BSA1 said:
and MOST IMPORTANTLY THE WILLINGNESS TO USE DEADLY FORCE
natman said:
I would be more willing to use deadly force if I were confident that the cartridge involved would reliably provide it
BSA1 said:
Indeed your comment “that I would be more willing to use deadly force if I were confident that the cartridge involved would reliably provide it” suggests a “Dirty Harry” attitude. The elements required for use of deadly force are clearly established by law.
So it's OK for you to shout "MOST IMPORTANTLY THE WILLINGNESS TO USE DEADLY FORCE", but if I reply that it would be a good thing to be able to actually provide it, that makes me some sort of blood thirsty vigilante?
Please.
Let me restate it so that there’s no way to mistake it:
"I would be more willing to use deadly force WHEN LEGALLY CALLED FOR if I were confident that the cartridge involved would reliably provide it."
I hope that's clear enough.
natman said:
"What you choose to believe isn't especially relevant. Rejecting sound data because it conflicts with what you want to be true is a poor argument."
bsa1 said:
Evan Marshall and Edwin Sanow researched one shot stops which they published their results in two books. Since then their data and research methods has been subject to careful academic review and criticism. Evan Marshall has gone so far as to state he regrets doing the project and would not do it again. If you have any other “sound data” supporting one-shot stops from a handgun please post it.
Let’s talk about Marshall and Sanow. It’s true they have come under a lot of criticism, some of it warranted, a lot of it from people who’s pet preconceptions weren’t supported. It’s true that the data wasn’t gathered under laboratory conditions, due no doubt to the reluctance of universities to supply an adequate number of test subjects (not even freshmen).
So they had to make do with data gathered from the streets, despite the lack of controlled conditions. It’s also true that the percentages were simply calculated without mentioning the degree of uncertainty, which under the circumstances would be considerable. So I wouldn’t change loads or cartridges because one was a few percentage points better. However, for all its faults, Marshall and Sanow remains the best data currently available. If you don’t like it you’ll have to come up with a study that does it better, not just reject it out of hand.
BSA1 said:
Again you have not provided any data supporting one-shot stops from a handgun.
I haven’t provided any because you’ve refused to listen to any in other posts. But since you’ve asked:
Marshall and Sanow one shot stop statistics:
22 Magnum (best) 42%
38 Special +P (best) 83%
That’s a whopping 41 percentage points difference; a good deal more than the degree of uncertainty.
Let’s take a look at the exterior ballistics of the two:
Hornady Critical Defense 22 Magnum 40 grain:
1000 fps 100 ft-lbs energy
Hornady Critical Defense 38 Special +P
1090 fps 290 ft-lbs energy
So similar velocities, almost three times as much energy and 2.55 times as much frontal area show why the 38 Special +P is a more effective cartridge. (Note: The 38 Special velocity is slightly inflated because it came from a longer barrel. Doesn't change the point.)
natman said:
"One shot stop" does not mean that you're only supposed to shoot once.
BSA1 said:
Really…then why isn’t called maybe one shot stop, occasionally one shot stop, sometimes one shot stop or almost always one shot stop?
A one shot stop does not mean that you SHOULD only shoot once, it means you only HAD TO shoot once. This is not a subtle distinction.
If shooting is called for you should shoot until a stop is produced. A one shot stop percentage means the likelihood that one shot will produce a stop. The point, which you seem determined not to grasp, is that some cartridges are more likely than others to produce a stop in one shot. A high one stop shot percentage is desirable because in the real world,
one shot to the center of mass may be all you're going to get, your "8 shots to the heart" and "one in the eye" fantasies notwithstanding.
natman said:
"The "I'm such a deadly marksman I don't need an adequate cartridge" fantasy strikes again. What you might be able to do while standing calmly in front of a paper target at a well lit range is not likely to be the same as you will be able to do under stress in the dark while being shot at by a target on the move. You may not get a chance for more than one shot, which is why one shot stop statistics are relevant."
BSA1 said:
Shooting under stress in the dark has no bearing on stopping power.
You're quite right that shooting under stress in the dark has no bearing whatsoever on stopping power; which is why I am amazed that you managed to misread it that way. Shooting under stress in the dark does however have considerable bearing on
the level of practical accuracy realistically possible, which is why the “one shot to the eye” scenario is so far fetched.
I don't mind an honest difference of opinion; a forum would be pretty dull without it. So feel free to disagree with what I write, but I'd appreciate the courtesy if you'd disagree with what I
actually write.