The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Semi-automatic Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 22, 2024, 06:26 PM   #226
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,407
Quote:
...can we discover the true character of, discover or determine the existence, presence, or fact of, or demodulate the effect of any of the unknown factors I mentioned?
Certainly we can. Just apply the definition of detectable. Very simple.
Quote:
Again, because the factors I described are unknown, and we have no reasonable way to know them, we have no means of detecting their effects therefore they are also undetectable.
If a factor is unknown, or unknown in a particular case, then the effect it had on the shooting in question may have been detectable or undetectable.

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:
Based upon the Ellifritz study, does accuracy as defined by Ellifritz as shots impacting the head or torso have a detectable effect on the outcome of real-world shootings and, if so, is that effect significant.
Of course accuracy has a detectable and significant effect on shootings.
Quote:
Your entire argument has been that, because the effect of caliber is undetectable that effect must therefore be insignificant.
This far in and you still can't state my premise accurately.

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:
You do understand that the numbers I quote were not meant to be taken literally but rather used to illustrate the point that the percentage of total body mass destroyed by a gunshot doesn't tell us anything useful, right?
I understand that in your haste to prove your point, you tried to stuff 12" to 18" of penetration in to an object that was only 3.5" in width, then also forgot about the fact that it's not the total damage we care about but rather the difference in the damage.

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:
And isn't 7% and 9% still substantially larger figures than the 0.1% and 0.127% of total body mass that you quoted earlier?
Yes, of course they are! Do you think I'm afraid of where the data and science leads us? I got here because I was looking for answers and willing to accept whatever answer the science and data provided.

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?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old December 22, 2024, 09:49 PM   #227
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,609
Quote:
Originally posted by JohnKSa
Certainly we can. Just apply the definition of detectable. Very simple.
So how would you detect the effects of those factors with the information we have available to us? Without data on barrel length, bullet type, etc., how can we possibly hope to detect whether they even have an effect on the outcome of real-world shootings much less if that effect is significant?

Quote:
If a factor is unknown, or unknown in a particular case, then the effect it had on the shooting in question may have been detectable or undetectable.

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.
So do you have information about the wound tracks of the shootings in Ellifritz's study? Ellifritz doesn't provide such information, and I suspect that in many cases he may not have it himself, so unless you have additional information that you've yet to share, we don't know and have no reasonable way of knowing. As I said before, for the purposes of this discussion the effects of the unknown factors I pointed out are undetectable to you and I. The fact that, with more information (that we don't have), someone might be able to detect those effects doesn't change the fact that we don't have such information and thus we cannot detect them. Also, playing the "what if" game like this doesn't strengthen your argument as the same could be done for the "undetectable" effects of caliber.

Quote:
Of course accuracy has a detectable and significant effect on shootings.
Really? How do you come to that conclusion? As I pointed out in post #210, Accuracy, as defined by Ellifritz, does not seem to correlate with his "stopping power" numbers. Upon what do you base the assertion that accuracy has a detectable and significant effect on shootings when the real-world data doesn't bear that out?

Quote:
This far in and you still can't state my premise accurately.
Well let's see, in post #125 you stated this:

Quote:
It's essentially a tautology--the simplest kind of reasoning. If you can't find significant effects due to caliber differences in real-world shootings then the effect due to caliber differences in real-world shootings is not significant.
Then, in post #184, you said this:

Quote:
You are arguing that other things obscure it and that's why it isn't detectable. That is consistent with my claim. I'm saying that no one can prove it's significant if they can't even detect it.
In post #197, you said:

Quote:
If the difference isn't detectable in the real world, how is it helping anyone in the real world? If it isn't helping anyone in the real world, how could it be significant?
That all sounds awfully similar to what I said which was "Your entire argument has been that, because the effect of caliber is undetectable that effect must therefore be insignificant."

Quote:
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.
Again, context matters. I myself have stated on several occasions that there are measurable differences between calibers in gel testing, but we're not discussing gel testing. If you look at my original statement all the way back in post #73 you'll find it says "As to the 9mm vs .45 debate, my own personal opinion is this: if comparable bullets are used, then by every measurable metric the .45 should be more effective but its impossible to ascertain how much more effective it is"

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:
I understand that in your haste to prove your point, you tried to stuff 12" to 18" of penetration in to an object that was only 3.5" in width, then also forgot about the fact that it's not the total damage we care about but rather the difference in the damage.

