![]() |
|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#226 | ||||||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,407
|
Quote:
Quote:
Let's say the bullet type was unknown in a particular shooting. If the wound track shows evidence of fragmentation, as opposed to a pencil-type wound track, then even though we don't know exactly what the bullet type was, the fact that it fragmented does let us know that the bullet type apparently had a detectable effect on the shooting. So no, we can't assume that just because we don't know something that the effect it had was undetectable. Quote:
Quote:
From the very first page of the thread. "As far as effectiveness in real-world gunfights goes, to date, no one has been able to show that within the general service pistol caliber performance class, there is any benefit to using one caliber over another. " The claim is that no one has been able to demonstrate that terminal performance differences due to caliber choice within the service pistol class provides a benefit to real-world defenders. Caliber effect is detectable. Gel tests prove that. It's just that when we look at the outcomes real world shootings, no one has been able to prove that detectable effect provides any sort of a real world benefit to defenders. It follows from simple logic and the standard definitions of the words in that statement that if no one has been able to demonstrate a benefit, then no one has shown that the benefit is detectable. Quote:
![]() As far as it being useful, having perspective is always important. 27% doesn't mean anything unless we understand what it applies to. Whether that's the heart or the entire body. Quote:
As expected, when you control a variable (say, in this case, only considering heart shots) then you dilute the effect of real-world variability. If that approach is continued by controlling enough variables, then eventually, the small differences due to caliber will begin to become detectable. The problem is that once that level of control has been exercised, trying to take those results back to the real world just doesn’t seem to be possible. That’s why gel testing hasn’t provided us with the answers we want. It allows us to detect wound channel differences and characterize bullet performance, but then when we try to correlate that information to what happens in the real world, we find that we’re back where we started. If caliber choice within the service pistol class is providing defenders a real-world benefit though terminal performance, it must be a very small one because so far no one has been able to detect it. The fact that it is so hard to detect gives us confidence that even if it is finally detected, it's not going to be significant.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
#227 | ||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,609
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So, lets apply your own argument to another factor shall we? Accuracy effect is detectable, basic knowledge of human anatomy and physiology proves that. It's just that when we look at the outcomes of real world shootings, no one has been able to prove that detectable effect of accuracy provides any sort of real world benefit to the defenders. Now, you yourself stated that the effect of accuracy is detectable and significant, which I happen to agree with. So then, why does a factor which we both agree has detectable and significant effects not show any meaningful correlations in Ellifritz's data? Is it possible that perhaps other factors might be obscuring the detectable and significant effects of accuracy? If that's the case, then how do you reconcile that with your own tautology statement in post #125? If you can't find significant effects due to accuracy differences in real-world shootings then how can you consider the effect due to accuracy to be significant in real-world shootings? Quote:
Quote:
![]() The whole detour into percentage of tissue damaged was and remains a red herring because it doesn't tell us anything useful. The proportion of the total body which is damaged doesn't tell us anything because human beings aren't homogenous Jell-O monsters and different parts of the body have different tolerances to being damaged. Also, figuring out the proportion of specific organs likely to be damaged by a gunshot wound is of very little, if any, utility because, as you point out, real world shootings are dynamic and thus it is impossible to predict what area of the body might be shot in a real world incident. So, I fail to see what the point of the whole percentage of tissue damaged exercise is in the first place except, perhaps, distraction. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
#228 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 5, 2019
Posts: 833
|
I am of the opinion that the .45 is more effective than the 9mm. Attached is a photo of the disruption caused by a .45 lead hp. The size is about that of a baseball. A 9mm lead hp caused disruption into this paper medium about the size of a golf ball. If I had to pick a caliber it would be the .45. Go ahead and rely on someone's research. I'll rely on my data. For home protection, I would use a .38. It's not because of lethality but because I prefer having and using a revolver
|
![]() |
![]() |
#229 | ||||||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,407
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
