GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-02-2012, 21:26   #51
Tiro Fijo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 5,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by pisc1024 View Post
Good lord, I thought that M&S had been put to bed. Their "research" has been debunked time and time again. If people can't get over that I really don't know what to say. Also I would like to know what Police Department uses M&S data to pick a duty round. Even the USBP is going heavy for cal these days.

Debunked by whom? Someone with an agenda say like...Fackler?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pisc1024 View Post
I don't know why you have such a hard on when someone mentions the FBI protocols. Did the FBI shoot your dog?. Admit it or not, this IS the standard by which the vast majority of LE agencies use to pick their rounds. This is also the testing that ammo manufacturers DESIGN their rounds around. These facts have made modern rounds much more effective in the LE and civilian self defense scenario. You can't argue with facts.
It is the standard for sure. However, they have a long history of FUBAR's and following agendas and ignoring historical fact. This has been alluded to in this thread previously. When reality does not fit their belief system or agenda they merely ignore it. Not unlike several posting in this thread who are penetration junkies and when confronted with PRIMARY sources are Doubting Thomases as the facts do not correlate with their belief systems.
Tiro Fijo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2012, 21:47   #52
pisc1024
Senior Member
 
pisc1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiro Fijo View Post
Debunked by whom? Someone with an agenda say like...Fackler?
You have been in on more than one of those fights on CC. I know that there is nothing that anyone can say to change your mind ref M/S. If you are interested, try www.google.com


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiro Fijo View Post
It is the standard for sure. However, they have a long history of FUBAR's and following agendas and ignoring historical fact. This has been alluded to in this thread previously. When reality does not fit their belief system or agenda they merely ignore it. Not unlike several posting in this thread who are penetration junkies and when confronted with PRIMARY sources are Doubting Thomases as the facts do not correlate with their belief systems.
So if penetration junkies are wrong for being so, then what is your metric for deciding how a round fairs? Are you trying to get us to believe that we are to take "street cred" as our primary deciding metric? How can you quantify this? Do you just simply say "eh, it worked in a bunch of random situations, it's gotta be good....".
BTW yes penetration is number one ref bullet performance, but most people take the rest into account too, that's why I don't have FMJ's in my gun right now.

Last edited by pisc1024; 07-02-2012 at 21:58..
pisc1024 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2012, 22:06   #53
RangeRover
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 45
Ayoob was a policeman in a 2 bit town in New Hampshire. He used to be and maybe still is a Corbon distributor. Please don't tell me he is some kind of an expert or not biased. Even Evan Marshall on his web site talks of how well the 147gr 9mm works.

I pick my carry load because my neighbors friend talked to someone who overheard someone who knows a policeman say it works well. That's street cred.
RangeRover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 00:02   #54
fredj338
Senior Member
 
fredj338's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: so.cal.
Posts: 21,115
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by isp2605 View Post
Then I guess you didn't read it then.


Since apparently you either didn't read it, or you read it but it conflicted with your "belief" I'll repeat it.
"Obviously a hit in the arm or leg wouldn't necessarily be an incapacitating shot but that doesn't mean those so hit didn't stop either. However, a torso hit was a stopping hit."


Lecture? Apparently you need something then because the question was answered and I repeated it above. I know, it conflicts with your 'beliefs'.
I'll repeat and type real slow this time so you can follow along. When we had a torso hit with the W-W 115 +P+, and the 115 BPLE for that matter, we got stops. Even with some extremity hits still stopped.

Guess you missed my question to you. I'll repeat it. "So how many shootings have you investigated on which to base your belief?"


