View Single Post
Old July 21, 2013, 04:09 PM   #24
idek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 20, 2009
Posts: 617
Quote:
Quote:
More holes are better than fewer holes.


Larger holes are better than smaller holes.


Holes in the right places are better than holes in the wrong places.


Holes that are deep enough are better than holes that aren't.


There are no magic bullets.
When you... look for commonality between people with extensive street experience, scientists, enthusiasts, etc, the above points are almost unanimously present. We may agree or disagree on other specifics, but it should be accepted that the statements above are all true.
agreed

Quote:
...it is inevitable that we'll run across people who bash Ellifritz, or Marshall & Sanow, or Doc Roberts, or Fackler, etc. People will point out flawed methodology, insufficient sample size, or any other thing to discredit a particular "expert" whose views they disagree with. You'll hear terms like "gelatin junkie", and run into the "lab science vs street science" debate.
I realize the overall post above is mostly about agreeing on some generally accepted "Truths" and cutting out a lot of the clutter. That is valid, but the phrasing in some parts makes it sound like it's bad to question the findings of these researchers... that people are trying to "bash" researchers or shoot holes in their work simply to satisfy our own egos or something.

In the Ellifritz link I posted, his results showed 61% one-shot incapacitation with .22lr, 72% with .32 caliber cartridges, 62% with .380 ACP.

Meanwhile, 9mm Luger and .45 ACP results show 47% and 51% one-shot incapacitation respectively.

According to this particular study, even the "larger holes are better than smaller holes" statement would go out the window.

Something seems wrong when .32 ACP/.32 Long looks like the clear winner in a comparison of handgun cartridges. If that means I'm "bashing" Ellifrizt's work, then I guess I'm bashing it.
idek is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04303 seconds with 7 queries