Having a hard time... a 9mm or a .380?

[Rhino]

No, you were pointing out, and I'll quote you, “ (8%) of those wound or kill their attacker.” Wounding is not stopping and killing does not stop until the combatant dies or is unconscious, which could be minutes or hours later. Enough time to kill you too.

I never said wounding equated to stopping and killing. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't. All I did was cite the 8% figure that comes from the exact same source your 2 million figure comes from.
.

As far as your unrelated statement here, read what I said again. That is a psychological stop, not physiological. That’s not stopping power. That’s luck of the draw that the combatant had a weak constitution and will be out of the fight for a psychological reason. Depend on that or any psychological stop and you’ll get canceled in a hardcore violent encounter. Sometimes, in fact, most of the time people are stopped by just the sight of a gun. If someone relies on that or your example above, and it’s on with a hardcore criminal, they are going to wind up cold.

No, I cited a physiological stop without a CNS hit or massive blood loss. Massive shock, physiological, not psychological, does occur without massive blood loss and without damage to the central nervous system. Such shock can and often does incapacitate people. Sometimes they die from it when their wound wasn't even physically a mortal one. Ask anyone who works in emergency medicine. I've witnessed it more than once. And like I said before, if an attacker is chasing you with a knife, a shot that severs his femur will indeed stop the threat in most cases. So yes, you can incapacitate someone without massive blood loss and without a CNS hit. It happens fairly regularly, and it often depends on the nature of the threat itself, and sometimes the circumstances involved as well, but it most certainly happens.
.

The FBI's paper throws your idea right out the window by stating, "Failing a hit to the central nervous system, massive bleeding from holes in the heart or major blood vessels of the torso causing circulatory collapse is the only other way to force incapacitation upon an adversary and this takes time."

Once again you left out the remark just prior to that which set the context for that paragraph. Patrick was talking about how to reliably force incapacitation. He isn't saying that's the only way to do it, just that it's the only way to do it reliably. You have to understand that Patrick isn't evaluating the stopping of a threat. He's evaluating the capacity to cause the complete disruption of a body to function. But in a self defense scenario, a complete loss of function is often not necessary to stop a threat. You also have to keep in mind that Patrick's study specifically excluded hits that were not in the torso. He was evaluating only the specific wounding effects of handguns in torso hits, and the reliability of those hits in incapacitating a person. He excluded all else. He did not evaluate stopping a threat because threats are different in every scenario and thus cannot be reliably analyzed with statistical certainty. He mentions that on page 10. And yet again, Patrick still debunks your earlier statement that handgun stopping power doesn't exist. If the FBI really believed that they wouldn't be carrying handguns.
.

Your quote here shows best that you still don't get it. Mortality is not stopping power. Beyond the fact that statically most people don’t even die when shot with a handgun, I have answered this several times here:

True enough. You didn't say kill. You said:
--- "Many, if not most seasoned combat veterans believe there is no stopping power in any small arms, and certainty it doesn’t exist in a handgun. " ---
So I'll just repeat the comment I said earlier and substitute "stopping" for "killing" since it doesn't really make any difference.
It does make me wonder how people have been stopping other people with small arms for centuries if they have no stopping power.
Better?
.

So again, mortality is irrelevant. The guy you shot lived for a few minutes or even seconds – enough time to kill you and then died. But he is dead and you stopped him with your "stopping power", right? Well, so are you.

Not me. I stated several times that I shoot until the threat stops. You don't think handguns have any stopping power, so for all I know you don't even carry a gun. Or maybe you rely on it to just scare the bad guy away, as you mentioned before. That would make me far safer than you.
.

I thought quantum leap was only a tv show. I don't even know why I am going to answer your attempt to grasp at straws, but here goes. So your stopping power isn’t reliable or reproducible. That’s not stopping power. Hope and prayer aren’t stopping power. It’s a myth and those are the author’s exact words.

Nice try, but we already posted the actual quote from the author that he was talking about being a myth was the concept of "reliable and reproducible" incapacitation. I think everyone familiar with guns and self defense already knew they couldn't simply rely on a single torso hit to stop someone, so that statement doesn't exactly come as a surprise.
.

The entire quote is here:

I know. I already quoted it. Reliable and reproducible, just like I said.
.

I have already made the point of the first part of that quote here:

That isn't the point you made. What you said isn't what Patrick said. He said reliable and reproducible incapacitation with a handgun without those hits was a myth. You said all incapacitation with a handgun without those hits was a myth. That's two very different things.
.