Seen both of those fail but not with a good hit. Just saying "it failed" tells absolutely nothing except show that the person saying it doesn't have a clue about shooting dynamics. Where was the hit? Distances involved?
I did a case where a guy took a 12 ga slug broadside. Nearly removed one arm where it took the bone, took out a rib going in, hit both lungs and clipped the top of his heart, took out another rib on exit, hit the upper arm and removed most of the bicept muscle. He dropped immediately but made an attempt to go for his dropped BHP. Failure? He didn't stop immediately and tried getting to his gun.
Wow, for an investigator, your reading skills are muddy. I specified COM hits, I understand wound balistics. I was just asking in your professional position, you stated you never saw a failure then equivocate about what the definition is after I pretty much layed it out. Thanks for trying though, forget I even asked.
__________________
"Given adequate penetration, a larger diameter bullet will have an edge in wounding effectiveness. It will damage a blood vessel the smaller projectile barely misses. The larger permanent cavity may lead to faster blood loss. Although such an edge clearly exists, its significance cannot be quantified".
fredj338 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 00:35   #55
Merkavaboy
Code-7A KUZ769
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In The State Of Fruitloops (CA)
Posts: 5,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deputydave View Post
Why do you have the attitude? I asked a legitimate question and I'm getting a Jr. High School snarky response. It isn't appreciated.



I can appreciate your interest in research, but the quality of the material you're researching will affect the validity of your conclusion. Based upon your comments, I suspected Mas as a possible source. I figured it was either him or Marshal.

To begin with, I like some of Mas's work. His 'Cute Lawyer Tricks' should be mandatory academy training. Some of his work with ammunition is fine, some of it is not. I'm not going to go into a lengthy dissertation here as to the accuracy of some of his 'reports'. Others have done that in detail.

Reply to Massad Ayoob's Kooky Screed

[b]Again, some of his stuff is fine, quite a bit is not. He was/is a big proponent of the OSS mantra. I find it difficult in this day and age to believe people still follow the OSS line, some taking it as gospel. [/b
Apparently you don't have a clear comprehension of either Mas, Evan's or Ed's philosophy; never have I read anywhere where any of the above named people have stated that they believe in shooting a BG once and waiting to see what happens. What M&S h e published is their findings of OSS incidents within a given criteria. They are not proponents of OSS. And if you follow their rightings and their teachings (especially Mas), you would know this.

Quote:
This may piss off a lot of people that still think OSS is a valid piece of data. But it isn't. Again, volumes have been written to debunk it. It isn't science as it doesn't fit the definition of science i.e. it isn't testable or repeatable for each shooting in-and-of-itself using the same exact environment from each shooting.
I suppose shooting inanimate blocks of gelatinized animal protein which is NOTHING equal to real human flesh, blood and bones, under environmentally controlled conditions at set distances, temperature ann angles within a labratory is somehow more "real" or "authentic" than actual street shootings?

Quote:
If you've read this far, let me state it another way for those serious about wanting to know fact from fiction. OSS, and a lot of what Mas puts forth, was based on several UNREALISTIC criteria. For example, and this is the part many people don't know about or choose to ignore; these shootings were allegedly all UNOBSTRUCTED FRONTAL UPPER TORSO SHOTS. That is a major point.


Okay so you have a problem with this. Do you also feel the same about Eugene Walberg's study from 1991 regarding the Win OSM 147JHP subsonic? Hate to tell you but he used a similar criteria. But Walberg's problem is that the Coroner CHERRY PICKED EACH AND EVERY BULLET FOR HIM, bullets that stayed in the body which never hit bone, in order to PROVE that his theory that ballistic gel is similar to human tissue. We know from history and actual shootings (reported by M&S, Ayoob and even isp2605) that this load was a poor LE/SD round with failures to expand and deadly overpenetration. Walberg wouldn't DARE to include such facts in his report because that would completely INVALIDATE his conclusion. And we know that Walberg's bullets were Cherry Picked because even the famous DocGKR ADMITTED THIS FACT in a thread on the Beretta Forum on this same topic (115JHP+P). Dare you to accuse DocGKR of lying.

Quote:
Many times, and I mentioned just one above in another post, a 115 does NOT have the sectional density to penetrate through an obstacle i.e. a limb or barrier, and still reach a vital/CNS. You cannot catalog an alleged unobstructed upper torso shot and then state it has a 'street record' of such-n-such %. That is intellectual dishonesty.
If so, are you going to accuse Walborg of the same "intellectual dishonesty" too. Yet he went even further by not including shots that would completely invalidate his hypothesis. Excluding evidence that will invalidate one's hypothesis is considered fraudulent by others (just like the "global warming" scientist that manufactured his "data" to support the theory of man-made global warming), except in this case his fraud was overlooked by his "peers" in the name of science and rightousness.