![]() It's not a given that in every possible case the proportion of the organ damaged will be greater than that of the whole body. But, yes, if the wound track goes through a significant portion of an organ, as opposed to nicking it or only slightly impinging on it, then it follows from the basic concept of proportionality that since the organ is certainly smaller than the whole body, the proportional damage to the organ from difference in the wound track due to caliber is almost certainly going to be more significant than the proportional damage to the whole body from difference in the wound track due to caliber. I think your idea of proposing we look at only the heart as an example was a good idea. Once we ran the numbers properly it provided some useful perspective. One of the factors that obscures caliber differences in overall outcomes is the fact that the human body is not homogeneous and that different body parts have different levels of resistance to bullet damage. You've mentioned these two facts more than once, and I agree with it. But perspective is always helpful. We're talking about differences in damage due to caliber choice. Without tying those differences in damage to something (ideally the something that's going to be damaged), it's very difficult to get any sort of idea what level of practical damage we're talking about. I mean, all the issues with the variabilty in human bodies aside, it's definitely easier to see why something that damages 127 hundred thousandths of the body doesn't seem to change shooting outcomes compared to something that damages 100 hundred thousandths of the body than it is to see why a bullet that causes 27% more damage than another bullet doesn't seem to provide benefits to the person using it. For most people, anyway. Quote:
Which gets us back to the question of how an effect that is obscured/concealed/undetected in the overall outcome could be having a significant effect on the overall outcome. Maybe I've been assuming too much. What I mean by "significant effect" is things like:
What do you mean when you say "significant effect"?
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
#230 | |||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,609
|
Quote:
Quote:
If, as you argue, the effect of caliber is so small that it cannot be detected in real world shootings without being isolated from other factors such as bullet type, accuracy, etc. then it must therefore be insignificant, then that same argument would apply to factors such as bullet type and accuracy whose effects also cannot be detected in real world shootings without isolating them from other factors. We must either assume that any factor whose effects cannot be detected in the outcome of real world shootings is insignificant or we must acknowledge that the effect in real world shootings of those factors may be significant but undetectable because they're obscured by the effect of other factors. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Webleymkv; December 23, 2024 at 02:42 PM. |
|||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
#231 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,067
|
Quote:
Or is it yet another study where what could be vital information is either unavailable, or ignored, or blended into a single factor, perhaps more focused on what and not why? Credible math, perhaps, but incredible conclusions I think.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#232 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2002
Location: northern CA for a little while longer
Posts: 1,943
|
Quote:
Trying to massage data to support desired outcomes can send things off into the weeds.
__________________
Retired LE - firearms instructor & armorer |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#233 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,609
|
Quote:
That leaves us with the Ellifritz study which, while not known to contain mathematical errors like Marshall/Sanow, has lumped so many unknown factors together that the data is too "noisy" to be useful for meaningful comparison. The reason that I've focused so heavily on the Ellifritz study is because John has chosen to focus in on data from "real world" shootings and, while certainly deeply flawed, the Ellifritz study is the better of the two available because it at least does not contain known mathematical errors. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#234 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,609
|
Quote:
1. Getting off "into the weeds" is a ship that I think has obviously already sailed. 2. "Massaging data to support desired outcomes" is not necessarily the same thing as observing that the information which the data does not reveal is of equal, if not greater, importance as the information which it does. I'm not sure if your comments about massaging data were directed at me, but I really don't have a desired outcome as my entire argument has been that, based on the data available, we really can't draw a meaningful conclusion one way or the other. I am reminded of the adage that statistics are like a bikini: what they reveal may be interesting, but what they conceal may be more interesting still. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#235 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 18, 2020
Location: Seguin Texas
Posts: 766
|
^^^Hard to disagree with that!^^^
|
![]() |
![]() |
#236 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
"Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#237 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 28, 2013
Posts: 3,411
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#238 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,787
|
Quote:
Merry Christams everyone. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#239 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 12,632
|
Sorry about that--and to your wife, too.
