The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: General Handgun Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old September 11, 2006, 03:47 PM   #1
piratecountry
Member
 
Join Date: December 26, 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 25
Evan Marshall's One Shot Stop Data

Can someone direct me to an online chart showing some of Evan Marshall's stats for handgun stopping power. I have to provide a 10 minute training session at Monday's shift meeting and want to include some of his stats for one shot stops. I've seen his work referred to several times but can not remember where. Thanks.
piratecountry is offline  
Old September 11, 2006, 03:59 PM   #2
Bud Helms
Staff
 
Join Date: December 31, 1999
Location: Middle Georgia
Posts: 13,005
Stoppingpower.net

Hmmm. 'Don't see any data there, just books for sale.
Bud Helms is offline  
Old September 11, 2006, 04:33 PM   #3
mete
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 14, 2004
Location: NY State
Posts: 5,407
Don't play the numbers game !! As Evan Marshall says , shoot and continue to shoot until the BG is no longer a threat .On the street the 45, 40, 357sig and the better 9mm loads, perform the same .Bullet placement is far more important than any differences in the numbers.
mete is offline  
Old September 12, 2006, 10:01 AM   #4
Shawn Dodson
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 16, 1998
Location: Titusville, FL, USA
Posts: 1,030
http://www.firearmstactical.com/tact...1/TABLE2-1.PDF

http://www.firearmstactical.com/tact...1/TABLE2-2.PDF
Shawn Dodson is offline  
Old September 12, 2006, 10:50 AM   #5
JR47
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 9, 2005
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 2,228
The charts show "errors". They seem to be simple errors in math, that proof-readers should have found. Are we to assume some nefarious purpose in them?

None the less, thank you for providing these data sheets.
JR47 is offline  
Old September 12, 2006, 11:01 AM   #6
Rimrod
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2005
Location: Behind enemy lines
Posts: 1,309
Actually the errors are probably as accurate as the rest of the information.
Rimrod is offline  
Old September 12, 2006, 01:04 PM   #7
JR47
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 9, 2005
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 2,228
Perhaps to you. Must be a jello-junkey, right?
JR47 is offline  
Old September 12, 2006, 01:31 PM   #8
OBIWAN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 1999
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,340
I would not be real comfortable presenting any of Marshall's data

Unless your topic is junk science
OBIWAN is offline  
Old September 12, 2006, 01:44 PM   #9
buzz_knox
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,191
Quote:
Perhaps to you. Must be a jello-junkey, right?
It's a mistake to lump those who disagree with the stopping power results into one particular camp. I used to select my ammunition based on the results. Then, I started thinking about the problems inherent in the idea of throwing out multiple shots in order to test the effectiveness of one shot. That necessarily means that single rounds that failed and were followed up with additional rounds don't get counted, skewing the results.


As for the errors in the work, a few could be the result of editorial mishaps. Multiple errors in multiple sections indicate that something else is going on. I don't believe, as some do, that the results were cooked to meet a particular end, but I do think the methodology was insufficiently rigorous to justify reliance upon the work for something as meaningful as saving one's life.
buzz_knox is offline  
Old 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?
Rimrod is offline  
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  
Old September 12, 2006, 08:10 PM   #12
Japle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2004
Location: Viera, Florida
Posts: 1,188
Marshall didn't do any science at all. He wasn't trying to. He just collected data and reported on what he found.

He'll be the first to tell you that the data only give a broad view of what's going on with handgun stopping power. As he's said many times, ammo selection is maybe 5% of surviving a gunfight.

Marshall has his own gun store now. He says that, although he carries 4-5 guns, all loaded with Cor Bon DPX, he'd be comfortable carrying any of the JHP ammo he sells. He knows handgun stopping power isn't science. There are too many uncontrollable variables.

The practical difference in stopping power between 9mm, .40 and .45 with top-shelf ammo isn't worth worrying about.

Personally, I carry a G19 loaded with 9PBLE. Old technology, but a load that worked well in the vast majority of gunfights where it was used.

