Important Links

Hock's Blog

Hock's Downloads

CQC-Facebook

Hock's Facebook

Hock's Seminars

Hock's Shopsite

Hock's Web Page


New Products

Combat Kicks VID

Critical Contact VID

Death Grip of Knife VID

Dominant/Counter VID

First Contact VID

Impact Weapons Book

Knife Book

The Other Hand VID


Lauric Enterprises, Inc.
1314 W. McDermott
Ste 106-811
Allen, TX 75013
972-390-1777

 

 

 


W. Hock Hochheim's

           Combat Centric

Talk Forum for Military, Police, Martial Artists and Aware Citizenry



Hock Hochheim's Combat Talk Forum

  • April 22, 2018, 12:10:50 PM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: One Shot Stop?  (Read 7758 times)

lakerssportsfan

  • Level 2
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
Re: One Shot Stop?
« Reply #30 on: December 29, 2005, 01:28:15 AM »

Gun arguments...caliber, etc. get out of hand fast.

But, Professor.

This goes beyond opinions.  You are a professor.  How can you give credence to someone who claims  that a round that *supposedly* produced one shot stops in in 501 out of 1352 shootings and interprets that to be a one shot stop rate of 96%?  From reading your posts, I would expect that any student who claimed that 501 is 96% of 1352 would get that question marked wrong on a test.

And given all of the credibility, logical, and factual problems with the Marshal Sanow one shot stop statistics and the Strasbourg Goat shooting experiment, citing them as proof of anything is like treating the X-files as a documentary.

After all this is the Scientific Fighting Congress.  And I think I did a valid job of proving that M&S and the Goat tests were neither scientific nor credible.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2005, 03:55:47 AM by lakerssportsfan »
Logged

lakerssportsfan

  • Level 2
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
Re: One Shot Stop?
« Reply #31 on: December 29, 2005, 01:28:26 AM »

Who the heck are the "PEOPLE" and why should I give them validation?

People who make a study of firearms and wound ballistics like the International Wound Ballistics Association and the Association for Firearms and Toolmarks Examiners.  Well known officials in the wound ballistics world such as Dr. Martin Fackler.

Also the people who M&S claimed to get the information from like the RCMP, the NYPD, the LAPD, the LASO, the ISP, the PASP, the DSP, the TDPS, the USMS, the USBP, USINS, the FBI, the DEA, and the USSS have all previously issued official responses stating specifically that they have not at any time corresponded with either M or S and not one of the shootings in any of the books comes from their files.

2. The RCMP and the San Diego Sheriffs Dept also state emphatically that M&S have misquoted and misrepresented the test data as published in the book series.

4. The US Navy Crane center has also officially stated that M&S have misquoted and misrepresented the materials presented and listed as being from the USN Crane.

Marshal & Sanow have long been debuncted and discredited by a large number of people and agencies.  They have been discredited by a large number of diverse agencies and people and have been discredited on the very specifics of their claims.

For example, in mid-1992, Sanow made an abortive attempt to delude law enforcement by publishing several articles in the popular gun press in which he claimed that the heavier, slower bullets were failing with great regularity. He included details of about a dozen purported incidents and mentioned the departments involved.

In response to Sanow's criticism of the 9mm WW 147 grain JHP bullet, SGT Mike Dunlap, Rangemaster at Amarillo, TX, PD contacted every department for which Sanow claimed poor results with this bullet in his "anti-subsonic" articles. Mike submitted his results to Law and Order: they showed that Sanow had misrepresented what these departments found.

In the November 1992 issue, Law and Order published three letters contradicting Sanow's "data" (p. 90). SGT William Porter, head of the Michigan State Police Marksmanship Unit wrote, "I hope that those who read this article will not be influenced by what Sanow wrote about what happened in the Michigan State Police shooting, because it didn't happen that way." In a note introducing these letters, Bruce Cameron, Editorial Director of Law and Order wrote, concerning Sanow's article, "...we do apologize for printing information that has proven to be in error."  A magazine that published M&S later declared them to be phonies.

What more do you want?

And the fact is that Marshal and Sanow have refused to let anyone view their supposed shooting reports on which their study is based.  Can you wonder why, whn the preponderance of evidence is that they fabricated it all.  In academia and such it is customary to make the source of data available unless you have something to hide.

Quote
Strousberg was bunk?  Says who and on what grounds?
 

The FBI Firearm Training Unit for one.

A copy of the Strasbourg Tests was sent to the Firearms Training Unit of the FBI just before a scheduled meeting of the Wound Ballistics Committee. The committee members, all respected pathologist or trauma surgeons, were unanimous in their opinion that these "tests" were, in fact, a hoax -- and had been fabricated, most likely by somebody without a medical background.

