So 60% of the time, it works every time?Originally Posted by Sparks2112
So 60% of the time, it works every time?
Doc, a more educational and contributory post (for all readers) would be to point out that there is research and professional opinion that questions/disproves studies that examine one-shot stops for various calibers/loads. The fact that such studies exist though can't be denied. And it is hardly ignorant to cite them or speak to them on such a forum. I would love to hear about failures of methodology in such studies, etc. So do the whole forum community a service and respond originally with the post quoted above. Point out that readers should consider the validity of the methodology used for "so and so studies." That they should consider "so and so alternative study/s." That you have examined the data from studies that purport this and do not agree with such conclusions based on other research conclusions. But to just say it is NOT true and crying out that the poster is ignorant for commenting on something that data exist for only makes you appear ignorant and not bothering to contribute at all to the discussion. It also doesn't educate the forum participants about competing studies. Something that I would think is along the lines of your responsibility considering that you are being held up as an expert on this forum. Beyond such studies however, many LEO agencies have questioned the reliability of the 9mm load. The 1986 Miami shootout led to the FBI re-examing their caliber/load choice. The U.S. Border Patrol studies also speak of 9mm concerns, etc. It's what sparked a transition to the .40 S&W. So one-shot stop studies which report on standard velocity 9mm are far from the only source for questioning the effectiveness of 9mm standard velocity. I'm not trying to prove the inadquacy of the 9mm standard velocity or the validity of such one-shot stop sudies. I am only emphasizing that there has been research (perhaps flawed research) and LEO reports that cast doubt on it. Commenting on this is not ignornant and I welcome data/studies/knowledge that say different. My citing data you feel are not true (or that contain methodological flaws and hence questionable results), is a great opportunity to point out why they are not true and to make us all more knowledable.
You've been asked three times, by two different posters, to cite the work that you keep referring back to. You have repeatedly failed to do so.
How do you expect people to intelligently discuss and refute your study (studies) if you will not cite them?
One of the reasons people keep asking is because we suspect that you are relying on outdated studies of questionable methodology. But unless you actually say what studies you are referencing, the best response you will get will point you to newer studies and new work in the field.
That you have the audacity to tell Doc how he could be more contributory, even after learning of his expertise in this matter, is offensive to me as a third party who has gained mountains of information from reading Doc's post on these (and other) forums. If you take some time to read through his stickied threads, for example, you'll find ample data and citations. The fact that he doesn't take the time to spell out every single concept in every single post that he makes is understandable, just as I wouldn't expect a surgeon to talk about basic anatomy every time he wants to discuss surgery.
Yes there is. And Doc is one of the people who contributed to that research and professional opinion.
You're new, so perhaps you don't yet understand what the orange letters in the name mean, or perhaps you don't grasp the significance of the letters SME under his name. Those letters stand for Subject Matter Expert. The person who has that title under their name has credentials that have been properly vetted...although it's pretty easy with DocGKR because he's a pretty well known fellow due to his efforts to share important information with the wider world.But to just say it is NOT true and crying out that the poster is ignorant for commenting on something that data exist for only makes you appear ignorant and not bothering to contribute at all to the discussion.
We have an entire forum dedicated to terminal ballistics where all sorts of information is posted along with citations, run entirely by DocGKR. He has no need to justify himself to everybody who stumbles through the door and doesn't bother to read the rules of the forum or even look through the terminal ballistics forum.
If you have a disagreement and can back that disagreement with some citations and facts, then by all means have a disagreement in an appropriate and respectful manner. But don't show up, make silly assertions, and then get offended when someone who's got better data and more information comes along and just tells you flatly that you're wrong. Certainly don't go around telling our forum SME's they need to justify themselves to your satisfaction when they are contradicting your inaccurate conclusions. We won't tolerate it.