BTW, he hasn't collected any new data for years. No time. Maybe someone will pick up the ball, but it seems like most "researchers" would rather shoot gello and badmouth Marshall.

John
Cape Canaveral
Japle is offline  
Old September 13, 2006, 12:02 AM   #13
Shawn Dodson
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 16, 1998
Location: Titusville, FL, USA
Posts: 1,030
Quote:
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.
See:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/tact...3/0604-03a.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/tact...2/0604-02a.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/bulletpenetration.htm

Cheers!
Shawn Dodson is offline  
Old September 13, 2006, 06:50 AM   #14
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
Actually, collecting data as Marshall did IS science, assuming he did it scientifically! Generally, though, I agree with some of the thoughts already expressed but Marshall started the exercise for his own purposes and then decided to publish it.

It used to be a lot simpler because there were fewer bullet designs. Even so, there is not so much difference now as the advertising would have you believe. I still recall what Fairbairn said on the subject in his book "Shooting to Live," the more I learn, the more unsure I am.

Not many writers really go into the subject of gunshot wounds, though many write about gunfighting. There is an old book, probably available in a reprint, about handguns, the name and author totally forgotten at the moment, that had photos of a few corpses that had been shot and killed with different handgun calibers. The photos showed the bullet holes made with bullets ranging from .32 to .45. All the holes looked pretty much the same and all the bodies were equally dead. Ah, I remember: Chic Gaylord, published in the 1950's. That was the golden past but people still were shooting one another.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old September 13, 2006, 01:32 PM   #15
Rimrod
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2005
Location: Behind enemy lines
Posts: 1,309
I've never read any of Marshalls books. I based my opinion on the numerous magazine articles he wrote and the B.S. stories he used to back them up. Like I said, his data changed to meet the market.

I don't like any of the methods to determine the best handgun round. I don't think there is a "best" handgun round. Handguns are low powered and not dependable for a one shot stop no matter what figures you get out of any test. Looking at Marshalls results only says one thing, even if you pick a 100% effective round you may be the statistic to make it 95%.

If he wanted to collect data like he did for his own information, that is fine. But when he started to print it as if it were chiseled in stone, like he did in the 70s, that isn't quit so acceptable. People used his information to base their ammunition choice off of because he made it sound like it was the best available only to have it change a year later. And as I said, there was nothing scientific about it.

And why would we go into this since the original post was for charts? Because of the reason the original poster wanted it. A topic that is very personal to me.
Rimrod is offline  
Old September 13, 2006, 03:08 PM   #16
JR47
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 9, 2005
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 2,228
If you've never read his books, or the admonitions that go with them, you really have no basis to define the work done, now do you?

It seems to me that someone who "scientifically" arrived at a conslusion, and then who changes it based on possible modifications of the base of those conclusions, would also be damned by your logic. If Federal changed the internal design of a bullet, which they did to the Hydra-Shok, for example, and increased the lethality/assurance of expansion, you would refuse to believe it when statistics show an improvement?

Marshall believed in heavy bullets when he started collecting his data. He found, after comparing data, that, in some calibers, the lighter bullets were working better. I'd say that admitting it was far more a matter of truth than "market changes".

Shawn, your first link is to an attack on Massad Ayoob. Your second link bears out my contention that Ballistic Gelatin is a simulation of flesh. I have never seen a human with 20" of flesh anywhere on them that was a threat to anyone but themselves. I also believe that the military uses 20%, or did until recently. The third link is the one I find the most useful, and I thank you for it, sir. I will presently have a copy.
JR47 is offline  
Old September 13, 2006, 04:08 PM   #17
Shawn Dodson
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 16, 1998
Location: Titusville, FL, USA
Posts: 1,030
Quote:
Shawn, your first link is to an attack on Massad Ayoob.
It confronts and debunks identical fallacies you present here.
Quote:
Your second link bears out my contention that Ballistic Gelatin is a simulation of flesh. I have never seen a human with 20" of flesh anywhere on them that was a threat to anyone but themselves.
Properly prepared and calibrated ordnance gelatin provides a reasonable indication of a bullet's terminal performance (penetration, expansion, yaw and fragmentation) in soft tissues. When actual shooting performance doesn't match performance observed in gelatin there's a reason for it, and when exact circumstances are duplicated with gelatin the results match, as proved by Fackler in an extract presented the first link.

