JOINT AGENCY BALLISTICS TEST FOR DEFENSIVE HANDGUN AMMUNITION

[ABNAK]

That was my impression upon reading it. Strasbourg Part Deux by people who are closet Marshall-Sanow believers.

I wouldn't discard all of their testing numbers/stats (not saying you are), as they had a TON of information. I have both of their books. Back in 1992 until about 2000 or so I was a firm believer; not a Branch-Davidian style devotion, but I thought along those lines as it appeared to be based on solid foundations. As time has gone by and more shooting data is available (including two wars), it is apparent that their "formulas" for success were lacking. Certainly good "theory" and mostly correct, but penetration seems to be an often ignored (or at least given a back seat) aspect of their suggestions. I think DocGKR's stuff is considerably more valid but at least review Marshall and Sanow's data. I'll bet there is a reasonable amount of correlation at some point.

[Ed L.]

I wouldn't discard all of their testing numbers/stats (not saying you are), as they had a TON of information. I have both of their books. Back in 1992 until about 2000 or so I was a firm believer; not a Branch-Davidian style devotion, but I thought along those lines as it appeared to be based on solid foundations. As time has gone by and more shooting data is available (including two wars), it is apparent that their "formulas" for success were lacking. Certainly good "theory" and mostly correct, but penetration seems to be an often ignored (or at least given a back seat) aspect of their suggestions. I think DocGKR's stuff is considerably more valid but at least review Marshall and Sanow's data. I'll bet there is a reasonable amount of correlation at some point.

Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow articles and books had been debunked as BS decades ago. Their methodology is nonsense and the supposed shooting accounts and their data is bogus.

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 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.

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.

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.”

[T2C]

Oh no it most certainly is outdated. Theres no reason to switch to 45 because it may not expand. People who perpetuate this myth just know nothing about modern ballistics and bullet design

I've seen a few people shot with a standard 1911 loaded with 230 JHP and it works. A run of the mill 1911 doesn't have a 15 round magazine capacity, but it works. I select ammunition based on shooting incidents, not laboratory results or studies.

Ed L. brings up some valid points about articles published by Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow. I believe Medical Examiners Michael Graham and Mary Case were quoted in their works and there is some question about whether they were even contacted by Marshall and Sanow.

[Eda]

I've seen a few people shot with a standard 1911 loaded with 230 JHP and it works. A run of the mill 1911 doesn't have a 15 round magazine capacity, but it works. I select ammunition based on shooting incidents, not laboratory results or studies.

Ed L. brings up some valid points about articles published by Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow. I believe Medical Examiners Michael Graham and Mary Case were quoted in their works and there is some question about whether they were even contacted by Marshall and Sanow.

I didn't mean the 1911 design or 45acp is outdated, I own several 1911s and I occasionally carry a g21. I mean the idea that you need to carry FMJ during the winter because hollow points don't expand through heavy clothing is outdated.

[ABNAK]

Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow articles and books had been debunked as BS decades ago. Their methodology is nonsense and the supposed shooting accounts and their data is bogus.

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 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.

Interesting. Did not know this about them.

[Ed L.]

Also, Marshall & Sanow's methodology is retarded. By their own admission they exclude EVERY situation where one or more rounds were fired and a person was not stopped and thus required more rounds be fired.

What they did is create a formula that claims to calculate one-shot stops but is grossly flawed because it deliberately excludes the most common one-shot failures--all situations 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.

Add to that the sources of their data is made up or distorted from the information that was supposedly provided to them and you have complete useless BS. Why do you think gun magazines stopped printing their stopping power articles 25 years ago?

[okie]

Also, Marshall & Sanow's methodology is retarded. By their own admission they exclude EVERY situation where one or more rounds were fired and a person was not stopped and thus required more rounds be fired.

What they did is create a formula that claims to calculate one-shot stops but is grossly flawed because it deliberately excludes the most common one-shot failures--all situations 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.

Add to that the sources of their data is made up or distorted from the information that was supposedly provided to them and you have complete useless BS. Why do you think gun magazines stopped printing their stopping power articles 25 years ago?

I think the term "one shot stop" is by far the most cringeworthy of them all, because it's usually uttered by people who should really know better. It's like using knockdown power and clip in the same sentence to the power of ten.

The one shot stop is like a hole in one. Yes it happens-and yes the skill of the golfer has a lot to do with the odds that it will-but a regulation ball is a regulation ball is a regulation ball. Take any one shot stop on record and there's going to be an airtight argument that it would have been equally successful with any flavor of any of the common duty calibers.

[yoni]

The only one stop shots I have done in my life were with 5.56 or 7.62 NATO, and were head shots.

[okie]

The only one stop shots I have done in my life were with 5.56 or 7.62 NATO, and were head shots.

Are you Israeli special operations?

[themonk]

Exactly who supposedly wrote this?

I don't see any Law Enforcement agencies testing Underwood or Fort Scott ammo and including it in a report.

The whole doc smells of BS.

Take any one shot stop on record and there's going to be an airtight argument that it would have been equally successful with any flavor of any of the common duty calibers.

Completely agree. Timers and switches - switches are much harder to hit with a handgun.