What is wrong with Hydrashok?

[alistaire]

“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.

I believe they throw out all incidents where two or more bullets are involved.

Again, if two bullets hit and the target falls down, is it a 'two shot stop' or what?

Statistics involve pruning your data until you get something you can analyse, hopefully without ruining your data.

Can you explain a way to fairly score multiple hit shootings so we can rate them against single hit shootings?

[alistaire]

Marshall and Sanow published their last book in 2001. Several people have attacked these books on various grounds, but none have produced their own studies as far as I know. If they do so, I will happily buy a copy. This is a field that requires more study.

[Ed L.]

First, there is a serious question as to the validity of their data which in itself is enough to disqualify it.

Secondly, it's not a matter of pruning. They throw out any incidents where more than one round is used. How can you possibly claim to represent a round's one-shot stop percentage when you don't count any situations where one round fails to stop someone and more shots need to be fired? Their methodology is horribly flawed. If it were submitted as a grade school science project it would fail, yet they are trying to use it as an indicator to people who stake their lives on this info.

[Heavy Metal]

Marshall and Sanow published their last book in 2001. Several people have attacked these books on various grounds, but none have produced their own studies as far as I know. If they do so, I will happily buy a copy. This is a field that requires more study.

The fact that they will not allow peer review of their dataset is pretty much an admission it's garbage.

Peer review is one of the pillars of scientific research. If someone who is making a claim refuses to share his data, you can be 99.9% certain shenanigans are involved.

[alistaire]

I'd still like to see other people do similar studies.

As for why there is no peer review, perhaps they did not keep their data or perhaps a lot of it came from back channel sources. I can't imagine that those big name agencies have a 'department for releasing autopsy reports to civilian researchers'.

[DocGKR]

"Several people have attacked these books on various grounds, but none have produced their own studies as far as I know."

alistaire:

I, along with Gene Wolberg, wrote the following criticism http://www.firearmstactical.com/afte.htm of Marshall and Sanow's drivel; I believe you will note that I have also conducted a fair amount of my own studies, as did Gene Wolberg...

Likewise, Duncan MacPherson wrote these criticisms of Marshall and Sanow's fraudulent writings: http://www.firearmstactical.com/sanow-strikes-out.htm and http://www.firearmstactical.com/mars...l-analysis.htm; and as we all know, MacPherson literally wrote the book on projectile penetration characteristics...

Dr. Fackler wrote these criticisms of Marshall and Sanow's lies: http://www.firearmstactical.com/streetstoppers.htm and http://www.firearmstactical.com/undeniable-evidence.htm; Dr. Fackler is widely considered the father of modern wound ballistic research and has published NUMEROUS papers on the subject.

There are also other folks who have criticized Marshall and Sanow's sloppy statistics: http://www.firearmstactical.com/mars...crepancies.htm

No offense intended, but it appears that you are so our of your depth on this topic that you don't know what you don't know...

[Heavy Metal]

I'd still like to see other people do similar studies.

As for why there is no peer review, perhaps they did not keep their data or perhaps a lot of it came from back channel sources. I can't imagine that those big name agencies have a 'department for releasing autopsy reports to civilian researchers'.

They could have redacted the names and released their data.

As to them not keeping their data. You do not do a major study and discard your data. It is just not done in legitimate research circles, ever!
This would constitute a tantamount admission of fraud.

If you are a legitimate researcher, you want a third party to be able to take your data and arrive at a similar conclusion. This is how your study is validated.

If you ain't open to peer review, you simply, ain't worth the time of day.

[Rampant Colt]

Some folks over at Glocktalk [snowman92D among others] vigorously defend that bullet design indicating its superior street record in police-involved shootings.

What's the story on HS street-involved shootings?

Hydra-Shok street-involved shootings, not HST

I was NOT referencing M&S nonsense!!!!!!

My question still stands unanswered.

[alistaire]

alistaire:

I, along with Gene Wolberg, wrote the following criticism http://www.firearmstactical.com/afte.htm of Marshall and Sanow's drivel; I believe you will note that I have also conducted a fair amount of my own studies, as did Gene Wolberg...

Likewise, Duncan MacPherson wrote these criticisms of Marshall and Sanow's fraudulent writings: http://www.firearmstactical.com/sanow-strikes-out.htm and http://www.firearmstactical.com/mars...l-analysis.htm; and as we all know, MacPherson literally wrote the book on projectile penetration characteristics...

Dr. Fackler wrote these criticisms of Marshall and Sanow's lies: http://www.firearmstactical.com/streetstoppers.htm and http://www.firearmstactical.com/undeniable-evidence.htm; Dr. Fackler is widely considered the father of modern wound ballistic research and has published NUMEROUS papers on the subject.

There are also other folks who have criticized Marshall and Sanow's sloppy statistics: http://www.firearmstactical.com/mars...crepancies.htm

No offense intended, but it appears that you are so our of your depth on this topic that you don't know what you don't know...

Doctor Roberts:
Thanks for your reply. I would not dream of arguing with you or Dr Fackler. It's your field, not mine. I am surprised that no one has done similar studies (to apropriate academic standards).

I have a question. How would one score a 'two shot stop no stop' so you could combine the data with 'one shot stops'?

[LittleRedToyota]

Marshall and Sanow published their last book in 2001. Several people have attacked these books on various grounds, but none have produced their own studies as far as I know. If they do so, I will happily buy a copy. This is a field that requires more study.

it could be that no one has come up with a way to do such a study and have it be statistically valid and meaningful.