Marshall & Sanow: What to do with a book I wish I had not bought?

[juliet charley]

How many times have you left sitting on the table because an editor was changing your words?

Since S&M's articles were clearly presented as fact-based and informational, and concerned potentially life and death matters, your remark reflects on their intergrity. It sounds like you believe they were willing to sell their souls (so to speak) for filty lucre--or at least "significant income".

 

[Dr. Courtney]

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?

Our discussion of the physics of the ballistic pressure wave is a good start on how to know how large a pressure wave a given bullet creates.

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'.

Their placement criteria was rather large (the thoracic cavity). A more narrowly defined criteria (chest for example) might have been preferable, but then they would have had far fewer data points.

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 understand the desire to maintain anonymity. My point above was that if someone is going to remain anonymous, they need to base their points on evidence and reasoning rather than their opinions.

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.

Sure. Of course. However, all this experience has not done a very good job of describing the basic idea quantitatively: how you might predict whether or not you'll have the effect.

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.

As close to the heart/aorta as possible, because this is the main pressure tube leading to the brain. You need a projectile/velocity combination with as large as possible retarding force after penetrating to vital organs.

How do you think this theory would substantially alter the current choices in ammunition for service class weapons?

We've made suggestions for improved ammo designs in the papers.

Have you screened M&S 'data' for the possibility of the flash bang hort 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.

We're considering ideas on how to do this as a part of modeling the voluntary contribution to the OSS data.

What larger animal test subjects are you referring too?

I meant animals larger than the pigs and dogs used by Suneson and Wang: human sized animals.

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?

Parts of the lung definitely are. Other parts not so much.

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?

Stop thinking about velocity and mass. Think about retarding force which is the local rate of kinetic energy loss of the projectile, dE/dx.


Michael Courtney

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Since S&M's articles were clearly presented as fact-based and informational, and concerned potentially life and death matters, your remark reflects on their intergrity. It sounds like you believe they were willing to sell their souls (so to speak) for filty lucre--or at least "significant income".

They don't go about twisting other's words in a public forum.

They don't go about making an implied ad hominem attack by twisting someones name into a sexual perversion.

And to my knowledge, there are no life and death type of errors in their magazine articles. Please give some very specific examples with exact citations if you have evidence to the contrary. Someone who makes life and death decisions based on hobbiest magazines probably gets what they deserve.

An author's integrity is not affected by what the editor does after the article is sold to a magazine for publication.

Michael Courtney

 

[Dr. Courtney]

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.

Observational data is very rarely moot if the underlying principles at work can be quantified and are repeatable. The existing M&S data allow the OSS rating to be modeled in terms of wound channel area and pressure wave. We should be able to predict relative bullet effectiveness within about 6% or so from parameters measured in gelatin before any human shooting data is compiled.

It was quite clear when reading their magazine articles that they were directed at selling certain types, and brands, of ammunition.

I'm not so sure. The fellows above were sure I was a shill for Triton until I pointed out the company is out of business.

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.

If this were true, then statistical studies could not conclude that smoking causes cancer ir that oat bran lowers cholesterol. Statistical techniques can draw conclusions in situations where there are many uncontrolled variables, as long as there is sufficient randomness in the uncontrolled variables.

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.

The statistical error in one data point is 100%.

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???

The hit location did not meet the selection criteria.

Michael Courtney

 

[juliet charley]

An author's integrity is not affected by what the editor does after the article is sold to a magazine for publication.

Depends on whose name is on the article, doesn't it?

 

[JohnKSa]

Dr. Courtney,

I appreciate your patience and your willingness to answer questions. Agree or disagree, it's rare to have new information presented here. Typically we get rehashed old data or opinions--not much in the way of true analysis.

Depends on whose name is on the article, doesn't it?

Either way, the author is not to blame for what the editor does.

 

[CarbineCaleb]

Actually, these papers do not suggest the possibility of pressure waves causing incapacitation in humans from hits to the extremities.

Hmmm....

These findings correspond well to the results of Suneson et al., and confirmed that distant effect exists in the central nervous system after a high-energy missile impact to an extremity.

So when quotations are cited in your paper describing CNS effects of "peripheral" hits and to an "extremity".... you're not trying to imply that there are any profound CNS effects by projectile hits to the periphery or extremities?