You have argued with all of the above. There is no need to post a voluminous irrelevant narrative about “writing styles”, “logical extrapolation”, a “dichotomy I pointed out”, and all the other attempts to obfuscate and distract from disproving the statement that handgun stopping power is a myth.

Oh good, because I get tired of repeating myself.
.

I didn’t invent this, I learn from experience or people smarter than me. It’s rather arrogant to believe you are smarter and know more than experienced combat veterans, world operators and the DOJ/FBI.

I never once said I knew more than them. I just apparently understand what they wrote better. Try this paragraph:
.
"The human target can be reliably incapacitated only by disrupting or destroying the brain or upper spinal cord. Absent that, incapacitation is subject to a host of varibles, the most important of which are beyond the control of the shooter. Incapacitation becomes an eventual event, not necessarily an immediate one."
.
Notice how Patrick mentions variables outside hits to the CNS system and that incapacitation is "not necessarily" immediate in such hits, meaning that it still can be immediate in some cases. He doesn't include any incapacitations from such hits as "reliable and reproducible" because those variables make it impossible to do so.
.

You read it several times? Okay, go ahead and quote me where I said, “caliber and ammunition makes no difference.” The fact is, in my very first post I said it did make a difference. A fact that you recognized this by your post right above this post here:

Great. That's why I invited you to clarify. It didn't make sense to me that you would say that either, so I'm glad to hear you say it isn't so.
.

But you want people to think you really believe I consider, “caliber and ammunition makes no difference” Making statements like that simply discredits you and what you write.

So you want to argue even when I agree with you? Really?
.

So keep posting how I advocate unloaded guns, or how I believe there is no difference between guns or ammunition, that a handgun or the ammo in it has no use, and all the other nonsense you claim I said. The reader can see in just the few posts in this thread alone - or anywhere else - that I never said or even remotely intimated such absurdities, and when they do, what do you think they will think of you?

I see no reason to. You gave me the clarification I asked for. I have no problem chalking that up to a misunderstanding, just as I said.
.

You want to have a civil dialog with me now? You’re a little late for that. You stared the confrontational post from the get-go. But, okay, I’ll give it a shot.
.
Go ahead and demonstrate how the FBI is wrong and a handgun has stopping power.

I never said they were wrong. They're right. They carry handguns, so obviously they believe they have some stopping power. Demonstration complete.
.

So far, if I use your analogies all I come up with scary power and mortality power. Stopping power is just that, one shot stop......

That right there may be the crux of this problem. Do you really define stopping power as a one shot stop? If so, then that's the root of this misunderstanding. I've never seen anyone define it that way. To most people I know stopping power is not an absolute (actually to everyone). It is a measure on a graduated scale, i.e., a 25 caliber would have low stopping power in relation to a 45 ACP. If you were trying to say all along that the one shot stop is a myth, then I really wish you would have explained that. One shot stops do sometimes occur, but as far as any particular type of ammunition being considered a 'one shot stopper', that is indeed a myth. The way you've been sounding in this thread was that handguns had no stopping power at all, as if they were useless, or that ammunition made no difference. that's why I was disagreeing.
.

...and that stop must be a physiological stop. Now don’t back peddle and play with words.

I don't agree that it must be a physiological stop, but I agree that it has to be a stop. When presented with a threat, any stop is acceptable if the threat is neutralized.
.

In my first response to you I said:
.
You took exception to that, so don’t play with semantics. Show how any of that is relevant with a handgun in a SD scenario.

I already did in post #58. Read page 11 of Patrick's report, AMMUNTITON SELECTION CRITERIA. He details the kind of ammunition needed for the most consistent stops. It deals directly with velocities, projectile weights, kinetic energy and the like. He disdains slang such as "knockdown power" because he equates that to the Hollywood myth of gunshots knocking people down or sending them across rooms, etc. I agree with him about Hollywood. But a lot of people use that term loosely as a synonym for stopping power (not the one shot stop kind), so a lot of people would equate that directly to ammunition selection, and specifically power.

 

[2700]

So you want to argue even when I agree with you? Really?

No argument, just proof that you have not been truthful, and that agreement flushed it out.

Oh good, because I get tired of repeating myself.

That is rather surprising reading your post.

I am going to pass over all your attempts at deflection in your post. They are not relevant to your attachment of the myth of stopping power in a handgun. And more importantly, they do not demonstrate the myth is anything, but a myth. Your summation below is the coup de grass in that failed demonstration.

