The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Rimrod · September 12, 2006, 04:26 PM

But old enough to know better.

I read Marshalls tests long before Sanow even joined him. His results changed with the market. When I first started reading his articles the big and slow was the way to go. Then when the police started going crazy over the wondernines, the the 9mm was better. After the 9mm craze slowed down he changed again. That was about the time I quit wasting my time reading him at all.

They claim their work is scientific testing. NO, it's not. There are too many variables in the torso to rank every torso shot together. Also, there is a wide variety of how different people react to getting shot. If they want the results they claim they are getting they would have to shoot the same person in the exact same location with each caliber and bullet they test.

And even if they do this there is one more problem. I specifically remember one article Marshall wrote years ago where he claimed the .41 mag LSWC had a one shot stop rating of 68%. It had three one shot stops out of four shootings.

He said he gave it a lower rating because it he didn't think it was that good. He is biased.

Look at the tables Shawn presented. Do the figures change because the ammo has changed? The Federal .380 90gr. JHP went from 59% in 1988 to 100% in 1992 to 1996. Are they made out of Kryptonite now?

Jr47, Youv'e apparently looked at the tables, what do they tell you?

September 12, 2006, 04:26 PM	#10
Rimrod Senior Member Join Date: October 19, 2005 Location: Behind enemy lines Posts: 1,309	Nope. Not a jello junky either. But old enough to know better. I read Marshalls tests long before Sanow even joined him. His results changed with the market. When I first started reading his articles the big and slow was the way to go. Then when the police started going crazy over the wondernines, the the 9mm was better. After the 9mm craze slowed down he changed again. That was about the time I quit wasting my time reading him at all. They claim their work is scientific testing. NO, it's not. There are too many variables in the torso to rank every torso shot together. Also, there is a wide variety of how different people react to getting shot. If they want the results they claim they are getting they would have to shoot the same person in the exact same location with each caliber and bullet they test. And even if they do this there is one more problem. I specifically remember one article Marshall wrote years ago where he claimed the .41 mag LSWC had a one shot stop rating of 68%. It had three one shot stops out of four shootings. He said he gave it a lower rating because it he didn't think it was that good. He is biased. Look at the tables Shawn presented. Do the figures change because the ammo has changed? The Federal .380 90gr. JHP went from 59% in 1988 to 100% in 1992 to 1996. Are they made out of Kryptonite now? Jr47, Youv'e apparently looked at the tables, what do they tell you?