3/15/2016
Folks, lets use this as a teaching point. I've traded some PMs with gvsmovcd and, as we suspected, he/she was quoting some bad data. As this forum expands, we will be getting some new folks. As in new to guns. Not every new shooter will know who a SME actually is, so it behooves us to guide them appropriately.
Back in my TFL days, Pat Rogers started posting. Hilarity (not really) ensued as the rank and file had no idea who he was in real life.
"They've done studies you know.... It works 60% of the time, every time."
Anchor man line.
That being said, a 50 AE will make a larger, deeper hole.
Season 3 Episode 57b Spongebob Squarepants. Top thatcite your source please.
I couldn't help myself
J.M. Johnston
Host of Ballistic Radio - Sundays at 7:00 PM EST on Cincinnati's 55KRC THE Talk Station, available on iHeartRadio
I have to respectfully disagree here somewhat, I joined this place as a 'new' shooter the day it went live (and have always felt guilty at the thought of possibly kitten blocking Jay Cuningham on his handle) after following pt.com in an effort to learn and better myself. As you can all see by my staggering post count I have been spending several years STFU'ing / Reading More & Posting Less. Unfortunately do to the Venn Diagram of Money/Time/Ammo Availability (Lately) I still consider myself a relatively new and unskilled shooter, yes I have lots of toys but I am by no means proficient enough to regard any of them as tools, yet. But I also feel that I am no longer ignorant do to the community here and their willingness to share there fount of experience with all of us.
All this being said YOU DO NOT walk into someones home and start being rude, I still have a lot to learn in regards to marksmanship and gun handling but when it comes to people I am very well versed you either have some level of tact and/or class or you do not.
Blasphemer!
gvsmovcd: My initial post was short and to the point, as I did not have a lot of time and I did not want any innocent reader to be deceived by your inaccurate comment: "Basis is research examing one-shot stops of various calibers and loads. standard velocity 9mm performs more poorly than +P rated ammo on average."
I am unaware of ANY (as in NONE) valid "one-shot stop" studies assessing civilian self-defense shootings, LE OIS incidents, or military combat results. Since NO such accurate or useful studies exist and the conclusion you wrote is not true, your comments seemed quit uninformed, thus I wrote: "This is absolutely NOT true. Please don't make such ignorant statements.".
When I had time later, I amplified upon my initial comment. Keep in mind that none of what I wrote is new information and anyone paying careful attention to terminal performance issues over the past 20-30 years would already be conversant with everything I stated. You simply did not know, what you did not know; however, that makes it difficult to have an informed discussion.
Now in the late 1980's, 9 mm ammunition did have problems with inadequate penetration when it expanded, failure to expand through heavy clothing, and poor intermediate barrier capabilities. As noted, those problems were a major reason for the development of the .40 S&W cartridge. But a decade or two of modern terminal performance research coupled with improved engineering and production practices at ammunition manufacturers have resulted in a a superb generation of 9 mm projectiles that offer penetration in the ideal range and that are capable of good performance after common intermediate barriers. As many agencies are discovering, modern robust expanding, barrier blind 9 mm ammunition is performing on par with larger caliber handgun loads, but offers substantial fiscal and training benefits. In test after test, most officers demonstrate a higher qualification score when shooting 9 mm compared to other common service calibers. Smaller statured officers and those with small hands tend to shoot better with 9 mm. Service pistols tend to be more durable in 9 mm than those in .357 Sig and .40 S&W. In a time of fiscal austerity, 9 mm ammunition is certainly less expensive. For most LE duties, there are a lot of advantages in carrying a 9 mm: easy to shoot--especially one handed, relatively inexpensive to practice with, lots of bullets immediately on tap. Several of the largest proponents of .40 S&W are now contemplating returning to 9 mm--in large part due to premature service life failures of their .40 pistols and decreased qualification scores when their personnel shoot .40 pistols. I suspect in the near future it is likely that many LE agencies will shift back to 9 mm given the benefits noted above.
Reply With Quote