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.
And yet you proved the very point I was trying to make: the proportion of an individual organ struck by a gunshot wound will be significantly greater than the proportion of the body as a whole.

Quote:
Yes, of course they are! Do you think I'm afraid of where the data and science leads us? I got here because I was looking for answers and willing to accept whatever answer the science and data provided.

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.
I hadn't considered you being afraid of the data and where science leads us, but now that you mention it...

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:
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.
Which is all 100% consistent with what I've said all along, real world data doesn't show any correlation one way or the other. So, if we know that there are detectable differences in wound channels created during laboratory testing, then why can't we find correlation in the real world? My entire argument has been that because the real-world data is so noisy, it is impossible to determine why we can't correlate the effects of caliber, or several other factors for that matter, with what we see in the laboratory and therefore impossible to proclaim that the effect of caliber in real world shootings is either significant or insignificant.

Quote:
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.
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. As I said, your arguments have painted you into a corner. If the effect of caliber is insignificant in real world shootings because it cannot be detected in real world shootings, then any other factor for which the effect on the outcome of real world shootings cannot be detected must therefore also be insignificant. I cannot, therefore, see how you can reconcile stating that accuracy has a detectable and significant effect on shootings when it had no detectable effect on the outcomes of the real world shootings included in the Ellifritz study. You can't have it both ways John.
Webleymkv is offline  
Old December 22, 2024, 11:48 PM   #228
BJung
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
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 45-200hp Cavity2.JPG (838.1 KB, 93 views)
BJung is offline  
Old December 23, 2024, 02:40 AM   #229
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,407
Quote:
So how would you detect the effects of those factors with the information we have available to us?
I wouldn't try. The fact that they are individually detectable doesn't imply that it would be possible to somehow isolate their effects on the overall outcome of the shooting and draw some sort of useful conclusion that relates to the overall outcome in some general and predictable way.
Quote:
So do you have information about the wound tracks of the shootings in Ellifritz's study?
Again, unknown is not the same thing as detectable. Detectability is a general property. We can, generally speaking detect the effects of bullet type. That doesn't imply that everyone in the world always knows the bullet type in every shooting.
Quote:
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.
I think you mean "accuracy as defined by Ellifritz", correct?
Quote:
That all sounds awfully similar to what I said...
I've stated my premise clearly and repeatedly. It seems like it would be much simpler for everyone if you just quote what I've said instead of trying to restate it.
Quote:
And yet you proved the very point I was trying to make: the proportion of an individual organ struck by a gunshot wound will be significantly greater than the proportion of the body as a whole.
Interesting that you keep coming back to this point while all the time asserting that it doesn't tell us anything and is of little utility.

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:
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.
The effect on the outcome of real world shootings due to caliber choice is certainly being obscured, and it makes perfect sense to say that it's being obscured by factors that affect the outcomes of shootings more heavily than it does.

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:
  • Difference in incapacitation times.
  • Difference in defender survival.
  • Difference in defender injury level.

What do you mean when you say "significant effect"?
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old December 23, 2024, 11:48 AM   #230
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,609
Quote:
Originally posted by JohnKSa
I wouldn't try. The fact that they are individually detectable doesn't imply that it would be possible to somehow isolate their effects on the overall outcome of the shooting and draw some sort of useful conclusion that relates to the overall outcome in some general and predictable way.
You mean like how the differences between calibers, which is detectable and measurable in laboratory testing, cannot have its effects isolated sufficiently to draw some sort of useful conclusion that relates to the overall outcome in some general and predictable way? So tell me, why does the effect of caliber not need to be isolated in order to declare it insignificant, but the effects of other factors require isolation to determine their significance?

Quote:
Again, unknown is not the same thing as detectable. Detectability is a general property. We can, generally speaking detect the effects of bullet type. That doesn't imply that everyone in the world always knows the bullet type in every shooting.
Ellifritz's study is the only credible data that we have on real world shootings. Whether or not someone might be able to detect a difference with additional information or different methodology is irrelevant to you and I because the effect of bullet type was not detected in Ellifritz's results and neither you nor I have the ability to detect it with the information available to us.

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:
I think you mean "accuracy as defined by Ellifritz", correct?
Yes and I specified so in post #224. As Ellifritz's study is the only credible study on real world shootings that we have to work with, it would seem to me that his definition of accuracy is the most logical to use.

