![]() |
|
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 |
![]() |
#251 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,067
|
Quote:
First, understand what is meant, in context when one says detectable and significant. detectable means that one can determine if something is present, or not. That's it. Without additional qualifiers (which may or may not be found in the context) detectable does not, and cannot provide any quantifiable value beyond enough exists to be detected. Detectable is a yes/no thing. Either something exists in at least enough quantity to be detected, or it does not. Significant is a value judgement, can vary with different parameters, but does have one constant, it has to exist in a detectable quantity, or it cannot be significant, other than by its absence. And both of these exist in the real world, independent of any and all studies, they just are, or are not, and are valid whether a study takes them into account, (and does so correctly), or not. IF you want to talk accuracy, in the framework of real world defensive shootings, the minimum detectable level is simple, and easy to see. The target was hit, or it wasn't. IF you miss, NONE of the other factors are relevant.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#252 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 18, 2020
Location: Seguin Texas
Posts: 766
|
What about a list of possible items/things that could contribute to shifting the data?
I think it could be pretty large and able to clog up the works. |
![]() |
![]() |
#253 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,407
|
Quote:
I'm assuming that in this question you still mean "accuracy as defined by Ellifritz", not just "accuracy". Right? As far as simple questions go, I thought this was a pretty simple question, based on the standard meanings of common words and with the definitions even provided. "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?
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#254 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 12,632
|
I bet Bryan Litz could do a meaningful (detectable, significant, statistically correlated) comparison--but I doubt he'd want to waste his time doing 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! |
![]() |
![]() |
#255 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,609
|
Quote:
You've spent a lot of time talking circles around this, but not answering it directly. So I ask again, how do you reconcile your claim that accuracy has both detectable and significant effect on the outcome of real world shootings when in Ellifritz's study increased accuracy, as defined by percentage of shots that hit the head or torso, did not correlate with increased stopping power as defined by percentage of hits that were fatal, average number of rounds until incapacitation, percentage of people who were not incapacitated, one-shot-stop percentage (again the Ellifritz definition), and/or percentage of people actually incapacitated by one head or torso hit? I don't think I can make my question any more specific than that. Last edited by Webleymkv; December 25, 2024 at 11:52 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#256 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,407
|
Quote:
I believe that "accuracy" (standard definition) does have a detectable and significant effect on real world outcomes. That's why I initially answered the way I did because I was answering based on the standard definition of accuracy. On the other hand, "accuracy as defined by Ellifritz" is something very different. Different enough that I'm not sure how to assess it. I'm willing to accept your assessment of "accuracy as defined by Ellifritz". Ok, there's your answer. How about one from you now. How could the effect of caliber choice on one of the criteria you listed in post 230, 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?
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#257 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,609
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#258 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,407
|
Quote:
Obscured is a word that means something, as all words do. It means that the effect is kept from being seen, concealed. The effect of terminal performance differences due to caliber choice on the overall outcome of real-world shootings are kept from being seen--they are concealed, they are not detectable. We agree that they exist but also that they are not great enough to be noted in overall real-world shooting outcomes. You claim that the effect of terminal performance differences due to caliber choice on the overall outcome of real-world shootings could still be significant even though you agree they are not detectable. Significant is a word, and therefore it means something as well. It means that whatever it modifies is sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; it is noteworthy. How is something that is kept from being seen, is concealed and undetectable, also sufficiently great or important enough to be worthy of attention? How could it be noteworthy if it can't be noted? The two words you are trying to put together, 'obscured' and 'significant', just don't go together. They are incompatible. Imagine someone selling you something that was supposed to provide a significant benefit but also claiming that the effect was obscured in real-world use. "Oh, yes, the effect is significant, but the effect when you use it in the real world is concealed, it is kept from being seen." How much would you pay for a benefit like that? Or would you ask: "If the effect is concealed and kept from being seen in real-world use, how is it helping me in any significant way? There may be an effect, but if it is obscured in the real world, how could it be a significant effect?" If you are fine with the concept that something can provide a significant benefit in the real world while its effects in real-world use are concealed/obscured in the overall outcome, then I have a deal for you. Send me $127.95 and upon receipt, I will provide you instantly with a significant advantage in real world gun fights although that benefit will be concealed in the overall outcome. Don't worry that the effect in the real world is obscured in the overall outcome and can't be noted, the benefit will be there and it will be noteworthy. ![]() The bottom line is that if the effect of terminal performance differences due to caliber choice on the overall outcome of real-world shootings is obscured, it can not also be significant. As long as we use standard definitions for 'obscured' and 'significant', that statement is essentially unassailable. That doesn't invalidate your arguments about HOW and WHY the effects could be getting obscured in the real world. I think you are definitely on the right track with some of them. The problem is when it's all said and done, regardless of the how and why of it, the effects ARE obscured and that makes it impossible to argue that they can also be significant. Not because the rationale of the how and why are necessarily wrong but because the words 'obscured' and 'significant' are not compatible.