anglaispierre
Member
Because of the nature of the matter contained this is unfortunately a rather long introduction to a thread, but I hope you will bear with me. You may also see this posted elsewhere.
I have contributed to several forum discussions on the relative merits of different calibres of hand guns. Much of the input in various forums is based on personal interest and personal preference combined with misleading advice published in those forums and elsewhere. I do not claim to have the answers, I am neither a scientist, nor a doctor, not even an experienced researcher. But I have taken the trouble to do some research. I have no interest in promoting one calibre as against another, and I have handguns and rifles in a range of calibres, hopefully soon to be added to. My interest is in collecting and shooting guns, sharing information, seeking advice and seeking some proper consensus based on knowledge rather than speculation or in some cases far worse.
In the course of my research I found a chart of relative Stopping Power compiled by Chuck Hawks from data collected by Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow (M&S) and published in their book: Stopping Power: A Practical Analysis of the Latest Handgun Ammunition, together with articles published in magazines such as Handguns. The percentage of one-shot-stops in actual street shootings obtained from police records shows the highest percentage as folloows:
96% for Remington .357 Mag 125Gr SJHP,
94% for Remington Golden Sabre .40S&W 165Gr JHP and Fed HydraShock .45ACP 230Gr JHP,
91% for Cor-Bon +P 9mm (9 x 19)115Gr JHP
90% for Winchester .44 Mag 210Gr STHP
These were followed closely by (slightly abbreviated)
89% Fed .40S&W JHP
88% Rem +P .38 Super
83% Rem Med Vel .357 Mag
.45ACP FED, Rem and Win came in at 63%, lower than a couple of 38Sp +Ps, a 380ACP and level with the humble Winchester 40Gr JHP in .32ACP.
The chart is at Handgun Cartridge Power Chart - Condensed Version .
The general consensus appears to be that Chuck Hawks may not be a great expert, but he reports fairly what he sees. In this case he is relying on evidence from others.
Does anyone else have any similar comparison chart.
On seeing the works of M&S, Dr. Martin Fackler MD immediately started crying "Fraud!" and issuing encyclicals about "bullet salesmen." (Just wait)
Fackler was one of the greatest critics of the M&S results. In his book review Fackler writes:
“Fortunately, the great majority of law enforcement groups have ignored the Marshall and Sanow Definitive Study and opted for the heavier, slower bullets, which have proved far more reliable than the faster, lighter bullets they replaced.”
In the final paragraph of the book review, Fackler writes:
“Street Stoppers” (one of M&S’s books) is a compilation of fantasy: written in the arrogant, dead certain tone of the con man. Everything echoes “trust me.” The reader is constantly preached to, with
evangelistic fervor: and without equivocation implored to believe in nonsense with no basis in established fact. This book is the antithesis of honest, intelligent, scientific discourse
in which the evidence is laid out, dispassionately...”. A totally unbiased review!
However Fackler may not have been totally truthful.
A report by Michael Courtney, PhD. Ballistics Testing Group, West Point and Amy Courtney, PhD., Department of Physics, United States Military Academy, West Point, http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701268.pdf says:
“The author of this critique (Fackler) is closely tied to an FBI committee who selected a Winchester 147 grain JHP load for 9mm use and frequently advocates other heavy and slow bullets. He has
published numerous articles, which are essentially unabashed advertisements for this kind of bullet. In addition to being the bandwagon fallacy, this argument is somewhat circular. Many law enforcement agencies simply follow the lead and standards of the FBI that Fackler had significant input in developing. Even if it were true, the fact that many law enforcement agencies are following the lead of the side of a debate that is considerably influential in law enforcement (because it is the FBI) is not compelling that experiments supporting the other side of a debate are invalid.” What did Fackler say about bullet salesmen?
They also say: “This reply is also fallacious, because it mistakenly frames the debate in terms of “light and fast” vs. “heavy and slow.” Several “heavy and slow” bullets make a good showing in the M&S OSS figures, and several “light and fast” bullets perform poorly. For many cartridges, the top
ranked loads are from Remington and Federal, two of the largest ammunition suppliers who do not “specialize in lightweight handgun bullets shot at higher than usual velocities” but rather offer an array of ammunition choices covering both the “light and fast” as well as the “heavy and slow” ends of the spectrum.”
Courtneys’ report also says: “The reasoning of M&S might not always be perfectly clear, and the content is not always perfectly organized, but their books are more dispassionately written and
contain fewer ad hominem attacks (none) than the criticism (ie Fackler’s) offered in response.”
In other words, Fackler sought to rely on unjustified personal attacks on M&S as the main weapon in his arsenal in order to try to discredit them. He is quoted as saying: “The only people who think the "Strasbourg Tests" are real are the usual crowd of crackpot "magic bullet" believers and the pathetically incompetent editors of consumer gun magazines like Guns & Ammo. (Is Guns & Ammo really that bad – I don’t live in the US and have never read it.) I suppose we'll soon see anonymous reports proving that Elvis is alive and conducting one shot stop experiments on unicorns. And, of course, someone will believe that too.” Now that is a really scientific response.
I won’t go into whether the Strasbourg Tests ever took place.
They also said in their report: “Since we (the authors, Michael Courtney and Amy Courtney) are now contributors in a field with unusually high levels of “ammonia and acetic acid,” we would like to
express our sincere hope that future debate will be characterized by more civilized discussion without
resorting to personal attacks, insults, and unrestrained rhetorical fallacies. Going beyond the accepted
boundaries of scientific discourse reflects poorly on the field, on the law enforcement interests in the discussion, and on firearms-related issues in general.”