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.

Speaking of that data analysis. Your Figure 1 in the following ref:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701266.pdf
...presents an overlay of data with model. You don't mention here, however that the bulk of the data is tightly clustered roughly around the point: 8,90 - this kind of data distribution doesn't give good support for a statistical model, because effectively many smooth curves may be placed through the data with little effect on the residuals. In other words, apparent model agreement observed on the plot may be deceiving - because many curves that run through the tight group of points at 8,90 would also appear to give good support for the data.

Furthermore, you state that

The model is constructed by employing the hypothesis that the wound channel and ballistic pressure wave effects
each have an associated independent probability of incapacitation.

Can that be? You yourself state that the average force of deceleration (i.e., that giving rise to the pressure wave), is given by

Fave = E/d

, where Fave is the average force, and d is the penetration depth. So, if one is related to the other by this equation, then how may they be validly treated as statistically independent?

And further, the papers lie largely on the foundation of empirical statistics, these are not mechanistic papers, they are datamining, and yet I didn't notice you quoting P-values anywhere - that is, the probability that such a model (or difference in means, as was the case in at least one other instance), would be obtained by pure chance. This is crucial to readers to have a mature understanding of the assertions, I would say.

 

[juliet charley]

Either way, the author is not to blame for what the editor does.

Considering the number of articles and the length time the authors remained associated with a single editor, they evidently weren't too upset about any alleged editorial liberties taken with their articles (or else, as Dr. Courtney suggested when pressed, money was important to them than their integrity). In all honesty though, it is more likely Dr. Courtney was trying to deflect criticism by blaming the editor.

 

[Socrates]

Dr. Courtney:
After reading your articles through, in particular 0701266, I do have some questions for you. I agree with your recommendation for pistol bullets, at least from the results of the Barnes X bullet on game. You get the best of both worlds, what I call hydrodynamic waves, and you call ballistic pressure waves, with a deep penetrating core. It draws to mind the same sort of Tsunami generating plate movement underwater that results in Tsunamis.
300 thousand people in Indonesia would not doubt the existence of such waves, and, I don't either.

Now, in your work, you did observe the poor OSS results from the 45 Colt, and .41 Magnum, and, your explanation is bad shot placement. Have you shot a 225 grain Silvertip in a 45? It's like a 22 lr. Remington is famous, at least in my circle, for using very poor powders, read cheap, that result in tons of blast and recoil, with little ballistic effect, but, Winchester is not known for doing the same. Also, the guns selected for these calibers are generally heavy enough to soak up the recoil, and, are VERY easy to shoot, with a minimum of practice. Suffice to say inadequate information is present in M&S data to justify their conclusions on the effectiveness of these rounds, and the 44 magnum.

I think a more feasible explanation is a small sample, picked by the authors to support their conclusions.
The above one shot stops are clearly opposed to Nyeti's observation of the effectiveness of that same load, in nearly 100 shootings.

Ironically, the loads they rate so poorly, .41 Magnum and 45 Colt, do fit the ballistic recommendations you make: penetrate to 4", fragment, and large frontal area.

Now, Jack Huntington, who has a degree in gunsmithing, and, is well schooled in ballistics, wound effects, and a cartridge designer, would add to your conclusion.

In short, much as Nyeti suggests, Mr. Huntington suggests
energy for the ballistic pressure wave is transfered by dwell time at speed and SURFACE AREA OF THE PROJECTILE.

Put simply, a large caliber, read .50 JRH in this case, or .475, with bullet weight heavy enough to insure maintaining velocity through the target, or, maintaining velocity for a much longer area, combined with it's larger surface area, creates a much greater ballistic pressure wave through the target then one that opens quickly, looses speed quickly, and stops relatively quickly.

Think of all that wasted gello where the bullet leaves a noticeable shock wave in the first 9", looses energy after expansion, and proceeds at a greatly reduced energy rate for another 9".