Quote:
You can state that in that shootings that meet your exact criteria a certain round performed X% of the time. But that is meaningless as far as a total street record. Multiple shootings were discarded to reach a % number within this artificial criteria.
Walberg again did the same thing.

Quote:
At one time, the Corbon 115 had something like 32 shootings and a 93% OSS record. How many shootings were discarded because they didn't meet the criteria? Why were many of the alleged sources not reported? Police shootings are public record after the investigation is complete. Yet in many instances, many things never 'added up' i.e. mis-reporting the actual facts of a shooting. But lets use the 32 shootings above. What if there were actually 73 shootings total, but the other 39 did not meet the artificially induced criteria i.e they were obstructed shots (which the majority of shootings are). Lets say that in those 39 shootings there was a failure to stop i.e. the round did not penetrate deep enough to hit a vital/CNS. This dramatically affects this 93% number!
Here in CA we have the most liberal Public Records Act in which someone can get almost any govt document. I don't know of ANY Coroner's office that will routinely release ANY autopsy report or any LEA that will release an entire shooting report. Will your agency release to me the entire file of the shootings that you've been involved in???

Quote:
It doesn't mean the 115 is useless. Doesn't mean it bounces off bad guys. But it does mean you're going to have to hope for an unobstructed upper torso shot in order to get the best benefit from this round. Yes, it is possible for it to go through a limb and still reach a vital....but it is NOT as likely as a 124 or 147 due to sectional density. And remember, adding the +P or +P+ is only going to DECREASE penetration on many rounds.
And yet you disbelieve that the 115JHP+P+ has been as effective as many of those "in the know" continue to report? Are you saying that people like Mas and isp2605 are liars or just ignorant, uninformed and biased when it comes to what their experience and knowledge has shown them otherwise? Does "sectional density" disprove that the 115JHP+P/+P+ isn't effective?

Quote:
Does anyone want to bet their life on getting an unobstructed upper torso shot? Seriously!

Also, the artificial criteria of OSS dictated the bad guy did not go past 10 feet before falling down. But falling down within an artificially circle is not the same as being incapacitated. A bad guy on the ground that is conscious can still return fire.

Maybe OSS and Mas are still getting a lot of play in gun magazines? I hope not. Stating that the 115 9mm and the 124 .357mag have the best 'street record' based upon Mas and/or OSS is misleading, irresponsible and flat out incorrect. Not looking to bust your chops, not looking for a flame war. But that type of statement is unsupported and wrong.

I've been in five deadly force incidents. I've researched the science and the psuedo-science. I've been in surgery taking custody of rounds taken out of bad guys. I've interviewed shooting victims in the hospital and jail and read the reports from those in the morgue. I've tested more rounds than I can remember. The 9mm 115 is NOT the best choice, does NOT have the best street record, and has FAILED more times than I can count due to lack of penetration.

If anyone reading this thread is on the fence, I encourage you to read Mas's offering and the OSS (one-stop-shot) material. Then read the material explaining in greater detail why it isn't reliable and explaining the testing that is reliable and the vast majority of agencies follow. This way you can make an informed decision for yourself. Do NOT get your gun info from magazines or gun boards. Don't even take what I say as gospel until you check it out for yourselves with an open mind and some common sense.

Firearms Tactical
And yet you end your comment by posting a link to a GUN BOARD! How hypocritical is THAT!
__________________
"I spent the last two years of high school in a daze....attended classes sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically."
Barack Obama
One Bad Ass Mistake America
Merkavaboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 00:48   #56
Merkavaboy
Code-7A KUZ769
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In The State Of Fruitloops (CA)
Posts: 5,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangeRover View Post
Ayoob was a policeman in a 2 bit town in New Hampshire. He used to be and maybe still is a Corbon distributor. Please don't tell me he is some kind of an expert or not biased. Even Evan Marshall on his web site talks of how well the 147gr 9mm works.

I pick my carry load because my neighbors friend talked to someone who overheard someone who knows a policeman say it works well. That's street cred.
Please post your creds so we can judge whether you are worthy to question Mas' knowledge. Then I'll invite him to this thread so he can provide YOU with his long list creds that allows him to be a police prosecutor in his state, a firearms instructor and an expert witness.