Quote:
I've stated my premise clearly and repeatedly. It seems like it would be much simpler for everyone if you just quote what I've said instead of trying to restate it.
While you've stated your premise repeatedly, your continuous detours into semantics make it anything but clear. In an effort not to waste more time an energy than necessary, I chose to simply paraphrase it.

Quote:
Interesting that you keep coming back to this point while all the time asserting that it doesn't tell us anything and is of little utility.
The proportion of an organ damaged by a gunshot wound is dependent upon which specific organ we're talking about. Because, as you pointed out, we cannot predict which specific organ will be damaged in a shooting, the entire exercise is academic and of no substantial value in predicting the outcome of a real world shooting.

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.
But if we cannot predict the proportion of the organ damaged due to uncontrolled variables such as the angle of the shot, then of what use is the calculation?

Quote:
The effect on the outcome of real world shootings due to caliber choice is certainly being obscured, and it makes perfect sense to say that it's being obscured by factors that affect the outcomes of shootings more heavily than it does.

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.
The effect of accuracy, as defined by Ellifritz, on the outcome of real world shootings is also being obscured as evidenced by the fact that higher levels of accuracy did not correlate with significant differences in stopping power in Ellifritz's study. If the fact that the effect of caliber is so easily obscured in the overall outcome proves that it must be insignificant, then how do you reconcile your claim that the effect of accuracy is both detectable and significant in the outcome of real world shootings when, based on the only credible study we have, it's effects seem to be just as easily obscured as those of caliber? If we assume that the effect of caliber must be insignificant because it is obscured by other factors, then we must also assume that other factors, like accuracy, which also have their effects obscured must be equally insignificant.

Quote:
Maybe I've been assuming too much. What I mean by "significant effect" is things like:
Difference in incapacitation times.
Difference in defender survival.
Difference in defender injury level.
None of those effects were measured or reported by the Ellifritz study which, as I've mentioned repeatedly, is the only credible study on the outcome of real world shootings as they relate to caliber. I don't understand how you can determine what factors have a significant effect when the effects that you consider to be significant were not measured or reported by the study upon which you are basing your conclusions.

Quote:
What do you mean when you say "significant effect"?
Well, since the Ellifritz study is the only credible data we have to work with, I'd use the same criteria that Ellifritz did:
  • percentage of shots that were fatal
  • average number of rounds until incapacitation
  • percentage of people who were not incapacitated
  • one-shot-stop percentage
  • percentage of people actually incapacitated by one shot

Last edited by Webleymkv; December 23, 2024 at 02:42 PM.
Webleymkv is offline  
Old December 23, 2024, 01:31 PM   #231
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,067
Quote:
As Ellifritz's study is the only credible study on real world shootings that we have to work with, it would seem to me that his definition of accuracy is the most logical to use.
IS IT? Is it a credible study??

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.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 23, 2024, 02:25 PM   #232
fastbolt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2002
Location: northern CA for a little while longer
Posts: 1,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa View Post
...
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 ....
Especially if the threat is struck by 2 (or more) rounds.

Trying to massage data to support desired outcomes can send things off into the weeds.
__________________
Retired LE - firearms instructor & armorer
fastbolt is offline  
Old December 23, 2024, 02:27 PM   #233
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,609
Quote:
Originally posted by 44 AMP

IS IT? Is it a credible study??

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.
I agree and that is, in a round about way, the point I've been trying to make all along. The only two serious studies regarding the effect of caliber in real world shootings of which I am aware is the Marshall/Sanow study and the Ellifritz study. Marshall/Sanow is not useful because, as has been pointed out, it contains known mathematical/statistical errors. Because we know that at least some of the Marshall/Sanow data is in error, it renders all of it unusable because we cannot make accurate comparisons between one caliber and another when we know that at least some of the data upon which we are basing our comparison is inaccuarate.

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.
Webleymkv is offline  
Old December 23, 2024, 02:55 PM   #234
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,609
Quote:
Originally posted by fastbolt
Trying to massage data to support desired outcomes can send things off into the weeds.
Two points:

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.
Webleymkv is offline  
Old December 24, 2024, 08:21 AM   #235
Pumpkin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2020
Location: Seguin Texas
Posts: 766
^^^Hard to disagree with that!^^^
Pumpkin is offline  
Old December 24, 2024, 09:04 AM   #236
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
what they reveal may be interesting, but what they conceal may be more interesting still.
Not if I'm wearing it.
__________________
"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!
stagpanther is offline  
Old December 24, 2024, 09:38 AM   #237
jetinteriorguy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2013
Posts: 3,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by stagpanther View Post
Not if I'm wearing it.
Now that made me almost spit my coffee out.
jetinteriorguy is offline  
Old December 24, 2024, 12:03 PM   #238
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,787
Quote:
Not if I'm wearing it.
OMG!! Best post of the thread!! Thanks for the laugh (and not for the mental image i wont be able to get rid of. I might need therapy. Lol)