Now, think of a 400 Grain Hornady XTP, .475 bullet that expands, yet goes through the entire block at about the speed it entered, creating a much greater pressure wave due to the much longer duration. Think of the 2004 Indo earthquake, that combined 9.2 richter with 10 second duration, and you sort of get an analogy to work from. Just as in a plate moving, the large considerable surface area of the bullet contributes to the pressure wave. This explains why even at a relatively sedate 1000 fps, a lfn 50 caliber bullet can pass through 5 feet of buffalo, with devastating effect, similar to a 375 H&H rifle.

It is possible to get maximum effect by using a large area bullet, something like a GS custom bullet, turned from a solid rod.

http://gscustom.co.za/

If you haven't already, I'd give Gerard a call. He's forgot more then most know about bullet design, using fragmenting bullets, with large area, at high velocity.

I might also add that Lee Jurras, a long time ago, developed 180 grain 44 magnum bullets he pushed at 1900 fps out of a handgun. He used both expanding and non-expanding construction with devastating results.

Sincerely

Dr. S

 

[JohnKSa]

In all honesty though, it is more likely Dr. Courtney was trying to deflect criticism by blaming the editor.

I think you mean "In my opinion", not "In all honesty". Since you have no knowledge one way or the other, you can't be "honest", you can merely speculate.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

(or else, as Dr. Courtney suggested when pressed, money was important to them than their integrity).

I never suggested that money was more important than their integrity. You created this as a strawman argument.

All I suggested is that gun writers generally understand that when they sell an article to a gun magazine, the actual text that gets published is out of their hands. This is true of almost all journalism, and if you've ever written a letter to the editor, it's true there too.

Editors hack up articles. Sometimes it is out of carelessnes, sometimes it might be out of a desire to please certain advertisers.

Your suggestion that journalists who continue to sell articles to edtors who hack them up are somehow selling out their integrity is absurd.

Only authors who write things for which they have insufficient evidence or that they know to be untrue have sold out their integrity.

Get off the attack bandwagon and present some reasoned thinking, if you can.

Michael Courtney

 

[Socrates]

From a legal perspective, considering the subject, I would have to disagree. If an author, and publisher, continue to publish false information, and, a reasonable person would rely upon them as a source of information to make a decision on, I think one might make a very good case that if such ammunition was used, and failed to work as had been described, in a Self-defense situation, one would certainly have something to file papers on. Reliance argument on authority, who falsely publishes, knowingly false information, distorting facts to support and sell a commercial product.

Might not work on the first case, but, if there was a continued pattern of failure, and, the authors, and publisher, continue to print falsehoods, I think they would end up paying in the end.

DR. S
PS: I'd file on the authors, publishers, advertizers, and, their clients. Deep pockets, great law suit, provided you have horrible facts, like a bullet failing to work, and, the victim is killed because of it.

 

[juliet charley]

I never suggested that money was more important than their integrity.

I don't know about that.

In response to the following statement, "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," you wrote:

How many times have you left significant income sitting on the table because an editor was changing your words?

A little indirect maybe but pretty suggestive nonetheless.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Courtney:

Actually, these papers do not suggest the possibility of pressure waves causing incapacitation in humans from hits to the extremities.

Wang et al.:

These findings correspond well to the results of Suneson et al., and confirmed that distant effect exists in the central nervous system after a high-energy missile impact to an extremity.

This is a quote from the Wang et al paper describing their experiment in dogs that confirms Suneson et al.'s findings in pigs. These papers are an important demonstration of distant (0.5 m) pressure wave effects being transmitted to the brain. The peer reviews thought it was quite reasonable to infer that similar distant effects (0.5 m) also exist in humans.

This distance does not allow for a pressure wave originating in the thigh of a human adult to reach the brain with sufficient magnitude to cause damage. However, this distance does allow for a pressure wave originating in the chest of a human adult to reach the brain with sufficient magnitude to cause damage.

So when quotations are cited in your paper describing CNS effects of "peripheral" hits and to an "extremity".... you're not trying to imply that there are any profound CNS effects by projectile hits to the periphery or extremities?

The extremity effect was demonstrated in pigs and dogs at a distance of 0.5 m. This is not sufficient evidence to imply that a hit to the thigh can reach the brain and cause damage in humans. It is compelling evidence that a hit to a human in the chest can create a pressure wave that reaches the brain and causes damage.

