come public with who he is, and what agency he works for, his observations makes sense to anyone that's been at twilight at the range, and having someone shooting 125's out of a snubby 357.
In other words, the observation makes sense to anyone who's been around full house snubbies. I used something similar, a full case of H110, with a 200-230 grain bullet in 45 Colt/Linebaugh. I figured if the bullet didn't get the BG, the blinding, literally, flash, or powder burn would blind the BG, and certainly deafen him.
As for not wanting to publish your name on the net: Some of us work in areas that are facist-liberal, and, if you show any indication of being conservative, you maybe ostracized, defamed, and run out of your job. I work in a super liberal, female dominated environment, and, I've learned from past bad experiences to keep my head down.
I find most of this dancing on the head of a pin. I think you have about 100 years of game hunting that supports
your 'theory' of hydrodynamic shock being moved through the body of animals. Also, I find it hard to believe that with near 50 million people killed in WW2 and 1, some sort of more concrete evidence, or better observational evidence, isn't avaliable.
What I would find fascinating is what you consider to be the 'target' areas for such effect occuring, and, the type projectile, and, it's velocity, required for this effect to be effective.
How do you think this theory would substantially alter the current choices in ammunition for service class weapons?
Have you screened M&S 'data' for the possibility of the flash bang short barreled grenade effect? It may, or may not affect the M&S data supporting your theory, at least in some sort of %, one way or another.
I must agree with Mr. Jurras, in that trying to find similarity in the endless variables of shootings is a questionable quest in the first place.
Have you contacted experts such as Lee Jurras, JD Jones, Gary Reeder, John Linebaugh, Ross Seyfried, Jack Huntington, Hamilton Bowen, John Taffin, Phil Shoemaker, Gil Van Horn, the real pioneers of handguns, and ammunition, and discussed with them their feedback, and observations?
I get the distinct feeling that communication from the Dr. side, and research does not communicate with people that actually hunt, develop cartridges and ammunition, etc.
What larger animal test subjects are you referring too?
I'm curious how you explain the devastating effect a 300 Weatherby bullet has on a deer, turning the lungs to jelly, blowing pieces feet outside the body, on the off side, yet, the bullet did not hit any major blood bearing organs, or, do you consider the lung tissue to be major blood bearing?
Not clear on this.
My point here is when velocity is sufficient, air can be compressed, and, the result can be forced into tissue at high velocity, with enough force to devastate the surrounding area.
I suspect something similar happens when projectiles start moving 2150 fps, and weigh 500 grains...If this is so, and it is, observed by about 100 years of African hunting experience, and proved over again, every day,
why would anyone think it wouldn't happen with a bullet striking non compressible liquid, confined by various skins or tissues?
I don't know the last time you petted, or sat on an elephant, but what appears to be 'soft and cuddly' feels like cement when you sit on it, or press hard enough to get to the skin tension. Amazing when you think about it that a container can hold 12,000 pounds of combination fluid and tissue, yet still be flexible, and effective enough to last for 70 plus years. Yet, that internal pressure on the skin makes it rock hard, invulnerable to lions claws and teeth. It certainly provides a container where if a bullet hits one side, non-compressible fluid will transfer the shock distance in the body.
DR S
Thank you for your postings.
Your posting comes at a perfect time. Recently, a friend ham shot a deer with a .475 Linebaugh. Non-fatal hit, no artery, just very long penetration, and a very large hole. 420 grain lfn at 1350 fps. Deer went about two bounces, keeled over dead. We had conjectured that the pain of full length, large bullet penetration might have done him in, but, we kind of know from other shootings that deer don't feel much, and, often, with lesser calibers, don't even know they've been hit.
However, we 'forgot' about your theory, and, I think in this case, it explains the quick, otherwise unexplained death of this deer. I suspect the bullet came close enough, and put enough pressure on a large artery to cause the effect you mention.
I find it odd that there would be any discussion as to the existence of such wounding ability. I think the discussion would be more along the lines of what kind of projectile, size, weight, surface area, velocity, and shot placement combine to create it, and, what are the likelyhood of that happening on a human?
M&S, at least in my reading of their work, never focused on the shot placement, rather on if the shot was a 'one shot stop'.
While Nyeti may not want to come public with who he is, and what agency he works for, his observations makes sense to anyone that's been at twilight at the range, and having someone shooting 125's out of a snubby 357.
In other words, the observation makes sense to anyone who's been around full house snubbies. I used something similar, a full case of H110, with a 200-230 grain bullet in 45 Colt/Linebaugh. I figured if the bullet didn't get the BG, the blinding, literally, flash, or powder burn would blind the BG, and certainly deafen him.
