Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by idek
...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.
|
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
What it means is that you didn't understand Ellifitz's analysis of the data.
|
I work with numbers for a profession, and I think I know how to interpret data. I also know about study bias, which seems to be occurring in this case, even if it's not done so deliberately. The data (and graph) you are referring to is
failure to incapacitate. I was referring to his data on
one-hit incapacitation. Two different categories with two different results. This charts show what I'm referring to...
And this chart can also be misleading...
I never said ALL data seemed inaccurate but some seemed questionable. And I don't think it's necessarily wise to accept certain results (even from reputable sources) as gospel.
By the way, the whole permanent cavity issue you keep posting over and over, Massad Ayoob argues the other way in some of his handgun combat books. So who's to say Ellifritz is right and Ayoob is wrong? There are plenty of "experts" out there. Who can say which experts are
most expert?