As for Evan, he has stated (like many others) that the current modern 147JHP's are light-years ahead of the original 147 loads that were dismal failures from the 1980's. Don't put words in his mouth and make statements out of context.
__________________
"I spent the last two years of high school in a daze....attended classes sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically."
Barack Obama
One Bad Ass Mistake America
Merkavaboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 00:58   #57
cowboywannabe
you savvy?
 
cowboywannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: on a planet near you
Posts: 20,521
cor-bon makes good, quality ammo. it is expensive though, not many people can afford $125.00 for 100 rounds every time they go to the range.

i did notice that the cor-bon .44 magnum 165gr. was rated at 1300 fps. putting it squarely in the 10mm field. so you still have to watch what you buy to ensure its what youre wanting to get.
__________________
with Sarah Jane, Leela, Romana, Nyssa, and Tegan.

Facts are no match against enthusiasm and ignorance...
cowboywannabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 04:26   #58
4949shooter
Senior Member
 
4949shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New Jersey Republik
Posts: 12,797


Quote:
Originally Posted by cowboywannabe View Post
i did notice that the cor-bon .44 magnum 165gr. was rated at 1300 fps. putting it squarely in the 10mm field. so you still have to watch what you buy to ensure its what youre wanting to get.
Yes, this is obviously their .44 magnum SD load, which is not to be compared with a 240 grain at 1300 which would be used for bear hunting.

I know I wouldn't wanna be hit with either one.

Back to velocity / penetration. I had asked a question and haven't received an answer, so I'll ask it again,

Does anyone here doubt the effectiveness of the Federal 125 grain .357 magnum at 1400 to 1450?
__________________
"...the men under your command deserve your leadership."-OXCOPS
4949shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 07:26   #59
Deputydave
Senior Member
 
Deputydave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merkavaboy View Post
Apparently you don't have a clear comprehension of either Mas, Evan's or Ed's philosophy;
This is an unfounded assumption on your part. Actually, I have a pretty clear understanding of their work. There may be some, but I am unaware of any professional agency that uses their material as the basis of ammunition selection.

Quote:
never have I read anywhere where any of the above named people have stated that they believe in shooting a BG once and waiting to see what happens.
I don't believe anyone other that you have brought this up in this thread.

Quote:
What M&S h e published is their findings of OSS incidents within a given criteria.
Correct. A criteria that is artificial, narrow and unrealistic while excluding other shootings that were outside the confines of said criteria. Thus their findings have no basis in the totality of real world shootings.

Quote:
I suppose shooting inanimate blocks of gelatinized animal protein which is NOTHING equal to real human flesh, blood and bones, under environmentally controlled conditions at set distances, temperature ann angles within a labratory is somehow more "real" or "authentic" than actual street shootings?
Actually yes. What you've stated above is testable and repeatable. It therefore falls under the definition of science. Whereas arriving at a percentage-of-effectiveness using 'real' shootings under a narrow range of shootings while ignoring other 'real' shootings is not science. It is like having a rubber ruler.

As I've tried many times to explain, to those who can put aside a preconceived conclusion; Your dependence on 'real' street shootings is understandable, be unrealistic. You have not taken into account the totality of shootings with the Corbon 115+P+. You would have to have an understanding of why a particular round succeeded and another failed. And to be realistic, we cannot then define the results under a very unrealistic, narrow set of criteria and then proclaim a 'street effectiveness rating'.
Quote:
Do you also feel the same about Eugene Walberg's study from 1991 regarding the Win OSM 147JHP subsonic?
I have not read his study.

Quote:
Walberg wouldn't DARE to include such facts in his report because that would completely INVALIDATE his conclusion. And we know that Walberg's bullets were Cherry Picked because even the famous DocGKR ADMITTED THIS FACT in a thread on the Beretta Forum on this same topic (115JHP+P). Dare you to accuse DocGKR of lying.
Are you on drugs? I'm not a member of any Beretta forum. DocGKR is not participating in this thread. The only person bringing up this Walberg...is you. I strongly recommend proof-reading your post before hitting submit. No flame, just a friendly recommendation.