I never said they were wrong. They're right. They carry handguns, so obviously they believe they have some stopping power. Demonstration complete.

That logic is your faultiest yet, and honestly very silly. To think that someone carrying a handgun proves they believe it has stopping power without ever reading this thread would be impractical. Beyond that, I carry and you know quite well I don’t believe in the myth of handgun stopping power. And I have mentioned countless others, including operators and seasoned combat veterans that don't either. So your “demonstration” that the FBI believes that stopping power exists in a handgun because they carry handguns fails miserably.

Would you like to try again at proving stopping power exists and the FBI paper states that? I’ll give you another bite at the apple. While you are doing that, please answer just two easy questions.

Do you consider a psychological stop as stopping power?

Is your stopping power required to stop immediately?

 

[TallGuns]

A couple thoughts on the ol' 9 vs 380 debate...

Modern defensive ammunition has gone a long way toward bridging the "performance" gap between the two rounds. While many consider the diminutive .380 "too small" or lacking in longer-range capability, a defensive handgun is most likely to be used at relatively short range and if it makes the difference between carrying and not, I'd gladly take .380 in a small pistol any day.

That said, I would look closely at one of the small 9mm carry guns which have come on the market in the past year. As you're looking at on-body carry but handbag-carry also seems like an option, a few things to look at may include the Kahr CM9 (inexpensive, light, and easy to carry), S&W M&P Shield 9 (hard to find, but fantastic), or Ruger's LC9. All are compact single-stack guns which are big enough to control but small enough that you'll want to carry them. Having handled all of them, I'd easily recommend them.

Cheers!

 

[Rhino]

No argument, just proof that you have not been truthful, and that agreement flushed it out.

Agreeing with you that a 9mm is a better choice means I've not been truthful? You're not making sense. I've been saying that larger rounds have better stopping power ever since my first response to you. There's nothing untruthful about that.
.

I am going to pass over all your attempts at deflection in your post. They are not relevant to your attachment of the myth of stopping power in a handgun. And more importantly, they do not demonstrate the myth is anything, but a myth.

Are we taking about stopping power or one shot stops? Stopping power exists. That's why both of us prefer a 9mm over a 380, because it has better stopping power. Actually I don't own a 9mm. The smallest caliber I have is a 40 cal, because it has even better stopping power than the 9mm.
.
Your summation below is the coup de grass in that failed demonstration.
.

That logic is your faultiest yet, and honestly very silly. To think that someone carrying a handgun proves they believe it has stopping power without ever reading this thread would be silly.

It does prove it. Why would anyone carry a gun if they didn't believe it had a chance of stopping an attacker?
.

Beyond that, I carry and you know quite well I don’t believe in the myth of handgun stopping power. And I have mentioned countless others, including operators and seasoned combat veterans that don't either. So your “demonstration” that the FBI believes in stopping power because they carry handguns fails miserably.

Nope. They carry handguns, so obviously they believe those handguns can stop people.
.

Would you like to try again at proving stopping power exists and the FBI paper states that? I’ll give you another bite at the apple.

Nope. I just rang that bell. Again. You can't unring it. This has gotten overly repetitive anyway.
.

While you are doing that, please answer just two easy questions.
.
Do you consider a psychological stop as stopping power?

A stop is an event. Stopping power is a potential. They can't be equated. It's like horsepower in a car. The car moving is an event. The horsepower is what's necessary to make that event happen. The bigger the horsepower, the higher the probability of the car moving, or the speed of that movement. But other variables come into play that will affect the final outcome, such as weight of the car, surface of the road, inclination, etc. Same things with guns and ammo. They can provide a potential for a stop by virtue of power, velocity, kinetic energy, all those things we discussed and that Patrick talked about in his study. But whether or not the event, the stop, actually occurs is ultimately decided by many other variables that can't be controlled, which is why Patrick said reliable and reproducible stops by such means are a myth. And they are. There are too many variables for them to ever be considered reliable or reproducible.
.

Is your stopping power required to stop immediately?

I don't know what you mean. What is my stopping power? I usually carry a 45 and I use top quality ammo, so I potentially have good stopping power at my disposal. But just as the FBI report pointed out, whether or not that would play out to true stopping power in real life depends on a great many other variables that can't be known ahead of time. But I'm not sure if that's what you meant. You may still be thinking of stopping power as being a one shot stop, but since you never answered my question about that I'm still not sure exactly what you're referring to when you say stopping power.

