If you care to look at the original T-LG cattle test results and commentary, it can be found in 1he 1983 (37th) Edition of Gun Digest, in an article titled "The Holes in Stopping Power Theory" by Leon Day, p. 24. I am sure all would appreciate your analysis of the experimental design of the Thompson and LaGarde cattle study.
To begin with, I am writing this in response to what I consider to be a polite and sincere question, and intend to respond in kind. OK, where to begin? First, we can all agree that these tests were done about a century ago, without the benefit of any of the equipment commonly available today for measuring and evaluating results? They were sort of at the Commodore 64™ stage while we all now have the benefit MacBook Pros™.
It would appear that they 1) depended on a limited number of samples, and 2) added information from hearsay (anecdotal) evidence… I don't know about all of what was in the original commentary and conclusions of the study as all the article in question provides is part of the data with their own commentary interspersed with very brief excerpts from the report itself. The article in question does not give much of the original study except the data and then the author's own feelings about the study… I would have to read T&L's own commentary on the whys and wherefores and
their specific conclusions and recommendations before I could draw my own informed conclusion. I actually agree with most of the actual quotes (having to do with shot placement, etc.) from T&L.
The principals of the study (Thompson and LaGarde) may well have had an "axe to grind" but truth to tell most researchers have at least some preconception of what they will find, otherwise why would they look? An indication of integrity of the data is that another researcher can look at all that is reported and see all of what was done, not just what the original writer wanted to display in support of his hypothesis.
I'm willing to accept that there were flaws in the research methods… I said so in my earlier post, but the fact remains that this was a fledgling attempt at a scientific study of stopping power, and the first of its kind of which I am aware. Does anyone know of an earlier one?
In his final paragraph, the author of the article in question makes a telling revelation (note the time frame of the article which was about the time the US Military was adopting the Beretta 9mm service weapon) when he accuses T&L of having "
a lot to do with that delay" because now we have (had) a flat-point 9 mm bullet that was "
very like the one tested in 1904." Speaking of axes to grind. Oh, and how is that changeover working out with all the big government testing that led to its adoption? It would appear that the military is trending back toward the 45... another "full circle," perhaps?
Now let's get back to the original reason for this thread. The 32 S&W Long (in the US) and 32 ACP (in Europe) were apparently considered by police officers and their superiors to be sufficient for civilian encounters of a criminal nature… as already stated, the use of one's handgun was usually fairly far down the list of strategies, after truncheons, saps, etc. The inventors of the 9 mm Parabellum ("for war") round had that purpose in mind, not civilian encounters, and with certain exceptions (mostly in the "Wild West") the carrying of 45s in the US by civilians including civilian police was apparently pretty rare. BTW, lest I be accused of being a knuckle dragging Neanderthal with a 1911 on each hip, my EDC is a 32 S&W Long snubbie, which T&L didn't even see fit to evaluate! That's why I read this thread in the first place.
Respectfully,
the Green Frog