Quote:
I don't know of ANY Coroner's office that will routinely release ANY autopsy report or any LEA that will release an entire shooting report.
I cannot comment on your state. Public record means just that...public record. There are several laws on the books concerning this as well. Have you ever tried to research a report or are you just assuming again?

Quote:
And yet you disbelieve that the 115JHP+P+ has been as effective as many of those "in the know" continue to report? Are you saying that people like Mas and isp2605 are liars or just ignorant, uninformed and biased when it comes to what their experience and knowledge has shown them otherwise? Does "sectional density" disprove that the 115JHP+P/+P+ isn't effective?
You appear to be reading through the lenses of a preconceived idea. First off, I question the totality of the knowledge of 'those in the know'. Sectional density is a function of bullet penetration-to-caliber-to-weight. On an unobstructed, frontal torso shot the 115+P+ has fared pretty well. But it isn't a 100% stopper as some have touted...nothing is a 100% stopper except death and taxes. Going through a limb or cross-torso...like I said, I don't like your chances. But hey, maybe you'll get lucky.

I hope you never have to put it to the test though.
Deputydave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 07:31   #60
Deputydave
Senior Member
 
Deputydave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4949shooter View Post
Does anyone here doubt the effectiveness of the Federal 125 grain .357 magnum at 1400 to 1450?
As with any round, if it penetrates deep enough to hit something important then it has done everything on its end. If you have put it in the correct spot, you've done everything on your end. However, I remind everyone of Murphy's law.

I like .357 and this was my first off-duty. But as with the 115+P+ 9mm, it isn't magic. I remind everyone of the female LAPD officer shot through the heart with a .357 round. She survived and returned fire, killing her attacker with 3 rounds of 147 subsonic 9MM.

If a 125 .357 goes deep enough then it 'can' be effective. But it is not a certainty. Same with any round. Too many variables.
Deputydave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 07:36   #61
spcwes
Senior Member
 
spcwes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by isp2605 View Post
Guess you missed my question to you. I'll repeat it. "So how many shootings have you investigated on which to base your belief?"
Not my question but I will answer it for my side. 5 Officer involved shootings I have assisted investigations on, 6 outside department shootings.

Reviewed over 100 Officer involved shootings that I was privy to review autopsy on and to include incident files. Was in the same room during I think 16 autopsies now and talked with people or read case files on 50-60 non fatal shootings regarding incident, caliber and training (civilian, LE, Military or just well trained).

Is it ok if I continue to post on this topic sir?

Also on the same note folks have mentioned several times that looking for specific data like un-obstructed COM hits to account for the success of a round is biased info as most shootings (yes, most look it up yourself) do not see these hits.

So all in all a round getting to the center of the problem regardless of arms, legs, sheetrock, glass, denim, leather, latex or what ever else you can think is probably what you want to see out of your SD ammo
.
__________________
"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American perception that each individual is accountable for his/her actions." -Ronald Reagan-

Last edited by spcwes; 07-03-2012 at 07:42..
spcwes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 13:47   #62
pisc1024
Senior Member
 
pisc1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merkavaboy View Post
I suppose shooting inanimate blocks of gelatinized animal protein which is NOTHING equal to real human flesh, blood and bones, under environmentally controlled conditions at set distances, temperature ann angles within a labratory is somehow more "real" or "authentic" than actual street shootings?

[/b]

Okay so you have a problem with this. Do you also feel the same about Eugene Walberg's study from 1991 regarding the Win OSM 147JHP subsonic? Hate to tell you but he used a similar criteria. But Walberg's problem is that the Coroner CHERRY PICKED EACH AND EVERY BULLET FOR HIM, bullets that stayed in the body which never hit bone, in order to PROVE that his theory that ballistic gel is similar to human tissue. We know from history and actual shootings (reported by M&S, Ayoob and even isp2605) that this load was a poor LE/SD round with failures to expand and deadly overpenetration. Walberg wouldn't DARE to include such facts in his report because that would completely INVALIDATE his conclusion. And we know that Walberg's bullets were Cherry Picked because even the famous DocGKR ADMITTED THIS FACT in a thread on the Beretta Forum on this same topic (115JHP+P). Dare you to accuse DocGKR of lying.