 

[2700]

Agreeing with you that a 9mm is a better choice means I've not been truthful?

As you continue this charade, I will continue to expose it…

At first you said I told everyone here that there is no difference between guns or ammunition, stating:

You're telling everyone here that handgun stopping power is a myth, and that there is no difference between guns or ammunition

Anyone who reads what I wrote knows that is not true. But then, forgetting you said that, you admit here that I do identify the difference between guns and ammunition, stating:

I'd also have to agree with 2700 that a 9mm would be a better choice

That’s the second part that is dishonest, but you don’t need me to point that out, you know it very well. You just challenge, obfuscate and attempt to confuse to cover that. That’s okay; I’ll make sure it remains clear.

Nope. They carry handguns, so obviously they believe those handguns can stop people.

Well we know that logic fails because I, and countless others, including operators and seasoned combat veterans carry and none of us believe in the myth of handgun stopping power. And I see more of your attempts to confuse terms.

Beyond that, is that really the best you can do? You mean in the entire paper published by the FBI you can’t find anything that substantiates your claim? And the best you can do is grasping at straws at a flawed assumption? And that faulty assumption is not even related to the content of the FBI's paper. I imagine it gets harder the more you paint yourself in a corner.

I don't know what you mean. What is my stopping power?

Really? You use the term stopping power and you don’t know what you mean by it?

Take a moment and think about what you mean and then answer two very simple questions. No need to try to confuse, obfuscate, and write verbose narratives that have nothing to do with the subject. You’re not afraid of committing yourself to a position, are you? They only require a simple yes or no…

Do you consider a psychological stop as stopping power?

Is your definition of stopping power required to stop immediately?

 

[Rocketgeezer]

I just had a funny thought, we all post up here about how bad or good this or that caliber is, and I was thinking no matter what any of us were carrying at the time, I wounder how many of us with all this computor bravado, would dive under the table and hide if a bad guy was to bust into a resturant while we were eating dinner..........:haha:

 

[Rhino]

As you continue this charade, I will continue to expose it…
.
At first you said I told everyone here that there is no difference between guns or ammunition, stating:
.
Anyone who reads what I wrote knows that is not true.

I already noted that, which is why I invited a clarification. Handguns having no stopping power whatsoever would indeed make them all the same, no matter what ammo was in them.
.

But then, forgetting you said that, you admit here that I do identify the difference between guns and ammunition, stating:
.
That’s the second part that is dishonest, but you don’t need me to point that out, you know it very well. You just challenge, obfuscate and attempt to confuse to cover that. That’s okay; I’ll make sure it remains clear.

Cover it? I'm the one that originally pointed out that inconsistency in my very first response to you. And I repeated it later when I invited yet another clarification in hopes of clearing up any misconceptions. It's not me that isn't being clear.
.

Well we know that logic fails because I, and countless others, including operators and seasoned combat veterans carry and none of us believe in the myth of handgun stopping power.

That's a load of crap. Why would anyone carry a gun if they didn't think it had the ability to stop someone? Why would the cops? Why would the FBI? Why would the military? Why would that FBI paper go to such great lengths to discuss what kind of ammunition had the best chance of stopping someone if handguns and handgun ammunition had no ability to stop? That notion doesn't simply fail logic. It's ludicrous.
.

And I see more of your attempts to confuse terms.

I gave you the opportunity to give us your definitions or paradigms so we could clear up any misconceptions that might be at the root of this disagreement, but you've refused so far to do so.
.

Beyond that, is that really the best you can do? You mean in the entire paper published by the FBI you can’t find anything that substantiates your claim? And the best you can do is grasping at straws at a flawed assumption? And that faulty assumption is not even related to the content of the FBI's paper. I imagine it gets harder the more you paint yourself in a corner.

You know, I'm really starting to feel sorry for you.
.

Really? You use the term stopping power and you don’t know what you mean by it?

That's not what I asked. And I already gave my definition of stopping power. You're the only one who has refused to say how they interpret that term.
.

Take a moment and think about what you mean and then answer two very simple questions. No need to try to confuse, obfuscate, and write verbose narratives that have nothing to do with the subject. You’re not afraid of committing yourself to a position, are you? They only require a simple yes or no…
.
Do you consider a psychological stop as stopping power?

Already answered.
.

Is your definition of stopping power required to stop immediately?

