Agreed
Abstract of link:
"This article reviews published criticisms of several ballistic pressure wave experiments authored by Suneson et al., the Marshall and Sanow "one shot stop" data set, and the Strasbourg goat tests. These published criticisms contain numerous logical and rhetorical fallacies, are generally exaggerated, and fail to convincingly support the overly broad conclusions they contain."
Review of criticisms of ballistic pressure wave experiments, the Strasbourg goat tests, and the Marshall and Sanow data (PDF Download Available)
Indeed, this article makes some valid points, however many of them are semantic and are about the tone of the criticism's and the wrong attitude being presented in scientific literature. Much of the article does take time to tear apart the logical fallacies Fackler used, and indeed he uses many, but the article does not address Fackler's valid criticism's of the tests provided. The article does point out negative points in Fackler's work, but avoids actually refuting his points or truly proving the theories that were attacked. It's title is accurate, and it does its job well, but don't take it as proof that Fackler is wrong and everything criticized is right. Exposing a few errors in logic and writing does not refute the facts of the points made.
The effect of shock stopping an attack has some scientific validity, but let's remember that in Suneson the distal hits were made with a high power, high velocity projectile, not a handgun, which means that effects recorded are relevant to projectiles of that nature, and may not be relevant, or as relevant, to lower velocity, lower power handgun projectiles. The pigs being anesthetized meant we could not determine if the distal effects would have incapacitated the pigs, the study only proves that there was distant damage from distal hit trauma. This study, and others like it, may prove there are distant effects from gun shot wounds, but cannot prove A. that it is a mechanism for stopping attacks and B. that it is a reliable and often repeated mechanism of stopping an attack.
Stasbourg tests had some interesting information about theory of pressure and incapacitation, however the tests also did little to show individual handgun rounds as being more or less effective, only having relevance in the general theory of biology and incapacitation. Strasbourg might help you decide which combat handgun load you want to kill goats by shooting the same exact way, but otherwise does not prove much on individual calibers, on human beings, with different angles and shots through different tissues at different depths. Even the pressure and immediate incapacitation correlation proves that even if this effect can cause incapacitation, it is not a reliable and readily reproducable means of stopping an attack. If the phenomona isn't extremely common, and cannot be relied upon to stop an attack, it is of very little use to us.
The criticisms of Fackler's criticism of M&S completely missed the most important part, that shots through the thoracic cavity is such a wide and open spectrum with such wild diversity of quality of shots that the category and resultant statistics are completely worthless. M&S make no difference between a shot straight through the heart of a 110 pound woman and a shot through the side of a 300 pound man's intestinal loop, meaning the most important factor, bullet path and tissues affected, is left out. This does not leave us with statistics that have strong enough parameters to be useful in any way, more important factors than the bullet choice and load are left in, ruining any useful conclusions on the cartridge itself.
M&S don't list why bullets are effective, and also don't list why they failed. If a certain load failed to penetrate deep enough to stop an attack, like the 115 grain 9mm bullet Dove fired during the Miami shootout, it is not included, if a .32 S&W bullet only killed a man fright of being shot gave him a heart attack, it does not list it. We are given zero context to the reason why rounds failed or succeeded, giving us no insight as to what is effective and why. We do not understand the mechanisms and mechanics of why the rounds did what they did, so we cannot determine if the bullet succeeded, if it failed, why, ect., meaning conclusions cannot prove if the round is really good or not, wither it has a failure rate, or under what circumstances it fails or succeeds, ect.
S&W is a load of poor quality bauxite when we need aluminum.
Certainly, your article did list some very real problems with Fackler's writing, but certainly does not discredit his critical responses, nor proved the works he criticized. Saying that someone's work should be discarded outright and all those he opposes are automatically correct is, in itself, a massive logical fallacy.
tl;dr Tissue crushing, blood pressure affects, blood loss, central direct central nervous system hits, are all proven 100% reliable mechanisms' for stopping an attack. Indeed, those things are universal, and if they can be affected, will always work, reliably, and loads designed to work those ends will always work if used correctly. Yes, Suneson and Strasbourg may have made insight into certain theories of distal shock being valid, but they also have never proved that we, in the real world, can rely upon those affects to stop attackers, because they have not been proven to be reliable and 100% reproducable. Indeed, a bullet actually crushing a kidney will have predictable and reproducable affects, and will always make those affects, whereas the traumatic shock stoppages suggested in the studies done are more or less flukes, cannot be predicted, may not happen and give us any advantage, and shifting our bullet and load designs to an affect we may not even get is foolish.
We load out for the stoppages we can guarantee, not for special critical affects that are sporadic and may not be useful.