If so, are you going to accuse Walborg of the same "intellectual dishonesty" too. Yet he went even further by not including shots that would completely invalidate his hypothesis. Excluding evidence that will invalidate one's hypothesis is considered fraudulent by others (just like the "global warming" scientist that manufactured his "data" to support the theory of man-made global warming), except in this case his fraud was overlooked by his "peers" in the name of science and rightousness.



Walberg again did the same thing.


Please post your creds so we can judge whether you are worthy to question Walberg's knowledge.
The difference between Walberg's study and M/S "study" is that you can definitively repeat Walberg's findings, yet there is not a snowball's chance in hell you could do the same with the M/S findings.
pisc1024 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 14:52   #63
4949shooter
Senior Member
 
4949shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New Jersey Republik
Posts: 12,797


Quote:
Originally Posted by Deputydave View Post
As with any round, if it penetrates deep enough to hit something important then it has done everything on its end. If you have put it in the correct spot, you've done everything on your end. However, I remind everyone of Murphy's law.

I like .357 and this was my first off-duty. But as with the 115+P+ 9mm, it isn't magic. I remind everyone of the female LAPD officer shot through the heart with a .357 round. She survived and returned fire, killing her attacker with 3 rounds of 147 subsonic 9MM.

If a 125 .357 goes deep enough then it 'can' be effective. But it is not a certainty. Same with any round. Too many variables.
I agree no round will give us 100% certain stops.

Which .357 magnum load was the female officer shot with? Was it a 125 @1450? This would obviously make difference as there are many loads for the .357 magnum.
__________________
"...the men under your command deserve your leadership."-OXCOPS
4949shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 16:28   #64
481
Senior Member
 
481's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merkavaboy View Post

Okay so you have a problem with this. Do you also feel the same about Eugene Walberg's study from 1991 regarding the Win OSM 147JHP subsonic? Hate to tell you but he used a similar criteria. But Walberg's problem is that the Coroner CHERRY PICKED EACH AND EVERY BULLET FOR HIM, bullets that stayed in the body which never hit bone, in order to PROVE that his theory that ballistic gel is similar to human tissue. We know from history and actual shootings (reported by M&S, Ayoob and even isp2605) that this load was a poor LE/SD round with failures to expand and deadly overpenetration. Walberg wouldn't DARE to include such facts in his report because that would completely INVALIDATE his conclusion. And we know that Walberg's bullets were Cherry Picked because even the famous DocGKR ADMITTED THIS FACT in a thread on the Beretta Forum on this same topic (115JHP+P). Dare you to accuse DocGKR of lying.
Hmm…

After you and your little buddy got your pee-pees smacked in this thread-

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18975037&postcount=44

for misrepresenting Wolberg’s research as something other than what it was and accusing him of lying when in fact he was forthcoming with his methodology it seems like you guys are both back again with the same old, same old.

I've reposted it below for those who wish to see the disingenuous, but simplistic argument being pushed by these two "members".

Just because you don't understand the article that you refer to doesn't mean that it is untrue; it just means that you don't understand it.



Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiro Fijo View Post
...a study started by Eugene Wolberg with the San Diego Police Department. The study compared bullet performance in ballistic gelatin vs. autopsy results from actual police shootings. The findings from autopsies very closely correlated to those in ballistic gelatin. However, all head wounds and bone hits were eliminated.
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler...hester_9mm.pdf

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=92500
That's it? That's all you have?

Did you even bother to read the article that you've cited?

Gee, I hope that this wasn't the "bombshell" quote that Merkavaboi was planning to drop.

It is common and accepted practice for researchers to select the parametric and data constraints for their case studies. If this were viewed as reason to discredit his or anyone else's research and findings, then almost every research article that has ever been written and its findings would have to be thrown out. In fact, parameter constraint selection is established as a sound practice within the scientific research community and to attempt to portray it as some sort of dishonesty is an act of intellectual dishonesty itself. So long as it is done honestly and openly (Wolberg explains the constraints of his data selection on the first page of the article cited above) and the reasons for such constraint can be shown to be valid, then it is a valid practice.

