View Single Post
Old October 2, 2012, 11:56 AM   #121
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by wayneinFL:
Both those studies have flawed methodologies.
Of course they are.

I never said that the Wolberg research article was perfect. Both studies are "flawed", one (M&S) is "contrived". There is a difference.

Taken from the link provided above-

Quote:
These greater than 100% stopping percentage or negative numbers (showing mysterious disappearing shootings) are fairly described as misrepresentations because they demonstrate conclusively that the Marshall & Sanow "data base" is not as it has been claimed to be. Specifically:

Marshall & Sanow have claimed to have continuously collected their "data base" of shootings over time; this makes having fewer shootings in particular caliber and load combinations at later dates impossible, but eight such conditions exist in their "data base."

Marshall & Sanow have eight particular caliber and load combinations that show a completely impossible greater than 100% "one-shot stop" percentages in their "data base
".
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION

Last edited by 481; October 2, 2012 at 12:05 PM.
481 is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04183 seconds with 7 queries