![]()
__________________
"Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk! |
![]() |
![]() |
#240 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 3,775
|
Let's just all agree that 45 has marketable place that will only decrease as the 1911 45 older crowd dwindles in population on Earth and 9mm in 1911 and 2011 proves itself completely acceptable and even then, this purpose driven 1911/2011 already is a very small portion of all guns in general.
Being totally wrong, that's why it's so easy to move any type of 45 right now. ![]() It's like the 40 and 10mm. The interest is there at maximum effort interest, but the scope is not fundamentally increasing.
__________________
My wife is a pulmonologist (respiratory Dr) and epidemiologist. If you have any questions on COVID, please reach out to me in PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
#241 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,407
|
Quote:
Quote:
When I say no one has been able to prove that terminal effect differences due to caliber choice are providing a real-world benefit to defenders, that is a very specific statement. The question of detectability relates specifically to the real-world benefit to defenders. I'm not saying that it's impossible to look at a shooting and determine, for example, that the wound track is slightly larger due to a larger caliber being used, but rather, very specifically stating that no one has been able to prove that the terminal effect differences due to caliber choice are providing a real-world benefit to defenders. Note that the statement very clearly mentions "terminal effect differences due to caliber choices", implying very strongly that such differences exist, and without contesting that possibility, but that the focus of the claim is that no one has been able to prove they benefit defenders. So no, my argument doesn't also have to support what you claim it has to support because my argument is a different argument from the one you are making. Quote:
![]() What it does is provide us with perspective. Perspective is not the same thing as prediction. Perspective does not require prediction. It's simply getting a feel for the overall big picture. Starting to understand things like how much tissue is affected by caliber differences, and how hard it is to predict the outcome of real-world shootings. Quote:
Quote:
Ok, getting back to your statement: "Or perhaps caliber choice does have a significant effect on the outcome of real world shootings, but that effect is being obscured by other factors of equal or greater significance such as bullet type or accuracy. "How could the effect of one of the criteria you list, be obscured (kept from being seen, concealed) and still be significant (sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy.)?
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
#242 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 12,632
|
They didn't do a "point at your head at point blank range" test; I can tell you that looking down the barrel of a manhole-sized bore just inches away from your face with a finger twitching on the trigger has a very high poop-n-ur-pants intimidation factor which can deescalate the encounter without a single shot being fired.
__________________
"Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk! |
![]() |
![]() |
#243 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 18, 2020
Location: Seguin Texas
Posts: 766
|
Much like a cylinder full of big bore hollow points waiting for their turn down the tube.
A great friend of my father who happened to be a plumber got a call for a clogged sink at a rental his company serviced. Apparently, the landlord hadn’t notified the tenant about the plumber being let into his pad. Finding a strange man in his bathroom startled him enough to point his 45 at my dad’s friend after finding him under his sink. Old Bob said “that forking hole looked like a 2” pipe”, I’ve never been so scared in my life! He couldn’t explain fast enough why he was there, I’m thinking the dude was maybe a little paranoid, maybe a little? To say it left a lasting impression would be the biggest tale of the year! |
![]() |
![]() |
#244 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
__________________
"Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk! Last edited by stagpanther; December 25, 2024 at 07:41 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#245 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 26, 2016
Posts: 1,621
|
Lets's do a quick poll. After 243 posts, how many of you have changed your mind on this subject? Thanks!
|
![]() |
![]() |
#246 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 18, 2020
Location: Seguin Texas
Posts: 766
|
Quote:
He cussed from time to time but I don’t recall him ever using the Mother of all Cuss Words before or since around me like he did retelling this nightmare of a story. Last edited by Pumpkin; December 25, 2024 at 11:33 AM. Reason: Slooow memory. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#247 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 18, 2020
Location: Seguin Texas
Posts: 766
|
The one word you would never say in front of a Nun, that is if you cared about seeing another day!
|
![]() |
![]() |
#248 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,609
|
John, I'll make this very simple. How do you reconcile your claim that accuracy has a detectable and significant effect on the outcome of real world shootings when no such correlation appears in the Ellifritz study?
|
![]() |
![]() |
#249 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
__________________
"Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#250 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
"Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|