What is wrong with Hydrashok?

[Iraqgunz]

Someone correct me if I am wrong. Wasn't that nonsense by Sanow and Marshall debunked as being a bunch of garbage?

Unfortunately Evan Marshall's street statistics have not been updated for several years. Thus improved performance by newer designs will not appear in his statistics. Having laboratory tests and street statistics was the best of both worlds. (Ok, second best. The best is never getting into a gunfight.)

[Ed L.]

You're not wrong, IG.

I am interested in knowing from Alistaire ff he would consider a shooting where someone had was shot in the chest once and failed to stop so he had to be shot repeated times a failure to produce a one-shot stop.

[Littlebear]

Someone correct me if I am wrong. Wasn't that nonsense by Sanow and Marshall debunked as being a bunch of garbage?

Indeed, these guys made a nice income with that bunk. I would much rather rely on DocGRK's data. The "one shot stop" theory is so blattantly flawed.

[CaptainDooley]

Why would you only shoot someone once? I mean, you're trying to stop a threat right? It's not precision target practice where you want to have each squeeze be a perfect shot... I guess I've just never understood the whole mindset that says this is important.

[Ed L.]

Why would you only shoot someone once? I mean, you're trying to stop a threat right? It's not precision target practice where you want to have each squeeze be a perfect shot... I guess I've just never understood the whole mindset that says this is important.

It relates to the methodology of Marshall's One-shot stop statistics.

[CaptainDooley]

I understand that about Marshall's work, I'm just saying I've never understood the facination with finding the "one-stop shot". I'm going to keep pulling that trigger until the threat falls off the front sight, not shoot once and evaluate.

[alistaire]

You're not wrong, IG.

I am interested in knowing from Alistaire ff he would consider a shooting where someone had was shot in the chest once and failed to stop so he had to be shot repeated times a failure to produce a one-shot stop.

I'm am not sure what you are asking, but I'll try to explain 'one shot stop' as Marshall uses it.

The percentage of 'one shot stops' is a measure of effectiveness of the bullet design. Example: Suppose you line up 100 men and shoot each one once in the chest with 22LR and 10 of them fall down. That is 10% one shot stops. Now suppose you take their twin brothers and do the same thing using a .357 magnum, and 85 of the fall down. That is 85% one shot stops. By this measure the .357 is a better performer.

He is not saying "shoot them once". He is saying that a bullet with a higher percentage of 'one shot stops' will be more effective at bringing down the bad guy, but you still have to keep shooting until he falls down.

One of the big complaints about Marshall's studies is that he discards victims with multiple wounds. This correct, statisically. Suppose you shoot a man with a 22LR and a .357, and he falls down. Which bullet gets the credit? The 22? The .357 or maybe it took both to do the job. You just don't know so you must discard all multiple wound shootings. This upsets a lot of people who are not familiar with statistical methods.

As an engineer, his methods as published in his books seem correct to me. I am not a statistician; professional statisticians may have complaints about his methods that I have not seen.

Another complaint is that Marshall invented his data. I have never met Marshall and did not spend time hanging around his house at night when I imagine he would have been studying the data if he did so. My casual browsing of these charges on the internet suggests to me that the persons making these charges were not in a position to directly observe his actions either. I could easily have missed an authoratative person making a documentable charge.

Another source of difficulty is that several respected people have theories about wounding mechanisms (crush cavity vs temporary stretch cavity) that sometimes appear to be contradicted by Marshall's data. Statistics are not perfect, somethines you get results that seem wrong but you can't figure out why.

One cause of problems is that the 'one shot stop' does not measure bullet effectiveness. It measures the effectiveness of the bullet-shooter-shootee.
Some cartridges may appeal to people who practice alot and shoot opponents in vital areas like the central nervous system, where another cartridge may appeal to casual shooters who do not practice and shoot people in non-vital areas. Or maybe one cartridge is sold in areas where shootees are likely to be using designer drugs and the other sold in areas where shootees are not using drugs.
These effects can cause no end of controversy.

[Ed L.]

I'm am not sure what you are asking, but I'll try to explain 'one shot stop' as Marshall uses it.

The percentage of 'one shot stops' is a measure of effectiveness of the bullet design. Example: Suppose you line up 100 men and shoot each one once in the chest with 22LR and 10 of them fall down. That is 10% one shot stops. Now suppose you take their twin brothers and do the same thing using a .357 magnum, and 85 of the fall down. That is 85% one shot stops. By this measure the .357 is a better performer.