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#259 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,609
|
John, increased accuracy had no correlation with increased incapacitation in the Ellifritz study, therefore it's effect was obscured like that of caliber. Now you claim that accuracy has a significant effect on the outcome of real world shootings, yet it's effects were still obscured by other factors. Therefore either accuracy must either have an insignificant effect on the outcome of real world shootings or obscured effects do not prove insignificance.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#260 | ||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,067
|
Quote:
What I think is being missed is the effect being "obscured" is because of the methodology used in studies, lumping different things into broad categories and then reducing them to percentages and averages. Quote:
I'm probably missing something, but it seems to me that when the categories are "head hits" or "Torso hits" out of XXX number of shots fired over XYZ different shootings, there seems to be no way to accurately represent all the factors involves, let along determine which one(s) were "significant" and resulted in stopping the attack. How can you realistically quantify something like "accuracy" and assign a made up number to a cartridge, when you're looking at hundreds of shots fired by hundreds of different people, at different people in widely different situations? How can you assign a value to a round because of how people (trained? untrained? a mixture?) shot it under high stress conditions? How do you consider the variables and what effect they can have over so many vastly different situations? Assign a number (determined HOW??) as "bad shots" and toss that percentage out, then calculate percentages?? I keep coming back to real world things like peripheral hits, and mulitple hits and psychological stops, and don't see how the existing data can accurately represent their effects. Consider things like Trump was hit in the head. That's a head shot in the statistics, but the bullet only nicked his ear. "failure to stop with a head shot" is what it would be in the statistics, because of the category parameters. Consider the bad guy hit 17 times before falling down. That's not how many shots it took, its how many shots they used. Also consider the same case where there are 17hits but only 8 in "vital areas" how do you figure if it took 8 or it only took one, and which one that might have been?? Perhaps the guy was stopped with the first round, but didn't fall down before getting hit with 16 more? Or maybe it was round #8 or#11 that was the actual "stopper". How can the statistics account for that?? And consider the guy who gets hit, once, and decides to stop?? If these and all the other possible factors are lumped together in the data classes, I don't see how the data can be a truly accurate representative sample. I believe it can show general trends but isn't accurate enough to determine which details (in terms of the different factors involved) are the significant ones and which ones are more responsible for getting the job done, or failing. I don't know if it makes an important difference whether it is 35 or 45 angels dancing on the head of pin that makes a difference, what I don't see is how arguing about it results in anything actually constructive.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#261 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,407
|
Quote:
Here's the corrected version, although it doesn't really make sense once corrected. John, increased accuracy, as defined by Ellifritz, had no correlation with increased incapacitation in the Ellifritz study, therefore it's effect was obscured like that of caliber.You know as well as I do that Ellifritz didn't report accuracy (standard definition) in his study, so implying that he did is disingenuous. I told you plainly that my comments about accuracy were NOT about "accuracy as defined by Ellifritz" but were about accuracy using its standard definition. Clearly you understand that "accuracy as defined by Ellifritz" is different from "accuracy" or you wouldn't have been careful to specify which type you were talking about when you initially asked the question. I should have been paying closer attention at that point and that would have short circuited this whole gambit. I have made NO assessments of "accuracy as defined by Ellifritz" and have, in fact, made it plain that I am not going to assess its effects--accepting your assessment instead. Continuing to imply that I have made some assessment about "accuracy as defined by Ellifritz" other than to say that it's different from normally defined "accuracy" is disingenuous on your part. Furthermore, from the beginning, I have made it plain that I believe accuracy (by the normal definition) does have an effect on real world shootings, so it's disingenuous to pretend that it's just something I started claiming "now". Finally intentionally conflating the two definitions of accuracy even though you obviously know they are different is disingenuous. 1. Why do you feel the need to defend your point so strongly that you would stoop to this level? 2. If you feel that you can't defend your point any other way, what does that say about your point?