Speaking of that data analysis. Your Figure 1 in the following ref:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701266.pdf
...presents an overlay of data with model. You don't mention here, however that the bulk of the data is tightly clustered roughly around the point: 8,90 - this kind of data distribution doesn't give good support for a statistical model, because effectively many smooth curves may be placed through the data with little effect on the residuals.

There is a group of data clustered around that point, but it isn't "the bulk of the data." It's less than 50% of the data points.

And the clustering of data does not negate the soundness of the correlation. The main point of this graph is the high correlation between the AIT and OSS. The clustering is an artifact of having a lot of data points with around 8 seconds AIT and around 90% OSS. The fact that most loads with 8 seconds AIT have close to 90% OSS confirms the high level of correlation.

The point of this graph isn't the particular numerical model (OSS vs AIT), but rather the high level of correlation you'd get with any model. We just picked a model with the proper limiting behaviors.

In other words, apparent model agreement observed on the plot may be deceiving - because many curves that run through the tight group of points at 8,90 would also appear to give good support for the data.

How many of these models also give the proper limiting behaviors?

Furthermore, you state that
Quote:
The model is constructed by employing the hypothesis that the wound channel and ballistic pressure wave effects
each have an associated independent probability of incapacitation.

Can that be? You yourself state that the average force of deceleration (i.e., that giving rise to the pressure wave), is given by
Quote:
Fave = E/d

, where Fave is the average force, and d is the penetration depth. So, if one is related to the other by this equation, then how may they be validly treated as statistically independent?

The pressure magnitude and the permanent cavity volume can both be estimated as functions of penetration depth. Thus they are not numerically independent. However, the independence used to derive the empiracle model is a causal independence, not a numerical independence. In other words, the causal idea is that pressure wave works independently of the wound channel. In fact, there are experiments that show incapacitation and brain injury in the absence of any wound channel.

And further, the papers lie largely on the foundation of empirical statistics, these are not mechanistic papers,

I would consider the papers semi-empirical in that they do suggest causal mechanisms and make a case for the independence of the causal mechanisms. They are not purely mechanistic, but they are much more mechanistic than Steve Fuller's analysis or any other work that we are aware of that seeks quantitative models for incapacitation.

they are datamining, and yet I didn't notice you quoting P-values anywhere - that is, the probability that such a model (or difference in means, as was the case in at least one other instance), would be obtained by pure chance. This is crucial to readers to have a mature understanding of the assertions, I would say.

There are a lot of ways to measure goodness of fit and degree of correlation. Some fields (and journals) are enamored with p-values, other fields (and journals) prefer correlation coefficients and standard errors. Other fields prefer yet other statistical measures. Rather than provide every statistical measure that anyone might ask for, we published the ones we find most suitable and sufficient details on the data and model for anyone wanting a p-value or other measure of goodness of fit, correlation, or statistical do-dad compute it for themselves. Had we published p-values, someone would have certainly said, where's the correlation coefficient? You can't make everyone happy with the statistical measures you include in a paper, the best you can do is include sufficient detail that interested parties can compute it for themselves.

p-values simply are not commonly used in wound ballistics. Our references to Fackler, MacPherson, Fuller, Janzon, Ordog, Suneson, and Wolberg do not use p-values. Other important papers in wound ballistics such as Peters and Jussila do not use p-values. Wang et al uses p-values in a situation where there are too few data points to develop an empiracle model or use a meaningful correlation coefficient. Of the authors in wound ballistics who use a correlation measures or goodness of fit, the correlation coefficient is the most common.

Michael Courtney

 

[Dr. Courtney]

From a legal perspective, considering the subject, I would have to disagree. If an author, and publisher, continue to publish false information, and, a reasonable person would rely upon them as a source of information to make a decision on, I think one might make a very good case that if such ammunition was used, and failed to work as had been described, in a Self-defense situation, one would certainly have something to file papers on. Reliance argument on authority, who falsely publishes, knowingly false information, distorting facts to support and sell a commercial product.

Sure. But I wasn't suggesting that the authors or editors buggered the facts of the OSS data.

I was suggesting that perhaps the editor may have done some spin doctoring of the accompanying text to make the explanation more favorable to certain advertisers, or perhaps hacked other aspects of the text from some combination of space constraints and generating extra controversy to sell magazines.

