What you've demonstrated is that Marshall and Sanow are not very popular with many internet experts.

That's however not entirely fair. The larger problem is that those same internet experts read way too much into the data.

There are two basic sides to the terminal ballistic coin.

Ballistic gelatin data and standards based on it is desirable as it is repeatable and testable for load development and comparison. But the 12"-18" penetration standard, >/= to 1.5x expansion and other criteria are based on theories of what should increase the potential for rapid incapacitation.

The problem with that ballistic gel data and the underlying theories, is that without some evaluation of actual real world shoots, it's impossible to validate those theories.

The requirements that drive the ballistic gel minimums are also based on some worst case assumptions, that are often rarely encountered.

The value of Marshall and Sanow's analysis of a large body of data involving numerous real world shoots with a wide range of cartridges and bullet types is that it provides a pretty good feel for what works and what does not. Where people get annoyed is when their conclusions don't always agree with the theories put forward by the ballistic gel crowd.

That's where many of those people stop looking, and start criticizing Marshall and Sanow's work. That's unfair as the real world shoot data involves a huge number of variables that are very hard to control, and Marshall and Sanow do a pretty fair job of at least trying to highlight some of those variables and pitfalls.

For example, they will readily admit that one shot stop percentages have to be taken with a large grain of salt when you consider that about half the people who are shot, stop the assault anyway, even over a minor wound - an "Oh my God, I've been shot and don't want to get shot anymore!" response, or in other words a psychological stop where any caliber would be effective provide it's potent enough for the person to realize he or she has been shot.

They also take care to explain that the better than predicted performance of the lowly .32 ACP may well be due to shooters who carry it understanding it's limitations and taking greater care with shot placement - and they'll point out the limitations in the data that prevent that hypothesis from being proven.

----

So don't take it as "fact", and take care not to take it out of context either, but also don't make the mistake of ignoring it either. Just as you shouldn't read more into ballistic gel data than it actually warrants.