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#262 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 12,632
|
I haven't the slightest idea what either of your arguments are at this point as it relates to the original post. In fact, I'm beginning to suspect you both actually hold the same over-all conclusion but are dueling as a matter of honor over who's interpretation is "more correct." I'm running out of beer and chips, 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! |
![]() |
![]() |
#263 |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,407
|
That's regrettable, because it's not really that complicated in spite of some concerted efforts to make it so.
Let's start with a fact: In decades of trying, no one has been able to demonstrate that terminal performance differences due to caliber choice within the service pistol class provide a real-world benefit to defenders. My position is: The obvious difficulty in demonstrating the existence of such a benefit is very strong evidence indeed that if the benefit is ever detected, it will not be a significant benefit.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
![]() |
![]() |
#264 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 28, 2013
Posts: 3,411
|
The only thing that was a bigger waste of time in this thread than all the arguing, is the fact that I’ve read the whole thing.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#265 | |
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! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#266 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,609
|
John, if you reject Ellifritz's definition of accuracy, then please enlighten me as to how we can see the effects of accuracy, by "standard definition", in the results of Ellifritz's study. I chose to use Ellifritz's definition because that is what he used when collecting and compiling his data.
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Webleymkv; December 27, 2024 at 12:06 PM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#267 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 18, 2020
Location: Seguin Texas
Posts: 766
|
Starting with the testing on the unfortunate livestock many years ago we’ve had a total of 3 published studies on this?
Makes me think if the subject were more politically correct I’m sure a hundred or more university studies, funded by the taxpayers, would have been done by now. Until someone wants to fully fund such a study I feel what we have is what we got. |
![]() |
![]() |
#268 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,978
|
Goats, buddy, goats.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#269 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 18, 2020
Location: Seguin Texas
Posts: 766
|
Cadavers, cattle and horses. Close to goats.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#270 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,787
|
I dont understand the resistance to the FBI data.
Consistent media Various intermediate barriers to effect performance Ability to compare apples to apples I’ll give you that gel is not people, but its a consistent media to compare depth of penetration and expansion across calibers and different bullets. |
![]() |
![]() |
#271 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 5, 2010
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 6,449
|
lol. So, we're doing this again?
I could have sworn we left it at "45ACP is slightly 'better' than 9mm, but 9mm has more rounds.". Pros and cons aside from capacity aren't that different. |
![]() |
![]() |
#272 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,067
|
There are now giant screaming goats in my head,,,AGAIN!
![]() Thanks so much for that... ![]()
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
![]() |
![]() |
#273 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 5, 2010
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 6,449
|
LOL @ screaming goats. Nightmare fuel.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#274 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,407
|
Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The great thing about gel testing is that it's very controlled, it's repeatable and one can measure the results very carefully and get good numbers. This allows one to rank calibers even if their terminal performance differences are small. The problem with gel testing is that no one has been able to correlate those results to the outcomes of real-world shootings and show that the rankings relate to any sort of benefit to the defender based on the terminal performance differences measured in the gel. You have made some good arguments to explain why that is true to add to the ones I've provided. Quote:
By the way, as a point of interest, he characterized target destruction percentages as 0.07% and 0.04% in one comment which is interesting since that agrees well (as it should) with the estimate I arrived at from crunching a bunch of FBI gel results. At any rate, we are almost certainly not going to get any better studies of real-world shootings than we already have because the experts gave up on that well before the turn of the century once they realized that the real world was making it impossible to show the differences in calibers. Which is a result in itself, and perfectly consistent with my position.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
#275 | |
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 |
|
|