As for not wanting to publish your name on the net: Some of us work in areas that are facist-liberal, and, if you show any indication of being conservative, you maybe ostracized, defamed, and run out of your job. I work in a super liberal, female dominated environment, and, I've learned from past bad experiences to keep my head down.
I find most of this dancing on the head of a pin. I think you have about 100 years of game hunting that supports
your 'theory' of hydrodynamic shock being moved through the body of animals. Also, I find it hard to believe that with near 50 million people killed in WW2 and 1, some sort of more concrete evidence, or better observational evidence, isn't avaliable.
What I would find fascinating is what you consider to be the 'target' areas for such effect occuring, and, the type projectile, and, it's velocity, required for this effect to be effective.
How do you think this theory would substantially alter the current choices in ammunition for service class weapons?
Have you screened M&S 'data' for the possibility of the flash bang short barreled grenade effect? It may, or may not affect the M&S data supporting your theory, at least in some sort of %, one way or another.
I must agree with Mr. Jurras, in that trying to find similarity in the endless variables of shootings is a questionable quest in the first place.
Have you contacted experts such as Lee Jurras, JD Jones, Gary Reeder, John Linebaugh, Ross Seyfried, Jack Huntington, Hamilton Bowen, John Taffin, Phil Shoemaker, Gil Van Horn, the real pioneers of handguns, and ammunition, and discussed with them their feedback, and observations?
I get the distinct feeling that communication from the Dr. side, and research does not communicate with people that actually hunt, develop cartridges and ammunition, etc.
What larger animal test subjects are you referring too?
I'm curious how you explain the devastating effect a 300 Weatherby bullet has on a deer, turning the lungs to jelly, blowing pieces feet outside the body, on the off side, yet, the bullet did not hit any major blood bearing organs, or, do you consider the lung tissue to be major blood bearing?
Not clear on this.
My point here is when velocity is sufficient, air can be compressed, and, the result can be forced into tissue at high velocity, with enough force to devastate the surrounding area.
I suspect something similar happens when projectiles start moving 2150 fps, and weigh 500 grains...If this is so, and it is, observed by about 100 years of African hunting experience, and proved over again, every day,
why would anyone think it wouldn't happen with a bullet striking non compressible liquid, confined by various skins or tissues?
I don't know the last time you petted, or sat on an elephant, but what appears to be 'soft and cuddly' feels like cement when you sit on it, or press hard enough to get to the skin tension. Amazing when you think about it that a container can hold 12,000 pounds of combination fluid and tissue, yet still be flexible, and effective enough to last for 70 plus years. Yet, that internal pressure on the skin makes it rock hard, invulnerable to lions claws and teeth. It certainly provides a container where if a bullet hits one side, non-compressible fluid will transfer the shock distance in the body.
DR S
I'd also like to suggest that M&S data in their past works is moot. Most of the companies have developed new, maybe better, bullets, so, the observations are at best dated.
It was quite clear when reading their magazine articles that they were directed at selling certain types, and brands, of ammunition.
The value of their data to me is that with proper shot placement, people stop moving, and, it appears the police have done a fairly reasonable job of picking calibers that achieve that end.
However, considering Nyeti's observations alone, the number of variables present in each shooting invalidate any conclusions that can be drawn from the alleged superior calibers for self-defense, or loads, in the very narrow areas where sufficient data exists to support any conclusion at all.
Bad facts make bad conclusions.
Quick example.
I've been trying to find data on human shootings with a 375 H&H. Only shooting I could find was an AD at point blank range, in Africa, when someone shot the guy in front in the arm. The 300 grain soft point, famed for penetration, but, not tissue damage, removed the guys arm, just below the shoulder. He was semi-mobile, but, died later from loss of blood, on a long plane flight back.
I guess the 375 H&H isn't a 'one shot stop' caliber, since the case in point, the person was semi-mobile after the incident???
Dr. S
It was quite clear when reading their magazine articles that they were directed at selling certain types, and brands, of ammunition.
The value of their data to me is that with proper shot placement, people stop moving, and, it appears the police have done a fairly reasonable job of picking calibers that achieve that end.
However, considering Nyeti's observations alone, the number of variables present in each shooting invalidate any conclusions that can be drawn from the alleged superior calibers for self-defense, or loads, in the very narrow areas where sufficient data exists to support any conclusion at all.
Bad facts make bad conclusions.
Quick example.
I've been trying to find data on human shootings with a 375 H&H. Only shooting I could find was an AD at point blank range, in Africa, when someone shot the guy in front in the arm. The 300 grain soft point, famed for penetration, but, not tissue damage, removed the guys arm, just below the shoulder. He was semi-mobile, but, died later from loss of blood, on a long plane flight back.