The Strasburg goat tests which were performed with ammunition products that were never exported to France according to the BATF and the French authorities. So - ok someone smuggled all of the ammunition to France but then again the American Humane Society investigated the incident as did that pesky US DOJ again and they found that there were not enough goats of that breed in the country of France during a three year period both prior to and after the tests so then again some secret entity smuggled the goats into France. But then we need to understand who put out the estimated $3 million dollars US to perform the tests as stated?

Quote
The I never claimed that any study was valid or invalid.

Then why did you quote their one-shot numbers in this post, indicating that you felt they were credible:
But for instance the 158 grain FBI load in .38 special that was around for a very long time has only a 58% one shot stop record.  If you use a revolver for self defense, would you choose that round or the 125 grain .357 that is a 96% one shot stopper?

Once again, I just want to know how anyone can believe in a study that considers a round that supposedly produced one shot stops in in 501 out of 1352 shootings to have a one shot stop rate of 96%.  Not only have Marshal and sanow faricated the whole thing, they can't even add up their own fabricated figures. 501 out of 1352 shootings is 37% not 96%. And thats not counting other shootings they decided not to include in their study.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2005, 01:45:58 AM by lakerssportsfan »
Logged

threegun

  • Level 3
  • ****
  • Posts: 211
Re: One Shot Stop?
« Reply #32 on: December 29, 2005, 07:04:35 AM »

Hoax or not, the end results say that in almost every given caliber light and fast outperforms slow and heavy. This was proven to me in the field. I also shot a deer with a 55grain soft point .223 round @ 3100FPS. The round disintegrated without exiting the deer however completely destroyed the lungs. My uncle a veteran deer hunter and the deer cleaning specialist for two combined hunting camp for more than 20 years, said to me that he had never seen such damage to the lungs of a deer. He said many rounds had damaged the lungs but none as severly. I was the only hunter to use a .223, which gives high velocity with low bullet weight. These expieriences have pushed me toward the light and fast segment of bullets. They also tell me that something happens from the temporary stretch caused by hyper velocity. A deer, much tougher than any human, died quickly from something other than the trauma caused by the bullet as it disintegrated. Besides what caused the lungs to be damaged over such a massive portion (almost all the lungs were damaged) with such a tiny projectile? This is why I conclude that fast and light is the way to go for stopping moderatly clothed humans.
Logged

Professor

  • In your house drinking your coffee
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 1827
  • The Warlord
Re: One Shot Stop?
« Reply #33 on: December 29, 2005, 09:07:51 AM »

Hoax or not, the end results say that in almost every given caliber light and fast outperforms slow and heavy. This was proven to me in the field. I also shot a deer with a 55grain soft point .223 round @ 3100FPS. The round disintegrated without exiting the deer however completely destroyed the lungs. My uncle a veteran deer hunter and the deer cleaning specialist for two combined hunting camp for more than 20 years, said to me that he had never seen such damage to the lungs of a deer. He said many rounds had damaged the lungs but none as severly. I was the only hunter to use a .223, which gives high velocity with low bullet weight. These expieriences have pushed me toward the light and fast segment of bullets. They also tell me that something happens from the temporary stretch caused by hyper velocity. A deer, much tougher than any human, died quickly from something other than the trauma caused by the bullet as it disintegrated. Besides what caused the lungs to be damaged over such a massive portion (almost all the lungs were damaged) with such a tiny projectile? This is why I conclude that fast and light is the way to go for stopping moderatly clothed humans.


This isn't always true...  A deer isn't a very tough animal and a .223 will do many wonderous things (on occassion) -- but it's certainly not a rule.   

I've had the opportunity to shoot lots of hogs (up to 300 lbs).   These are large tough animals that are willing to eat you....especially the way we stalk them on foot


I've shot wild hogs with both rifles chambered .223 and a .450.  I've watched hit hogs with both calibers run very long distances with both shoulders broken and a large portion of lung missing.    At the same time, I've dropped 150lb pigs where they were standing with a .22 rifle (shot placement and distance).


Which do I prefer?    I prefer the .450.   A hog is a tough animal and can hurt you at short distances.   On foot in close brush I prefer the .450 and my .45 pistol.     A .223 and 9mm work in a pinch, but not preferred when I need to drop them hard and fast.   

A killing shot on a deer with a .223 is preferably taken from broadside. Many other angle are not conducive to a humane kill with a .223 -- but it depends on the deer.   Other calibers provide many more option to a hunter that must drop their target.