I can't stop anyone with a definition, no. Can you stop people with a definition? If you're asking if I define stopping power as the the ability to stop someone with one shot in every instance, I already answered that. No, I don't, and I don't know of anyone who does. That's why I asked you if you were defining it that way. Power is inherent in the gun and the ammunition. It's a potential. Whether or not it will stop immediately depends on a massive number of variables that change with different circumstances, just as Patrick pointed out in his study. The power of the gun and ammunition, the stopping power, can be measured and analyzed. Patrick discussed that power and the desired physiological effrects from it in his study. But whether or not that power will actually result in a stop or how long that stop will take cannot be accurately measured or predicted. That's why Patrick said the concept of reliable and reproducible immediate incapacitation was a myth. Handguns have the power to do it, but whether or not it actually happens, how it happens or how long it takes to happen depends on too many variables for it to be reliably predicted or reproduced. He was basically agreeing with Fackler that the concept of a one shot stop doesn't exist, at least not in a reliable or predictable manner. That doesn't mean a person can't be stopped with one shot from a handgun or that handguns don't have enough stopping power to achieve such a feat. It just means such things can't be reliably predicted and it's wrong to base important decisions on the concept of a one shot stop. But do handguns have stopping power? Can they stop people? Of course they can. There are quite a number of other factors that will determine if that's what will end up happening, but they most certainly have the power to do it. Otherwise you wouldn't carry a gun.

 

[Rhino]

I just had a funny thought, we all post up here about how bad or good this or that caliber is, and I was thinking no matter what any of us were carrying at the time, I wounder how many of us with all this computor bravado, would dive under the table and hide if a bad guy was to bust into a resturant while we were eating dinner..........:haha:

What bravado? I might very well dive under that table to present a smaller target or take cover before taking a shot, but bravado has nothing to do with it. Using bravado instead of your brain can get you killed.

 

[2700]

As I have made the point of your – I’ll put it gently – less than honest writings here and you are unable to refute that, I’ll let that go.

Moving on, the rest of your response here, like most, just blend into a one giant ball of incohesive rhetoric.

I asked a couple of times, “Is your definition of stopping power required to stop immediately?” And you finally answered that yes or no question with this:

I can't stop anyone with a definition, no. Can you stop people with a definition? If you're asking if I define stopping power as the the ability to stop someone with one shot in every instance, I already answered that. No, I don't, and I don't know of anyone who does. That's why I asked you if you were defining it that way. Power is inherent in the gun and the ammunition. It's a potential. Whether or not it will stop immediately depends on a massive number of variables that change with different circumstances, just as Patrick pointed out in his study. The power of the gun and ammunition, the stopping power, can be measured and analyzed. Patrick discussed that power and the desired physiological effrects from it in his study. But whether or not that power will actually result in a stop or how long that stop will take cannot be accurately measured or predicted. That's why Patrick said the concept of reliable and reproducible immediate incapacitation was a myth. Handguns have the power to do it, but whether or not it actually happens, how it happens or how long it takes to happen depends on too many variables for it to be reliably predicted or reproduced. He was basically agreeing with Fackler that the concept of a one shot stop doesn't exist, at least not in a reliable or predictable manner. That doesn't mean a person can't be stopped with one shot from a handgun or that handguns don't have enough stopping power to achieve such a feat. It just means such things can't be reliably predicted and it's wrong to base important decisions on the concept of a one shot stop. But do handguns have stopping power? Can they stop people? Of course they can. There are quite a number of other factors that will determine if that's what will end up happening, but they most certainly have the power to do it. Otherwise you wouldn't carry a gun.

Despite your characteristic long winded superfluous answer, I got it in the forth sentence, no.

I am still unable to decipher your alleged answer to the other simple question - Do you consider a psychological stop as stopping power?

The voluminous bloviating of the first response is unnecessary and like the first question, this can be answered succinctly, yes or no. Don’t be afraid. Just tell me, simply yes or no, does a psychological stop meet the criteria of a stop in your definition of stopping power?

 

[Stan45]

A stop is stop!!!

 

[2700]

A stop is stop!!!

You bet it is. Absolutely, but that is not stopping power. And a belief in handgun stopping power can get someone killed.

As we know, most people stop the engagement at just the sight of a firearm, never knowing if the firearm was even loaded. No one would call an unloaded gun stopping power, nor would anyone advocate carrying an unloaded gun (despite his ridiculous claims that I would). Thinking a handgun has stopping power would be just as dangerous.

The purpose of my first statement was to create an awareness of the misconceptions of what happens in a real gunfight. It has gone past that now to an emotional attachment to a myth and beyond.

