View Single Post
Old October 2, 2012, 07:08 PM   #126
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 469
It is very interesting that you have yet to provide a citable source for your claim made on page 4 of this thread in post #94-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanuk:
They drank their own cool aid and manipulated data to suit their agenda, Dr Wolberg at San Diego was one of the obvious ones with the paper on the subsonic 147 grain 9mm.
-that Wolberg manipulated data in his paper despite being offered several opportunities to do so. As a result, I believe that anyone reading this thread may now reasonably assume that you have no way to support the claim that you've made against Wolberg.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanuk:
Believe what you want. Your sig kinda says it all. A book about a test protocol to simulate what a bullet will do based on a mathematical formula in a water to equate to media that is used to simulate human tissue with no regard for any other physiological reason people stop fighting. Because that cannot be quantified in a lab.
Given your recent history (above), it is hard to take this very seriously since the content of your commentary suggests that you haven't read the book.

Neither Schwartz nor MacPherson (in their respective books that present highly researched testing approaches employing water as a medium) claim to be able to quantify the physiological effects of bullet penetration beyond the amount of tissue that would be crushed during a bullet's penetration through gelatin/soft tissue.

What's next?

Are you now going to accuse Schwartz and MacPherson of intellectual dishonesty without any citable sources or having read their books?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanuk:
The most reliable indicator is actual police shootings, but most departments are somewhat tight lipped about this data unless you have an inside source.
I believe that approach has been tried already by M&S. Of course, we are chasing our tails since their methodology has been thoroughly debunked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanuk:
Which is why I go back to high energy rounds being the most reliable fight stoppers.
I guess that if I was operating in an informational vacuum I might be inclined to do the same thing. Fortunately, we have the work of some pretty educated individuals (Roberts, Fackler, DiMaio, etc- in addition to those named above) to rely upon if we wish to avail ourselves of it.

Sure, believe what you want.
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION

Last edited by 481; October 2, 2012 at 07:14 PM.
481 is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.05077 seconds with 7 queries