DR. S

PS: I'd file on the authors, publishers, advertizers, and, their clients. Deep pockets, great law suit, provided you have horrible facts, like a bullet failing to work, and, the victim is killed because of it.

It's a nice legal theory, but can you point to one ammunition manufacturer or gunzine author, editor, publisher that has been successfully sued along the line of reasoning you are suggesting?

If Fackler and the other IWBA/FBI types could have successfully sued Marshall and Sanow, don't you think they would have? You don't think they could have found some good police officers who have died using ammo that Marshall and Sanow treated favorably. Of course they could have. People using any kind of pistol ammo die in shootouts, because pistols simply are not that powerful. Then why no lawsuits? Because Marshall and Sanow's data simply was never as bad as the antagonists claimed, and Fackler knew their logical fallacies would never stand up in court.

Michael Courtney

 

[Socrates]

Dr. Courtney:

I was actually thinking of Ford and the Pinto, Palladin Books, S&W with their current locks, on self-defense guns, that 'auto-lock', and, their denial that the problem exists, and, their continued marketing of guns with the lock as Self-defense guns.

Anyway, yes, I agree it's a stretch. S&M have the advantage that they promoted products that do work, and, the % of difference in results, due to the wide variety of circumstances in shootings, is not something that would stand up well in a civil law suit.

By saying the 44, 45, colt, and other heavier calibers don't work as well as the rounds they promoted, they diminished
and focused the market, and, we are only now recovering, with the 40 S&W, and other attempts to address the short comings of the existing service rounds. We have in great part to thank both the FBI shooting problems, and, Kalifornia for this revitalized intrest in large caliber carry weapons. If you can only carry 10 rounds, why have a nine?


I'm actually surprised you haven't jumped on the 1900 fps
Hi Vel 44 magnum wagon. The combination of high impact velocity, bullet expansion, and the bullet being able to retain it's velocity through the target for a greater length of time should create large amounts of ballistic dynamic pressure...

It does seem that as the velocity increases, the effect increases geometrically...

Dr. S

 

[tipoc]

Are folks here familiar with the work of Col. Frank T. Chamberlin, General Julian Hatcher and Major of Ordnance Jim Hatcher at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds shortly after the second world war? The U.S. Army Board of Ordnance set up a board composed of the above mentioned officers and others to test the effectiveness of rifle rounds on live animals as part of the militarys search for a replacement for the 30-06. For a period of several years the team shot several hundred hogs, goats and other animals. They recorded the results, X rayed the wounds, autopsied them, etc. They also recorded the condition of the animals before being shot. They recorded when they had fed and drank and shot them at specified intervals after doing so.

Among the findings they recorded was the existence of a phenomena that they had each seen before on human GSW victims during the war (of which Chamberlin and the others had a good deal of experience), they had no particular name for it put avowed as many referred to it as "hydro static shock". The point was that in some cases a high velocity rifle round caused trauma and shock far removed from the actual bullet hole.

They also noted that this varied on where the animal was shot and how soon after eating it was shot. It also varied on how well hydrated the animal was.
They had no doubt that it was a contributing factor in death and injury. It also got to where they could predict it's effects to a certain extent. But never entirely and only within the parameters of how they were conducting their tests.

At any rate in the 1960s P.O. Ackley asked Chamberlin to write up a summary of some of his conclusion on gunshot wounds based on his extensive experience with the same. Chamberlin did this and the resulting informative essay can be found in Vol. II of Ackley's "Handbook for Shooter's and Reloaders" interesting and informative reading.

tipoc

 

[Socrates]

Tipoc: I remember reading that a LONG time ago, like 1980.
It's sort of sad that we need to reinvent the same wheel, when it's been found to work once already.

Dr. S

 

[CarbineCaleb]

The fact that most loads with 8 seconds AIT have close to 90% OSS confirms the high level of correlation.

Interesting - that's the first time that I've heard a lack of dispersion in data described as proving a functional correlation. Usually it's considered an artifact/weakness in the data, and nothing more.

They are not numerically independent. However, the independence used to derive the empiracle model is a causal independence, not a numerical independence. ...In fact, there are experiments that show incapacitation and brain injury in the absence of any wound channel.