 

[blarg]

One might argue that if your attacker has the time to look at your gun and decide whether or not they think it's scary enough to run away either you pulled your gun before determining that there was a real threat to your life or you waited too long to pull the trigger.

Some guy in a gun shop the other day was trying to convince me that scary looking guns are more likely to make an attacker run away... Well, maybe, but if I ever had to pull my carry gun it would be because I have determined that my life is actually threatened, not about to be, or might be so I would not give my attacker the time to take a look at my gun and decide if it's scary enough for them to move along.

... And if someone started shooting OF COURSE I'd dive under the nearest table. Always find cover first!

Stopping power schmopping power. When the sh!t hits the fan your best bet is to find cover. If that's not an option, your second best bet is to transfer as much energy as possible as quickly as possible to the bad guy.

Do you use your concealed carry weapon to inform a bad guy's decision when they're selecting targets or to defend yourself from threats? I always thought that if it wasn't the latter, I'd open carry.

Boy this thread really strayed off course.

 

[Rhino]

A stop is stop!!!

Yep, but that isn't what he's asking. He's asking if it equates to something he refuses to define, making it impossible to answer. It's like asking "Is a gallon of water enough?", and refusing to specify what "enough" means. Power means an ability or a capacity. It isn't a constant, and you can't define it as one, which is what he's trying to do. The amount of stopping power required to stop someone immediately, changes in every circumstance, so it can't be reliably measured or defined, just as the FBI study said. All you can do is speak of it in relative terms or establish minimum requirements in testing, also what the FBI study said. They go even further with such statements in their report on balistics testing when they selected the reduced power 10mm round over other contenders. They reported the various wounding capabilities, stopping power, of several different types of ammunition. Urey Patrick wrote that report too.
.
The only thing Patrick was saying was a myth was the notion that any kind of ammunition could be relied upon to consistently produce one shot stops with a torso hit. There is no such ammunition. Even Marshall and Sanow said that in their book. In fact, they said it quite emphatically. This is from the first page of Chapter 1:
.

Stopping power is an illusion.
.
It is important to start a book on handgun stopping power with that in mind. There are no magic bullets. There are no manstopping calibers. There is no such thing as one-shot stopping power....
.
....Sometimes the bullet will produce the sought after "instant" effect, and the person will collapse in 1 to 2 seconds. However, there is no predictable and reliable medical reason for a person to fall and become "instantly incapacitated." With the exception of a wound to the brain stem, handgun bullets cannot be depended upon to take effect that fast.

Sound familiar?
.
Lot's of people have attained reputation and stature by refuting the Marshall/Sanow 'one-shot stop' myth, but they don't bother to tell you that Marshall and Sanow never did postulate that myth in the first place. They just assume you'll never go and read what Marshall/Sanow actually wrote, and discover that their reputation and stature, at least the part based on refuting that 'myth', is a lie. Marshall and Sanow never said there was any ammunition that would give you a one shot stop and they never said any ammunition could be relied on to give consistent results in real life shootings. They in fact said what the FBI, Fackler and other researchers have said, that certain kinds of ammunition gave better potential for results, but that there were too many variables on the street to reliably measure, quantify or predict those results. They also weren't working for ammunition manufacturers, as many of their detractors claimed in a misguided attempt to slander them. If they had been, they would have been fired when their book came out saying their was no such thing as a magic bullet or manstopping calibers.
.
The big difference with Marshall and Sanow, and what was a big bone of contention with many researchers at the time, is that they would sometimes rely on real world shooting results to measure ammunition performance instead of ballistic gelatin testing, particularly when a type of ammunition quite obviously performed differently on the street than it did in the lab. Marshall and Sanow, being ex-cops and not from scientific backgrounds at the time, intended their book for law enforcement audiences and they quite correctly assumed that cops would be much more interested in how ammunition performed on the street than it did in a lab. For instance, the Glaser performs very differently when it has to penetrate materials before entering the target, but when Marshall and Sanow first published their work little to no studies were being done to include such real life circumstances, at least not to the extent that they had any real applicability to day to day law enforcement. Marshall and Sanow were attempting to fill that void. Their book is out of date now, for two reasons. First, ammunition has advanced quite a bit since they first published their research. Second, and perhaps most tellingly, scientific research now includes the variables that Marshal and Sanow were adding to the body of research that weren't there before. It now includes conditions that are more indicative of real life situations on the street. It still isn't reliable and consistent enough to be quantified, and it probably never will be, but it's a whole lot better than what it used to be.