Merry Christams everyone.
Sharkbite is offline  
Old December 24, 2024, 12:54 PM   #239
stagpanther
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!
stagpanther is offline  
Old December 25, 2024, 01:06 AM   #240
wild cat mccane
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.
wild cat mccane is offline  
Old December 25, 2024, 02:14 AM   #241
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,407
Quote:
So tell me, why does the effect of caliber not need to be isolated in order to declare it insignificant, but the effects of other factors require isolation to determine their significance?
If you're implying I made the claim in the underlined portion of this quote, you're mistaken. Since I didn't make that claim, I'm not going to try to justify it.
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.
You are playing fast and loose with the terminology here.

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:
Because, as you pointed out, we cannot predict which specific organ will be damaged in a shooting, the entire exercise is academic and of no substantial value in predicting the outcome of a real world shooting.
You are exactly correct that it won't predict the outcome of a real world shooting. A particularly perceptive person might note that the premise I've stated multiple times speaks very clearly to the difficulty of trying to predict the outcome of real-world shootings.

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:
But if we cannot predict the proportion of the organ damaged due to uncontrolled variables such as the angle of the shot, then of what use is the calculation?
As I did in the corrected version of the heart calculation, I assumed the reasonable best case situation where the bullet penetrates the most tissue of the organ that is likely from reasonable angles. That tells us that the difference due to caliber won't be larger than our calculation, but it could be smaller. That is called 'bounding the problem'. By starting to gradually get a feel for what the best we can expect from a bullet is, and starting to also understand that it might actually be much less than that, we can start to gain some insight into the overall problem.
Quote:
Well, since the Ellifritz study is the only credible data we have to work with, I'd use the same criteria that Ellifritz did:

percentage of shots that were fatal
average number of rounds until incapacitation
percentage of people who were not incapacitated
one-shot-stop percentage
percentage of people actually incapacitated by one shot
Excellent!

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?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old December 25, 2024, 04:16 AM   #242
stagpanther
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!
stagpanther is offline  
Old December 25, 2024, 06:34 AM   #243
Pumpkin
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!
Pumpkin is offline  
Old December 25, 2024, 07:31 AM   #244
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
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!
Did your dad's friend have any "profound last thought?" Mine was "I can't believe this started when I responded to an advertisement recruiting artists--and here I am about to have my brains decorate my house." The cop holding the gun seemed to be just as nervous as I was. FYI I had no arms on my person or in the house.
__________________
"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.
stagpanther is offline  
Old December 25, 2024, 09:55 AM   #245
74A95
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!
74A95 is offline  
Old December 25, 2024, 10:50 AM   #246
Pumpkin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2020
Location: Seguin Texas
Posts: 766
Quote:
Originally Posted by stagpanther View Post
Did your dad's friend have any "profound last thought?" Mine was "I can't believe this started when I responded to an advertisement recruiting artists--and here I am about to have my brains decorate my house." The cop holding the gun seemed to be just as nervous as I was. FYI I had no arms on my person or in the house.
Like you just wrote, he did say the renter was also really shook up, starting to cry, which didn’t help. No mention of anything flashing before his eyes, I do believe he thought it was over for him.
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.
Pumpkin is offline  
Old December 25, 2024, 10:53 AM   #247
Pumpkin
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!
Pumpkin is offline  
Old December 25, 2024, 12:33 PM   #248
Webleymkv
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?
Webleymkv is offline  
Old December 25, 2024, 01:54 PM   #249
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Lets's do a quick poll. After 243 posts, how many of you have changed your mind on this subject? Thanks!
Mine hasn't, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt .45 is bigger than .355.
__________________
"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!
stagpanther is offline  
Old December 25, 2024, 03:22 PM   #250
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
So gun sam on youtube does what i consider to be some excellent real world comparison tests.
I'll take your word for it, I've never seen a vid of his before but within a minute or two I thought this guy was pretty amateurish in supporting a goober-fit conclusion.
__________________
"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!
stagpanther is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 -4. The time now is 05:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2024 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.10852 seconds with 9 queries