YMMV,

Prof






Logged
  'Advanced' is being able to do the basics, despite what else is happening. 

Our Country won't go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won't be any AMERICA because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race!"  --- Chesty Puller, USMC

threegun

  • Level 3
  • ****
  • Posts: 211
Re: One Shot Stop?
« Reply #34 on: December 29, 2005, 12:58:10 PM »

Proffessor, I agree with what you just said however I was only using my hunting expierience to prove that temporary stretch cavity has some effect inside the body. You though must admit that a large wild hog is much different than a human being which is what we are talking about in terms of stopping power. Hogs and any other large game, including deer, require the ability to penetrate difficult media that is just not needed for humans. We have thin skins, relatively light bones, and are not nearly as thick as a large animal. Heck it would only take about eight inches to completely penetrate me with a frontal shot. Any organ on my body can be hit with just eight maybe 10 inches of penetration.

For those who are undecided about which way to go simply load the lighter faster ammo in the first couple of shots then have some heavy stuff down in the mag a bit.
Logged

Ed Stowers

  • Level 3
  • ****
  • Posts: 121
Re: One Shot Stop?
« Reply #35 on: December 29, 2005, 02:33:36 PM »

I believe the answer to the first question, are OSS worthwhile as a consideration when choosing ammo, is that it depends (on what you believe or take for evidence).  The answer to the second question-- would LEOs prefer to have such statistics available--is again--it depends (on whether or not the statistics are valid).  Generally, I would say that OSS is one factor if many in choosing an ammo round.  I believe the discussion is moving tangentially towards whether or not OSS statistics are valid or not. Fine. But choosing ammunition is based on a variety of factors that OSS alone doesn't even address, even though it may well be one of them.  Some of these might be:

- What ammunition is available to you?
- Can you afford it?
- Are you legally allowed to carry it (by law or department policy)?
- Can you shoot it comfortably in your handgun?
    -- Is it too powerful for you to shoot easily?
    -- Does it function reliably in your weapon?
    -- Is it accurate when fired from your weapon?

These all go above and beyond the simple OSS factor.  I think OSS is one place to start, but I think you have to average in all of the other factors when deciding upon a round.  My personal feelings toward the OSS issue is somewhat ambivalent, simply because I believe most of that debate leans toward planning one-shot stops, which I believe is a very stupid tactic.  And the OSS issue itself is fragged with problems, since other factors like shot placement, adrenaline dump, psychological motivation, body size, individual toughness, all factor in, and are hard to account for statistically.  

On the practical side, you shoot with what you have to shoot with--hopefully it is the best you can buy for your weapon based on your planning, capabilitries and needs. It may not even be a factor for LEOs who are issued their ammunition.  As a Rule of Thumb, I think the largest, fastest round you can shoot comfortably and accurately is a fairly good rule (my opinion only, no statistics to validate).  But OSS consideration is simply one part of planning.  It certainly isn't application, which is where gunfights are won or lost, but a little planning can sometimes provide that slight edge that makes all the difference.  It's certainly better than no planning at all.  No statisctics will ever cover the dynamics of all gunfights, they only provide an attempt at averages.  But you want to swing the issue in your favor in whatever small ways you can.

If the best statistical OSS round misses its target and the worst OSS round doesn't, what does that mean?  It simply means that one guy shot better on that day than another.  If the best statistical round hits a man and doesn't stop him, what does that mean?  That the statistics are wrong or dud something else changed the equation?  It depends.  What was the angle?  What were the conditions of physiology and motivation?  It begins to get convoluted, so I personally tend to simplify (sorry, but my pea brain can only take so much statistical debate; I need practical solutions).  

To me, this simply means you shoot the enemy again, and again and again as needed.  Two to the chest and then to the head (if you can hit it) is still one type of valid plan, but it may not fit every encounter.  But those are practical solutions, not academic debate.  I guess I just emotionally reach a point where what I need is simple, effective rules of thumb (ROT) that I can actually train with, so I tend believe that the OSS debate is overrated.  You do the best you can.  One is academic discussion, one a practical solution.  But I digress.  I think OSS statistics are a good starting place for choosing a round, so it's useful in that context, but that is about all, and practically useless if you don't have faith in the statistics.  That is about it.  You have to figure in the other factors that affect your personal situation.

So my answer to your first and second questions is, it depends...mainly ohn what you take as valid evidence.  Maybe.  That said, I think a more appropriate question might be, what are people's preferrred handguns rounds for combat shooting and why?  But that may be a thread in its own right. 
Logged

Professor

  • In your house drinking your coffee
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 1827
  • The Warlord
Re: One Shot Stop?
« Reply #36 on: December 29, 2005, 10:00:06 PM »

Gun arguments...caliber, etc. get out of hand fast.