Wolberg does this on the first page of the article stating:

"It should be noted that all head wounds, and bone hits were eliminated; this study deals only with shots that penetrated soft-tissue of the torso and did not hit bone."

In case you missed it, Wolberg was attempting to establish a correlation for the behavior of expanding projectiles in soft tissue and calibrated ordnance gelatin which is a soft tissue analog. Therefore, he eliminated the data that included hits to bony tissue and the cranium since the correlative relationship being investigated is one involving projectile behavior in soft tissue and a soft tissue analog, not that of calibrated ordnance gelatin to bony tissues. Wolberg states (also on the article's first page) that only shots that remained within the bodies of those being autopsied were considered for this correlative study:

"Only shots into the torso that remained in the body for their entire penetration depth were included in the study."

This constraint, is justifiable also, because in order to compare total penetration depths in both mediums the entire wound track must be measured. Projectiles that exited the bodies of those in the available test population cannot be used because the projectile's wound track was not captured in its entirety. Wolberg's disclaimer states clearly and in plain language on the first page of his research article and the language quoted above is taken directly from his article. That he elected to inform the reader of the constraints that he employed speaks volumes to the man's character.

Portraying Wolberg as being dishonest, when in fact he wasn't, is a lie itself and anyone doing so stoops to the lowest form of argument that there is- deception.

Anyone wishing to read Wolberg's article for themselves-

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler...hester_9mm.pdf

may do so and see for themselves the text that I have quoted from the article and that it is presented clearly and plainly in Wolberg's article (cited above by Tiro Fijo) for all to see.
__________________
SUPER GENIUS
CERTIFIED GLOCK ARMORER
481 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 17:32   #65
Tiro Fijo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 5,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by 481 View Post
Hmm…

After you and your little buddy got your pee-pees smacked in this thread-

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18975037&postcount=44

for misrepresenting Wolberg’s research as something other than what it was and accusing him of lying when in fact he was forthcoming with his methodology it seems like you guys are both back again with the same old, same old...

Just when I thought the thread couldn't get any worse, we have the resident "expert" from M4carbine.net now posting.
Tiro Fijo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 17:42   #66
WinterWizard
Senior Member
 
WinterWizard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,296
Once again Caliber Corner has produced one of the most retarded threads in the history of man.

Last edited by WinterWizard; 07-03-2012 at 17:42..
WinterWizard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 18:03   #67
481
Senior Member
 
481's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiro Fijo View Post
Just when I thought the thread couldn't get any worse, we have the resident "expert" from M4carbine.net now posting.
Yep, the rational and truthful discussion of research conducted by highly educated professionals does seem to be sort of a bummer for you and your little buddy's agenda, doesn't it?
__________________
SUPER GENIUS
CERTIFIED GLOCK ARMORER
481 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 18:04   #68
Deputydave
Senior Member
 
Deputydave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4949shooter View Post
I agree no round will give us 100% certain stops.

Which .357 magnum load was the female officer shot with? Was it a 125 @1450? This would obviously make difference as there are many loads for the .357 magnum.
My apologies, I don't remember what the article cited as the type of .357 round. This would have been about 23+ years ago give or take. I remember it was suppose to be one of those bump-n-rob jobs, but the perps didn't know it was a police officer in her POV. She wasn't wearing a vest though. It happened almost in front of her home and her roommate was also LAPD (dispatcher) who witnessed the event and called for help. The officer killed her attacker before passing out and survived emergency surgery. As far as I know, she returned to duty after a lengthy rehab.
Deputydave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 18:17   #69
Snowman92D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4949shooter View Post
Which .357 magnum load was the female officer shot with? Was it a 125 @1450? This would obviously make difference as there are many loads for the .357 magnum.
She was shot with a Winchester 110-grain jhp. She still has a few frags from the bullet in her chest. One of her return fire 9mm rounds hit the suspect in the neck and dropped him.

She's a sergeant in training now.

Last edited by Snowman92D; 07-03-2012 at 18:18..
Snowman92D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 19:15   #70
RangeRover
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merkavaboy View Post
Please post your creds so we can judge whether you are worthy to question Mas' knowledge. Then I'll invite him to this thread so he can provide YOU with his long list creds that allows him to be a police prosecutor in his state, a firearms instructor and an expert witness.