I guess the 375 H&H isn't a 'one shot stop' caliber, since the case in point, the person was semi-mobile after the incident???
Dr. S
I apologize Dr. Courtney, I wasn't trying to imply that you created the pressure wave theory. By calling them "your own" I meant the theories you hold dear to yourself. Marshall and Sanow claimed their data was good because it showed which caliber was best by the percentage of one shot stops. You are favoring the pressure wave theory and use their data because it fits in with your research. They are proponents of the pressure wave theory too, like most other gun writers, but the difference is if all the gun writers switched their view tomorrow, would you?
Also if Marshall and Sanows magazine articles were hacked up to the point where they were when printed, they should have quit and started looking for another source of income. The biggest problems I have with your excuse for their articles are they had some really lame stories to back up their argument, and other gun writers quote them on a regular basis to back up their own arguments.
Also in your reports you say they don't want to open their records up to the public because that is 'their' source and they don't want to let others have access to it. That is fine, but after reading their magazine articles I choose not to believe a word they say, so if they don't want to show their data it does nothing to change my mind to the opposite. And isn't their book copyrighted? If someone was to take the data they claimed they have, they would surely come to the same conclusion and not be able to publish it.
And I noticed what CarbineCaleb mentioned. You berated the critics of Marshall and Sanows work for their accusations and cheap shots, and then rebuffed them in the exact same manner.
I'll let you have the last word on this one. I don't think we're going to convince each other of anything different.
Also if Marshall and Sanows magazine articles were hacked up to the point where they were when printed, they should have quit and started looking for another source of income. The biggest problems I have with your excuse for their articles are they had some really lame stories to back up their argument, and other gun writers quote them on a regular basis to back up their own arguments.
Also in your reports you say they don't want to open their records up to the public because that is 'their' source and they don't want to let others have access to it. That is fine, but after reading their magazine articles I choose not to believe a word they say, so if they don't want to show their data it does nothing to change my mind to the opposite. And isn't their book copyrighted? If someone was to take the data they claimed they have, they would surely come to the same conclusion and not be able to publish it.
And I noticed what CarbineCaleb mentioned. You berated the critics of Marshall and Sanows work for their accusations and cheap shots, and then rebuffed them in the exact same manner.
I'll let you have the last word on this one. I don't think we're going to convince each other of anything different.
Dr. Courtney
New member
We'd have published the level of correlation between the M&S data and the ballistic pressure wave even if it did not support the theory. As it turns out, there is a very high level of correlation. Had the level of correlation been low, we would have published that result as well. The honest exercise of science means reporting results that disagree with a theory as well as results that agree with a theory.
Sir, my co-author and I are scientists. We do not care about the opinion of journalists who have been unable to formulate a good definition of a ballistic pressure wave much less interpret the data in a manner that supports or fails to support a pressure wave hypothesis.
Many gun writers had a good "gut-level" feel or intuition about how the pressure wave might be working, but they clouded the discussion with poorly defined ambiguous terms like hydrostatic shock. Marshall and Sanow happened to publish a sufficiently large data set to allow a more quantitative description of the pressure wave to be tested.
How many times have you left significant income sitting on the table because an editor was changing your words?
My point is that authors of scientific books and of scientific journal articles are reasonably accountable for their words that appear in print, because they have a final approval of the words that get printed. We've currently got several ballistics papers accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed literature, and we are confident in the quality because the publishers will send us page proofs (exact copies of what will be published) for our approval before going to press. Consequently, the final responsibility for the content rests with the authors.
In contrast, magazine authors are subject to the whims of the editor and relinquish ownership when they hand their article to the editor. Consequently, the final responsibility for the content rests withthe editor.
I have corresponded with those who were granted access to their source data. As we wrote in the paper, sharing of source data is at the discretion of the researchers. Most researchers will allow access to their data to some trusted parties.
General ideas, findings, and results are not copyrighted. Only the exact words that are used to express the ideas, findings, and results are copyrighted. There are many examples in the scientific literature of research being reported that closely duplicates an earlier finding. Copyright is never an issue as long as there is no plagarism.
Where are the ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies in our review paper?
Pointing out logical or scientific errors is not a "cheap shot." It is the time-honored and expected manner of conducting scientific discourse.
In contrast, the papers that are critical of Suneson et al, Strasbourg, and Marshall and Sanow, contain numerous ad hominem attacks, poor reasoning, logical fallacies, and assertions that are easily disproven.
Michael Courtney
- Status