Quote:
Originally Posted by xcop
147 grain why did you change your handle to V0OBWxZS16?
|
???
Quote:
Originally Posted by badge
Really,..? I've known Mr. Marshall for going on 38 years. Honest to a fault, been there and done that. He has probable forgotten more about ballistics and shootings than most folks recall.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTG_COLLECTOR
First off, how do you know, personally, what info Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow have or don't have? You're just regurgitating accusations made by members and followers of the now defunct IWBA. Of course the IWBA people will say anything to defame and debunk M&S because they have a monitary interest in eliminating ANYONE who would dare to contradict them. Millions of $$ in Govt grants and contracts from LEA's and the DoD is nothing to sneeze at. That's these "ballistican's" gravy train, and anyone who disagrees with them must be dealt with with extreme prejudice.
|
One character witness for Marshall. One character accusation of the IWBA based on the theory they were protecting their funding.
What I'm NOT seeing is a refutation of the analyses I referenced and the multiple individuals stating that Marshall misrepresented the facts of shootings.
Quote:
|
Secondly, I'm glad you brought up the subject of Eugene Wolberg's article which is fraught with fraud. Wolberg used bullets that were literally cherry-picked in order to prove his hypothesis! If he had used ANY bullet that had failed to expand, under penetrated or over penetrated, this would have invalidated his hypothesis. Even your beloved Hero Gary Roberts admitted on the Beretta Forum that Wolberg used cherry-picked bullets that were provided by San Diego's ME/Coroner for his paper!
|
Do you have a link or other reference to this alleged admission by Dr. Roberts or other evidence that the bullets were cherry-picked? Do you have any references to studies showing a poor correlation between calibrated ballistic gelatin and soft tissue hits in real shootings?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasRaider
While some disagree with Marshall and Sanow's methods or results, the underlying theme they strove for, examining real world results after a police shooting, is worth pursuing. We dismiss real world results in exchange for lab testing at our own peril.
|
That "theme" is a fool's errand. The extensive set of variables, the high data precision, and the wildly varying psychological responses requires a data volume that makes it impossible to obtain valid results.
Quote:
|
If Marshall and Sanow can be dismissed for bias and pursing an agenda...
|
I am dismissing M&S because their criteria is fundamentally flawed and their numbers are unbelievable.
Quote:
|
Horrible tactics and poor marksmanship were the parents of the Miami horror, not a 115 gr Silvertip that failed to penetrate enough.
|
Are you claiming that all else being equal that an adequately penetrating shot would not have penetrated Platt's heart? Are you claiming that all else being equal an otherwise identical shot that pierced Platt's heart would not have incapacitated him more quickly?
I am not concerned here with the tactics and marksmanship of the Miami shootout. In fact, this paragraph is the first time I've typed "Miami" in this thread.
Quote:
|
True, but statistics are revealing. While predicting psychological reactions will never be mathematically predictable equations, the more info we collect on what actually happened on the street might make trying to predict such things irrelevant.
|
I'm not sure of your meaning here. Are you claiming that with enough data we may be able to create bullet designs so advanced that physiological incapacitation is guaranteed and therefore psychological responses would be irrelevant?
Quote:
|
I'm not a physicist, but I understand kinetic energy.....
|
Energy is required to do work, but not all of the KE does damaging work. You're measuring the input (KE) instead of the output (crush cavity, penetration, expansion, etc.) When driving I watch the odometer to see how far I've gone, not the gas gauge.
Quote:
|
I read this. A potential problem here is his quote:
|
It is a comparison of real shots in flesh versus ballistic gelatin. His references to Miami and desired penetration depth are not relevant to the accuracy of the analysis.
Quote:
|
And I understand that for lab consistency, bone hits were disregarded. But in street shooting analysis, they certainly aren't. If you have a round that can split or shatter bone in stopping a killer, that's a plus, it's not something I would disregard for the sake of a lab test.
|
I presume you have based this idea on studies demonstrating a significant difference in the ability to spit or shatter bone between the common duty/self-defense rounds. I am very interested in reading those studies. The only one I know of was performed by the
Canadians in 1984.
Quote:
Quote:
|
I am curious about "today's ballistic environment" and how it is different than yesterday's ballistic environment...
|
Can't answer that.
|
So this was a meaningless throw-away line?
Quote:
|
Bad guys are bad guys. But technology has progressed to the point where you can get .357 Magnum performance without the blast and flash, the heavy revolver and the limited 6 round capacity. Modern ammo design makes rounds like the 10mm, lightweight .45's and .357 Sigs great options (and yes, even the 9mm, if loaded properly).
|
It's been a long while since I've run into a .357 sig shooter, but I definitely recall it having excessive muzzle blast, especially with multiple shooters at once.