I have several thoughts on your post.
1. Hoax? That implies a purposeful fraud being perpetrated? Is that what you wish to say, in writing, for the record? That it was a purposeful fraud? The factual statement is that the criticisms of their studies are it was statistically too small a sample size or it was an anecdotal study. Finally, the other criticism I've read is that they let preconceived biases subconsciously color their findings.
As an FYI, I do have a statistical background, so I do see where and why the sample size criticism and probability issues have been brought up.
2. Their findings came from the info they gathered from law enforcement shootings, which is real life data. Therefore, looking at the case studies does in fact have value, though you can accurately say the limited sample size does not allow for scientific conclusions.
3. The statement that any service caliber is equivalent to another is inaccurate on it's face. Yes, accuracy is supreme, however, the projectile with the widest expansion gives the larger probability of hitting/nicking a vital area by virtue of the fact it cuts a wider crush zone. Simple physics also shows a heavier bullet traveling at a comparable velocity has better penetration. Copper and it's different physical properties being the exception.
4. The most realistic gel studies I've seen are the ones, some of which are on BrassCatcher, are the ones which use not only clothing, but simulated bone matter before the gel. There clearly is a difference in rounds/calibers in these studies.
5. There is a significant difference in the distances yaw begins in calibers fired through some barriers, auto glass being a prime example.
Evan Marshall had 20 years in Law Enforcement when he retired, with if memory serves correctly, 18 shooting involvements, that alone makes your attempt to completely dismiss his knowledge and experience suspect. I will also in the interest of full disclosure say I am antiquated with Evan Marshall and fully admit to being a little put off by the word hoax. I do not think that is a word that could/should be used in regards to him. He's done a lot to educate fellow LEO on sound tactics and mindset, which I have no doubt has saved lives.
The simple timeless axiom of carry the largest caliber you shoot accurately is still good advice IMO.
Yes to #1.
I do not believe that this endeavor started out as an intentional hoax,but evolved into one due to other things you mentioned. The first of those being pre conceived notions and "favorites" which lead to inaccurate data and the second being small sample sizes as well as results skewed by both.
There is nothing wrong with using data from LE shootings.
Real certified ballisticians also do this and compare results with their own lab testing to arrive at accurate conclusions,many of which are in direct conflict with everything that Marshall and Sanow published.Most,in fact.
Yes,a 45 makes a bigger hole than a 9mm,not really hard to figure that one out. The fact is bullet design has brought all of the common calibers up in performance.
I keep hearing the hydra shok mentioned in a lot of threads. Well,that's currently a load that's at the bottom of the heap when it comes to modern,well designed projectiles.
As far as windshiled glass,it is a tough obstacle for many rounds and the heavy 40's do better than the 9mm's.
It's also one of the primary reasons that we now have good bonded bullet loads in both rifle and pistol calibers.
Marshall and Sanow set out to do something that neither was qualified to do and as a result,bad information and skewed results were put out to the public and to LE agencies.
If you read their books carefully you will find many cases where the authors contradict themselves throughout the book.
You will also find that lightweight projectile loads were always at the top of the list,which in itself immediately raises a red flag.The only exception to this being the 45ACP.
You will note that I post in this forum under my real name,not a moniker,and I stand by my statements.I had 27 years in the profession myself,not that it really means anything,except that I have a few scars and marks from my own skirmishes. I guess they need to go and shoot some more goats.In TOP SECRET,of course.
Most people who are knowledgeable in true"terminal ballistics" have already dismissed this for what it is,and have moved on and continue to contribute worthwhile information at no cost. They don't subsidize their incomes by writing books about it. I myself will move on from this thread,and we can agree to disagree.