Only in the Marshall-Sanow books is gelatin used in attempt to determine "stopping power."
Quote:
I also believe that the military uses 20%, or did until recently.
See: http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/picatinny.pdf
Quote:
The third link is the one I find the most useful, and I thank you for it, sir. I will presently have a copy.
My pleasure!
Shawn Dodson is offline  
Old September 13, 2006, 04:15 PM   #18
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,074
It's odd that people are dismissing the "science boys" as if that's some sort of nefarious refutation of qualifications, skills, or experiences.

Anyone out there know what Martin Fackler's background actually is?

Beuhler?

Anyone? Anyone?

It should also be noted that the entire basis of a scientific process is repeatable, verifiable experiments that can be both examined and duplicated by independent researches. Can anyone explain just how that is a bad thing?

Since the FBI moved to establish and adopt common testing procedures, which include gelatin testing, ammunition companies have adopted these procedures to design new bullets that will actuall expand repeatedly and penetrate deeply.

Again, can anyone explain just how that is a bad thing?

Finally, while I've been extremely critical of Evan Marshall's processes and procedures in the past, especially his mathematics and statistics, I find it very interesting that some of the bullets developed and tested by the "jello junky science boys'" methods and procedures have shown up as doing exceptionally well in Marshall's charts. Does anyone else find that to be very interesting? Anyone? Anyone?

Just some food for thought.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old September 13, 2006, 05:07 PM   #19
Rimrod
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2005
Location: Behind enemy lines
Posts: 1,309
The reason I never read the books was because I read the articles. I quit reading his articles long before he ever wrote the books.

If someone did arrive at a scientific, or even statistical, conclusion and then changed it due to a difference I would totally accept it. Now who are you talking about?

In the 15 shootings that were tabulated for the Fed 90 grn, given the exact same people in the exact same situation shot with the exact same bullet placement how many bullets on the chart wouldn't give the exanct same results.
They could have all resulted in a 100% one shot stop rating. Regardless of what Federal may have done to their bullet the earlier bullet may have had the exact same outcome as the newer bullet but there is nothing there to tell you that. There are too many variables for either science or statistics. Think about what Mike said. If independant researchers repeated the experiment with 15 other people would they get the same results?

Yes Mike, there have been great advances in ammunition technology, not only from F.B.I. testing but also from simply trying to make a 'better mouse trap' than the competition. And even with that nothing is guaranteed to stop an attacker with one shot yet and I doubt that it will ever happen.
Rimrod is offline  
Old September 13, 2006, 10:56 PM   #20
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,074
"not only from F.B.I. testing but also from simply trying to make a 'better mouse trap' than the competition."

Ammo companies had been trying that for the better part of a century, and without a lot of success.

It's pretty interesting that Winchester, Remington, and numerous other companies started coming out with new designs, and continue to come out with new designs, within a few years of FBI adopting a standardized testing process and media, and that virtually all of these designs have one thing in common -- they're expanding AND penetrating.

In years past, you normally could get one, or the other, but couldn't reliably get both. The old rule of thumb for the .38 Spl. was that at snub nose velocities you were wasting money with hollowpoints, especially jacketed hollowpoints.

Granted, for the ammo companies the other entry into the equasion, and probably the most critical one, was computer aided design and testing, but I don't see this as being an accident at all.

