View Single Post
 
Old 08-14-2015, 08:33 AM
Jaymo Jaymo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 3,512
Liked 1,578 Times in 912 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal44 View Post
I'm starting to think this whole field of ammo/bullet effectiveness is just one big collection of guess work -- with no information that even approaches the level of fact.

Every single piece of analysis has been debunked multiple times, and then the "debunkers" are themselves debunked.

From now on, I think I'll just rely on common sense:

Bigger holes are more effective than smaller holes.

A hole that goes deeper is more effective than one that is shallower.

Once a bullet passes clear through a target, any energy/velocity it has has no more effect on that target and it just becomes a danger to bystanders.

My field is computer engineering and if we understood computing and computer design as poorly as ballistics is understood, then we would still be using abacuses.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate everyone's efforts to answer my questions.
Marshall and Sanow's data were debunked because they falsified their reports.
They included CNS shots for .40 and under, or under .40 (don't remember which).
They EXCLUDED CNS shots for larger caliber rounds.
Thus, the smallbores looked better than the big bores.
That's how you get ridiculous statements such as the oft-repeated ".32 ACP HP is a better stopper than .45 ACP ball".

Apples to oranges.

As a result, their data cannot be taken seriously.
__________________
What would Jim Cirillo do?
Reply With Quote