View Single Post
Old September 12, 2006, 07:12 PM   #11
JR47
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 9, 2005
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 2,228
To be honest, I also read the admonition that Marshall puts in the beginning of his books. He, unlike so many "pseudo-science" types, spells out why he did this, and what all of the parameters of his research were. He also tells you to draw your own conclusions. That's a lot more intellectually honest than the "science boys". I've NEVER had Ballistic Gelatin shoot at me. Nor have I run into a felon with at least 20" of homogenous material for my rounds to expand in.

However, if I have a result that shows just how many times the round appeared effective, I can start looking at it instead of the latest "Super Round" in the media.

I would like to think that math problems are pretty much the problem with trhe proof-readers. They are too easy to disprove. Not too many of anything can exceed 100% of a sum.

I'm really not interested in another morgue-monkey vs, jello-junkie thread.

The initial poster asked where to obtain the results of his work. He didn't ask for a politicalization, or to be informed of poorly thought out attacks on what the results represent.

Some of the points here are a little unusual already.

"The Federal .380 90gr. JHP went from 59% in 1988 to 100% in 1992 to 1996. Are they made out of Kryptonite now? "

Hmmmm, perhaps Federal changed them slightly? I didn't realize that ammunition was locked in place after it had reached market.

"I would not be real comfortable presenting any of Marshall's data
Unless your topic is junk science"

It is really your opinion there. It is also yours to have, but Fackler's work can be summarized as the same, for the same reasons stated. Not everyone will have the same clothing on as the test block of gelatin. People have bony structures, and both solid and hollow organs. People may have different levels of chemicals in their blood, ad nauseum. In other words, the ballistic gel tests are only good to provide a graph of expansion in ballistic gel. Attempting to correlate that with action in human flesh leaves to many variables to be considered anything but junk science.

Gosh, heresy, Marshall changed his opinion of what bullets work best over the years, after he started collecting data. The world will end. Please,get a grip.

Nowhere in his books does he state that anything is written in stone. He presents the results of data, gathered in the manner specified. I find that to be a better guide than what a block of gelatin, at a given temp, and calibrated by a bee-bee, will allow me to know. It's just a personal thing. I've never met a felonious block of cold gelatin. Nor have I ever met a series of perfectly calibrated humans.

Could we just let the information go, without comment?
JR47 is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03370 seconds with 8 queries