Simply put, how can you test something if you can't determine what your testing criteria, or media, are?
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old September 14, 2006, 06:44 AM   #21
Bud Helms
Staff
 
Join Date: December 31, 1999
Location: Middle Georgia
Posts: 13,005
Moving to Handguns General.
Bud Helms is offline  
Old September 14, 2006, 09:29 AM   #22
Rimrod
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2005
Location: Behind enemy lines
Posts: 1,309
Mike,

So you're saying the F.B.I. is solely responsible for the level of handgun advancement? That would mean every manufacturer is only trying to meet their requirements?

Many, if not most, law enforcement agencies follow the F.B.I.s lead. Not just because they are trusted but because they have the resources many other agencies do not have. That creates a huge market that every manufacturer wants a piece of. They don't just want to match the competition, they want to beat them. Otherwise once the F.B.I. and all the other agencies adopted a cartridge why change to something exactly the same?

If you don't believe me read their ads.
Rimrod is offline  
Old September 14, 2006, 10:05 AM   #23
buzz_knox
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,191
Quote:
So you're saying the F.B.I. is solely responsible for the level of handgun advancement? That would mean every manufacturer is only trying to meet their requirements?
I don't believe that was his point. I believe it was more along the lines of the FBI setting forth some objective criteria for what it considered desirable wounding characteristics. Before that, what made a round effective was highly subjective. The desire for deep penetration (let air in and blood out from both sides) versus energy (it's got to go somewhere and do something) versus control versus caliber was the driving force behind the rounds. It's the same fundamental reason why 7.65 was a standard European duty caliber. They FELT it worked so that's what mattered.

The FBI, for better or worse, set a standard. It stated that the combination of XYZ was an effective balance of wounding characteristics and controllability and rounds that achieved that would be purchased. So, the ammunition manufacturers set about winning contracts by producing rounds that achieved XYZ, often in different ways and in different combinations (a little more X achieved more Y with less Z, but still met the criteria overall). Given that many agencies either adopted those standards as their own, used them as the basis for developing their own, or simply tag onto whatever the FBI contract is, it's arguably true that in one way or another, everything does flow from those tests. Just like the current trends in rifle ammunition are flowing from AARs from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The FBI tests weren't perfect (didn't the criteria actually categorize some rounds as having negative wounding effects?), but the rounds that resulted have become some of the most objectively effective in history, and they continue to progress.
buzz_knox is offline  
Old September 14, 2006, 11:05 AM   #24
OBIWAN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 1999
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,340
Something else that is often overlooked by those that would look down on the "jello Junkies" is that gelatin testing results show correlation with real world shootings.

If they didn't, we would still be looking for a standard

The only people i see questioning the validity of Gel testing are those whose "pet load" does poorly

I call that a clue
OBIWAN is offline  
Old September 14, 2006, 11:34 AM   #25
chrisandclauida2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 21, 2005
Posts: 312
a few facts.

there is only one place to hit for a one shot stop.

you wont hit it unless your lucky.

all modern defence ammo is developed for the best performance.

the results is they all perform about the same when they work.

a LOT of the time they dont expand for various reasons.

shoot center mass til they stop threatening you .

the rest is bar room superman bs talk that will get you killed if you start believing anything other than shoot center mass till they stop.

there is no magical energy dump.

they is no truth to anything but shoot center mas till they stop.

people only fall when shot if conditioned to by tv movies etc.

the rest will kill you.

take the chance on double taps head shots pelvis shots blah blah blah what ever is new if you want. its not my life and as such isnt the highest priority for me but it should be for you

last time now so learn it live it and live. shoot center mass till they stop.

if they dont stop first you will be dead.

all the other movement conceal shooting practice you do is to one end. it is so you can be better able to shoot center mass till they stop. anything else and your dead. or your wife is dead or your kids are dead.

like a great man once said if you force me to become violent i shall be so fierce and hurt you so bad the thought of ever doing it again will never cross your mind. that is paraphrased and to the end i add cause you will be dead

Last edited by Johnny Guest; September 15, 2006 at 05:14 PM. Reason: Needless asterisks
chrisandclauida2 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14261 seconds with 7 queries