But, Professor.

This goes beyond opinions.  You are a professor.  How can you give credence to someone who claims  that a round that *supposedly* produced one shot stops in in 501 out of 1352 shootings and interprets that to be a one shot stop rate of 96%?  From reading your posts, I would expect that any student who claimed that 501 is 96% of 1352 would get that question marked wrong on a test.

And given all of the credibility, logical, and factual problems with the Marshal Sanow one shot stop statistics and the Strasbourg Goat shooting experiment, citing them as proof of anything is like treating the X-files as a documentary.

After all this is the Scientific Fighting Congress.  And I think I did a valid job of proving that M&S and the Goat tests were neither scientific nor credible.


[Professor Robe on]

It was once said not to argue things that could not be proven.....religion is one of them.

Inaccurate statement should be retracted....but, opinions vary and everyone has one....

[Professor Robe Off]


Popcorn refilled....beverage refilled.....ya'll have at it.

Prof
Logged
  'Advanced' is being able to do the basics, despite what else is happening. 

Our Country won't go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won't be any AMERICA because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race!"  --- Chesty Puller, USMC

threegun

  • Level 3
  • ****
  • Posts: 211
Re: One Shot Stop?
« Reply #37 on: December 30, 2005, 05:34:43 AM »

Bottom line is that no cartridge has 100 percent OSS and the only way to get it is to fire more than one shot. Prepare for this eventuallity by practicing double taps and as ED said two to the chest then the head. Also prepare your mind for the fact that one shot probably won't be enough.

If you want the best cartridge go with light and fast......... :o...........just to get some of you going LOL.
Logged

Professor

  • In your house drinking your coffee
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 1827
  • The Warlord
Re: One Shot Stop?
« Reply #38 on: December 30, 2005, 07:59:59 AM »

Bottom line is that no cartridge has 100 percent OSS and the only way to get it is to fire more than one shot. Prepare for this eventuallity by practicing double taps and as ED said two to the chest then the head. Also prepare your mind for the fact that one shot probably won't be enough.

If you want the best cartridge go with light and fast......... :o...........just to get some of you going LOL.


I've killed a lot of hogs with a AR15 carbon......just take a few more good hits.    ;)
Logged
  'Advanced' is being able to do the basics, despite what else is happening. 

Our Country won't go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won't be any AMERICA because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race!"  --- Chesty Puller, USMC

threegun

  • Level 3
  • ****
  • Posts: 211
Re: One Shot Stop?
« Reply #39 on: December 31, 2005, 06:37:43 AM »

Proffessor, I have no problem hunting with the 223 as long as the game is 150 pounds or less. I want to effect a human kill with one shot. Bigger than 150 and I feel than although I would surely kill the animal, it might not be clean and quick.
Logged

Professor

  • In your house drinking your coffee
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 1827
  • The Warlord
Re: One Shot Stop?
« Reply #40 on: December 31, 2005, 09:21:54 AM »

Proffessor, I have no problem hunting with the 223 as long as the game is 150 pounds or less. I want to effect a human kill with one shot. Bigger than 150 and I feel than although I would surely kill the animal, it might not be clean and quick.



Three to four shots in a couple of seconds will do the trick on almost any hog....when you're in the brush, there isn't always the choice with these pest.
Logged
  'Advanced' is being able to do the basics, despite what else is happening. 

Our Country won't go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won't be any AMERICA because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race!"  --- Chesty Puller, USMC

threegun

  • Level 3
  • ****
  • Posts: 211
Re: One Shot Stop?
« Reply #41 on: December 31, 2005, 10:31:38 AM »

Got ya! 3 or 4 shots of 223, heck thats like getting hit with a blast of a 12gauge on steroids.
Logged

Professor

  • In your house drinking your coffee
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 1827
  • The Warlord
Re: One Shot Stop?
« Reply #42 on: December 31, 2005, 11:46:07 AM »

Got ya! 3 or 4 shots of 223, heck thats like getting hit with a blast of a 12gauge on steroids.


Exactly.
Logged
  'Advanced' is being able to do the basics, despite what else is happening. 

Our Country won't go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won't be any AMERICA because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race!"  --- Chesty Puller, USMC

Hock

  • Administrator
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 6372
    • www.HocksCQC.com
Re: One Shot Stop?
« Reply #43 on: March 28, 2008, 07:14:47 PM »

This one makes for a GREAT re-read and chock full of interesting information and debate.

Hock
Pages: 1 [2]
 

Download