I don't buy that. If two quantities are numerically related to a third one by formulas which are generally applicable, then their behavior cannot be independent. The fact that there may be a few exceptions to the functional rule (and in the example cited due to the limiting behavior - peak pressure being inversely related to penetration depth), does not remove this consideration. You cannot truely separate these things from one another, no matter how much you may try to wish it away.

There are a lot of ways to measure goodness of fit and degree of correlation. Some fields (and journals) are enamored with p-values, other fields (and journals) prefer correlation coefficients and standard errors.

P-Values are not a measure of fit. R-values tell the reader how well something fits, and P-Values tell the reader how much they should believe it - hardly a minor consideration. I would say it's a lot more interesting to know how credible a position is than how pretty it is.

p-values simply are not commonly used in wound ballistics.

They may not be - but it's never too late to start. And while they may be derived straight from theory for linear models, they cannot conveniently be done so for nonlinear models, nor can they be at least adequately represented from simple closed form expressions in data mining applications. In these cases, however, it's possible to get them from simulation - and there, at least if the simulation is done with integrity, you will find that the P-values derived from theory are actually overly optimistic for most real applications, often drastically so - all the more reason to quote P-values, and to do the most rigorous job practical of calculating truely representative ones.

Furthermore, while I must admit to being dismayed by some of Dr. Fackler's statements, that I thought were unseemly for a man of his accomplishments, I find your trashing of him in the first paper very shoddy. Virtually all that you are writing here in these papers is a reaction to/derivative of his work - looky here, if I use these particular ballistic conditions, I can get a modified cylindrical wound rather than a cylindrical wound; looky here, if I add a term to the permanent crush cavity, I can get a better fit to this empirical data... Dr. Fackler has made outstanding contributions to the field of wound ballistics, leading it from the wilderness of superstition and rumor to a basis of rational inquery.

While other authors in science will give due credit to those who came before them on whose work they build, often in fact, paying homage to them, noting that they stand on the shoulders of giants, you seem to find it expedient to crap on the shoulders of giants. Shame on you, Dr. Courtney.

 

[JR47]

Human history is replete with numerous examples of "reinventing the wheel". Sometimes it's due to differences in language, others because, while the theory was postulated at some point, there was no interest, or technology, available to explore it. Accordingly, it faded into total obscurity. It is finally resurrected after the "reinvention" has been made, and not because it was known to the researching party.

That said, and the fact that this phenomena MAY have been observed as far back as the early 20th century, perhaps we should be more interested in the science involved, than the defense of one of two sides of an argument rendered moot by the research.

M&S never thought that they had "the answer", and that was printed in their books. Fackler and his acolytes were the people who seemed to relish attacking other's points of view.

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 would ask the same of anyone who is a proponent of Fackler. I would also point out that pressure wave science extends into long-gun velocities as well. The available data for that in humans hasn't been as well documented yet, though. However, the one side in this was noted for having worked extensively with rifle caliber wounds, and never approached Nosler, Weatherby, Ruger, Ackley, or any of the noted developers of either bullets, calibers, or long-guns.

Socrates, your post #38 provides nothing but anecdotal information. Who are "true experts"? Who are the foremost ballisticians? Where does it mention the "100" shootings using the .357 Magnum/125 gr. load? Could it be possible that shootings with that same load, in daylight, or at distances of greater than 6 feet, actually occurred nationally? That the evidence of the results from them are also available, and were included in M&S work? How long ago was "several years"?

Roy Huntington does have a degree in Gunsmithing, which is a mechanical art. His education in ballistics is, from what I can gather, that of an informed lay-person. He's a great man, in all of the possible meanings, but HE doesn't seem to feel that he's an "expert" on wound ballistics.

It would appear that nayati's observations involving wound ballistics, and psychological effects, have the same statistical problems that you ascribe to M&S. I don't doubt that his observations are personally valid for him, just that they lack the scientific requirements acceptable today. Any recommendations from him would then incur the same type of legal liability as you discuss in post 72.

I would also be willing to wager that nayati is a retired LEO, as having investigated over 75 officer-related shootings in .45 Colt isn't exactly a current possibility. As such, it's possible that his experience reflects a time even earlier than M&S.

I, for one, would enjoy hearing from him, and his relevant experiences as an old-time LEO.