As for Evan, he has stated (like many others) that the current modern 147JHP's are light-years ahead of the original 147 loads that were dismal failures from the 1980's. Don't put words in his mouth and make statements out of context.
It wasn't me who brought up Mas as someone whose opinion should be valued and not questioned. I was correct in everything I posted. Grantham NH has 3000 people. Wonder how many criminals and shootings he has encounted there. He certainly was an may still be a distributor for Corbon. Does that make him partial to light and fast bullets? I doubt he was a police prosecutor. Did you get that from his Wickipedia page? He is not an attorney. Are you impressed he has been an expert witness? I'm not. It doesn't mean anything. I know lots of firearms instructors. You haven't told me anything about him to make me think his word is gospel about anything.




As for Evan, please read the post again before you post. I didn't put words in his mouth. I used the present tense when discussing his feelings about 147gr ammo. By the way, if you agree modern 147gr ammo works well, why the insistence people use +p+?


Finally, as to my credentials, eiither you believe that I'm bluffinng and I've got nothing, or I'm holding a Royal Flush and I'm just trying to draw more people into the pot before I blow them out of the water. (Before anyone tells me how dumb this is, this is a direct quote I stole from Merkavaboy from another thread)
RangeRover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 19:17   #71
4949shooter
Senior Member
 
4949shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New Jersey Republik
Posts: 12,797


Quote:
Originally Posted by Deputydave View Post
My apologies, I don't remember what the article cited as the type of .357 round. This would have been about 23+ years ago give or take. I remember it was suppose to be one of those bump-n-rob jobs, but the perps didn't know it was a police officer in her POV. She wasn't wearing a vest though. It happened almost in front of her home and her roommate was also LAPD (dispatcher) who witnessed the event and called for help. The officer killed her attacker before passing out and survived emergency surgery. As far as I know, she returned to duty after a lengthy rehab.
No problem. I am glad she survived the encounter. Chalk one up for the good guys (or gals).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman92D View Post
She was shot with a Winchester 110-grain jhp. She still has a few frags from the bullet in her chest. One of her return fire 9mm rounds hit the suspect in the neck and dropped him.

She's a sergeant in training now.
Thank you Keith. I just saw your email on this.
__________________
"...the men under your command deserve your leadership."-OXCOPS
4949shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 19:50   #72
Nanuk
Senior Member
 
Nanuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4949shooter View Post
Does anyone here doubt the effectiveness of the Federal 125 grain .357 magnum at 1400 to 1450?

Not one bit. Besides Cor-Bon DPX that is my carry load in my 357 Snubbies.
Nanuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 20:03   #73
pisc1024
Senior Member
 
pisc1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangeRover View Post
...I doubt he was a police prosecutor. Did you get that from his Wickipedia page? He is not an attorney.

What exactly is a police prosecutor???
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangeRover View Post
Finally, as to my credentials, eiither you believe that I'm bluffinng and I've got nothing, or I'm holding a Royal Flush and I'm just trying to draw more people into the pot before I blow them out of the water. (Before anyone tells me how dumb this is, this is a direct quote I stole from Merkavaboy from another thread)
pisc1024 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 20:31   #74
Merkavaboy
Code-7A KUZ769
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In The State Of Fruitloops (CA)
Posts: 5,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by pisc1024 View Post
What exactly is a police prosecutor???


This shows us exactly how ignorant you really are...
__________________
"I spent the last two years of high school in a daze....attended classes sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically."
Barack Obama
One Bad Ass Mistake America
Merkavaboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 21:05   #75
RangeRover
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by pisc1024 View Post
What exactly is a police prosecutor???
I suspect it's someone who is not an attorney who plays one in podunk jurisdictions to prosecute cases against garden variety criminals. These are towns that have so little crime they don't feel the need to have a real attorney prosecute their criminals for loitering and jaywalking etc.


I dare say you don't see any police prosecutors in cases of any significance.
RangeRover is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 -6. The time now is 03:07.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 791
168 Members
623 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42