I hope that this forum respects this sentiment.
Now go and buy, shoot or carry the guns that you like.
I have contributed to several forum discussions on the relative merits of different calibres of hand guns. Much of the input in various forums is based on personal interest and personal preference combined with misleading advice published in those forums and elsewhere. I do not claim to have the answers, I am neither a scientist, nor a doctor, not even an experienced researcher. But I have taken the trouble to do some research. I have no interest in promoting one calibre as against another, and I have handguns and rifles in a range of calibres, hopefully soon to be added to. My interest is in collecting and shooting guns, sharing information, seeking advice and seeking some proper consensus based on knowledge rather than speculation or in some cases far worse.
In the course of my research I found a chart of relative Stopping Power compiled by Chuck Hawks from data collected by Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow (M&S) and published in their book: Stopping Power: A Practical Analysis of the Latest Handgun Ammunition, together with articles published in magazines such as Handguns. The percentage of one-shot-stops in actual street shootings obtained from police records shows the highest percentage as folloows:
96% for Remington .357 Mag 125Gr SJHP,
94% for Remington Golden Sabre .40S&W 165Gr JHP and Fed HydraShock .45ACP 230Gr JHP,
91% for Cor-Bon +P 9mm (9 x 19)115Gr JHP
90% for Winchester .44 Mag 210Gr STHP
These were followed closely by (slightly abbreviated)
89% Fed .40S&W JHP
88% Rem +P .38 Super
83% Rem Med Vel .357 Mag
.45ACP FED, Rem and Win came in at 63%, lower than a couple of 38Sp +Ps, a 380ACP and level with the humble Winchester 40Gr JHP in .32ACP.
The chart is at Handgun Cartridge Power Chart - Condensed Version .
The general consensus appears to be that Chuck Hawks may not be a great expert, but he reports fairly what he sees. In this case he is relying on evidence from others.
Does anyone else have any similar comparison chart.
On seeing the works of M&S, Dr. Martin Fackler MD immediately started crying "Fraud!" and issuing encyclicals about "bullet salesmen." (Just wait)
Fackler was one of the greatest critics of the M&S results. In his book review Fackler writes:
“Fortunately, the great majority of law enforcement groups have ignored the Marshall and Sanow Definitive Study and opted for the heavier, slower bullets, which have proved far more reliable than the faster, lighter bullets they replaced.”
In the final paragraph of the book review, Fackler writes:
“Street Stoppers” (one of M&S’s books) is a compilation of fantasy: written in the arrogant, dead certain tone of the con man. Everything echoes “trust me.” The reader is constantly preached to, with
evangelistic fervor: and without equivocation implored to believe in nonsense with no basis in established fact. This book is the antithesis of honest, intelligent, scientific discourse
in which the evidence is laid out, dispassionately...”. A totally unbiased review!
However Fackler may not have been totally truthful.
A report by Michael Courtney, PhD. Ballistics Testing Group, West Point and Amy Courtney, PhD., Department of Physics, United States Military Academy, West Point, http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701268.pdf says:
“The author of this critique (Fackler) is closely tied to an FBI committee who selected a Winchester 147 grain JHP load for 9mm use and frequently advocates other heavy and slow bullets. He has
published numerous articles, which are essentially unabashed advertisements for this kind of bullet. In addition to being the bandwagon fallacy, this argument is somewhat circular. Many law enforcement agencies simply follow the lead and standards of the FBI that Fackler had significant input in developing. Even if it were true, the fact that many law enforcement agencies are following the lead of the side of a debate that is considerably influential in law enforcement (because it is the FBI) is not compelling that experiments supporting the other side of a debate are invalid.” What did Fackler say about bullet salesmen?
They also say: “This reply is also fallacious, because it mistakenly frames the debate in terms of “light and fast” vs. “heavy and slow.” Several “heavy and slow” bullets make a good showing in the M&S OSS figures, and several “light and fast” bullets perform poorly. For many cartridges, the top
ranked loads are from Remington and Federal, two of the largest ammunition suppliers who do not “specialize in lightweight handgun bullets shot at higher than usual velocities” but rather offer an array of ammunition choices covering both the “light and fast” as well as the “heavy and slow” ends of the spectrum.”
Courtneys’ report also says: “The reasoning of M&S might not always be perfectly clear, and the content is not always perfectly organized, but their books are more dispassionately written and
contain fewer ad hominem attacks (none) than the criticism (ie Fackler’s) offered in response.”
In other words, Fackler sought to rely on unjustified personal attacks on M&S as the main weapon in his arsenal in order to try to discredit them. He is quoted as saying: “The only people who think the "Strasbourg Tests" are real are the usual crowd of crackpot "magic bullet" believers and the pathetically incompetent editors of consumer gun magazines like Guns & Ammo. (Is Guns & Ammo really that bad – I don’t live in the US and have never read it.) I suppose we'll soon see anonymous reports proving that Elvis is alive and conducting one shot stop experiments on unicorns. And, of course, someone will believe that too.” Now that is a really scientific response.
I won’t go into whether the Strasbourg Tests ever took place.
They also said in their report: “Since we (the authors, Michael Courtney and Amy Courtney) are now contributors in a field with unusually high levels of “ammonia and acetic acid,” we would like to
express our sincere hope that future debate will be characterized by more civilized discussion without
resorting to personal attacks, insults, and unrestrained rhetorical fallacies. Going beyond the accepted
boundaries of scientific discourse reflects poorly on the field, on the law enforcement interests in the discussion, and on firearms-related issues in general.”
I hope that this forum respects this sentiment.
Now go and buy, shoot or carry the guns that you like.