Without getting into the lack of credibility of their data, Marshall and Sanow's criteria for determining a one-shot stop in statisical and logical nonsense, as if someone who is shot once and not put down is not counted as a one-shot failure.

from page 161 of their book STREET STOPPERS:

“Multiple hits were also discarded. Again, we did not think it a fair indicator of a round’s performance if we included shootings where, for example, an individual took six hollowpoints in the upper thoracic cavity and then collapsed. How could we include these with incidents where a single round was effective?”

So by their own admission they also exclude EVERY situation where one or more rounds were fired and a person was not stopped so more rounds had to be fired.

What they did is creat a formula that claims to calculate one-shot stops but is grossly flawed because it deliberately excludes the most common one-shot failures--all situtations where one shot is fired and it fails to stop someone so additional shots need to be fired.

Their one shot stop numbers are meaningless because they do not factor situations when one shot was not enough to stop someone and more shots had to be fired.

Successes are meaningless unless you factor in failures. And Marshall & Sanow’s numbers do not factor in a major number of failures, therefore they have no meaning.

[Ed L.]

I understand that about Marshall's work, I'm just saying I've never understood the facination with finding the "one-stop shot". I'm going to keep pulling that trigger until the threat falls off the front sight, not shoot once and evaluate.

Marshall & Sanow's work dates back to the 1980s, when it wasn't possible to get the amount of info on shootings as it is now. The one-shot stop was seen as a measurement of a round's effectiveness. Then people discovered that their data was suspect and they failed to count any shootings that took more than one shot as a one-shot failure--so you had these rounds that had absurd one-shot stop percentages into the 90% range.

Notice that you have not seen any of their one-shot stop figures in gun magazines for at least 10 years? This is because people wised up.

Here are some links that explain more falacies of their work. The biggest problem with some of the critics is that they do not explain things in a simple matter.

Another problem is where are you getting all these people shot only once with handguns. In some cases they claimed to have like have over 500 shootings with one specific load by one company where someone dropped with one shot (of course they never tell you how many they did not count because more than one shot was required).

Here are some links that further disprove the one-shot stop statistics:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/streetstoppers.htm

http://www.firearmstactical.com/sanow-strikes-out.htm

http://www.firearmstactical.com/mars...crepancies.htm

http://www.firearmstactical.com/undeniable-evidence.htm

http://www.firearmstactical.com/afte.htm

http://www.firearmstactical.com/mars...l-analysis.htm

[Ed L.]

MashalL & Sanow will not let anyone see the supposed files of their actual shootings.

As it happens, many agencies who Marshall and Sanow claim to have gotten their shootings from have come forward and said that not only did they not provide any information to Marshall & Sanow, but that the shootings that Marshall and Sanow have attributed to them do not match any of the shootings that they have on record. Credibility of data is key in any study, and Marshall and Sanow have shown that they have none.

The July 1992 Law and Order Magazine has several letters to the editor, as well as a statement by the magazines’ editor, further illustrating the lack of truth and serious errors in the Marshall and Sanow “data”. Several papers have been published in the peer reviewed IWBA “Wound Ballistics Review” which have discussed the lack of credibility of Marshall and Sanow. It was clear in our review and in from the investigations by others that Marshall & Sanow had lied, fabricated data, and did not follow scientific protocols. Their information is fraudulent and meaningless. Please do not stake your life on this garbage.”

In response to Sanow’s criticism of the 9mm WW 147 grain JHP bullet, SGT Mike Dunlap, Rangemaster at Amarillo, TX, PD contacted every department for which Sanow claimed poor results with this bullet in his “anti-subsonic” articles. Mike submitted his results to Law and Order: they showed that Sanow had misrepresented what these departments found.

In the November 1992 issue, Law and Order published three letters contradicting Sanow’s “data” (p. 90). SGT William Porter, head of the Michigan State Police Marksmanship Unit wrote, “I hope that those who read this article will not be influenced by what Sanow wrote about what happened in the Michigan State Police shooting, because it didn’t happen that way.” In a note introducing these letters, Bruce Cameron, Editorial Director of Law and Order wrote, concerning Sanow’s article, “...we do apologize for printing information that has proven to be in error.”

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Agencies who M&S claimed to get the information from like the RCMP, the NYPD, the LAPD, the LASO, the ISP, the PASP, the DSP, the TDPS, the USMS, the USBP, USINS, the FBI, the DEA, Also the people who M&S claimed to get the information from like the RCMP, the NYPD, the LAPD, the LASO, the ISP, the PASP, the DSP, the TDPS, the USMS, the USBP, USINS, the FBI, the DEA, the San Diego Sheriffs Dept, US Navy Crane center, and the USSS have all previously issued official responses stating specifically that they have not at any time corresponded with either M or S and not one of the shootings in any of the books comes from their files and that M&S have misquoted and misrepresented them in other matters.

Marshal & Sanow have long been debuncked by a number of people and agencies.