Article on statistical analysis of Marshall/Sanow one-shot-stop "data" proving it was faked:
Sorry Kurush, based on your statement above, but I think you were unaware of what a statistical analysis can and cannot do. Statistical analyses do not actually prove anything. They simply give a probability.
"One-Shot Drops Surviving the Myth" FBI bulletin explaining how the "one shot stop" myth can endanger lives:
Did you read the article, Kurush? Go back and read the section called "The Myth." The myth has nothing to do with one shot stops, but the unrealistically high amount of bad guys dropped by singular shots. While folks know they are movie stunts, as they note, many officers expect that sort of performance to happen when they are in a fight. That expectation is one germinated by the countless Hollywood portrayals of one shot drops. It is the expectation of officers of the mythical Hollywood one stop drops that is how lives can be endangered as those sorts of events are very rare in real life shootings, especially when compared to the vast number of Hollywood portrayals of one stop drops.
If you check the Endnotes section, you will see that the officers didn't even cite any of the OSS articles. That is because they were not discussing on shot stops.
--------
Larry, that is where so much confusion gets introduced and then passed on as "facts" when they are in error. What you reported the deputy said is completely different from what he should have said. The condition of death, brain death, is fairly binary. Either you are brain dead or you are not brain dead.
So it isn't the momentum of the mortally wounded guy charging you that will carry him to you, but the fact that without brain death and or a CNS shutdown, the human body is still able to function. Even with the heart not pumping blood, adrenaline in the system will allow your muscles to continue to function via anaerobic chemical activity as opposed to aerobic which is how we normally function most of the time. So it isn't that the guy charging you has momentum that carries him to you. He does have momentum, but even with a stopped heart, he may function quite well for 10-30 seconds. In that time, he can alter the momentum of his direction of travel. He can stop, turn or whatever much like a non-mortally wounded person.
So, the mortally wounded person is not dead while he can still attack you and it is not his momentum that carries him to you where he will undoubtedly try to harm you. Sorry Larry, but your source with all that experience screwed up some key concepts that are important for this discussion.
The fact that a person could be mortally wounded via their first shot and still fight on is not new at all, nor is it particular to pistol calibers or OSSs. I may be in error here, but the first or one of the first wounds suffered by Matix in the shootout with the FBI in 1986 was a mortal wound. He managed to kill and wound several agents before that wound would have eventually taken his life. It was one of his major blood vessels that had been nicked and he was bleeding out internally. As one of the surviving agents said about Platt and Matix, they were dying, but not dying fast enough.
That is probably one of the best known mortally wounded bad guy events where the bad guy did much harm. However, people are mortally wounded in all sorts of activities and still manage to perform a variety of tasks before they expire.
In your deputy's example, a person could be shot once in the heart, it being a OSS, suffer no other wounds, and the person live long enough to attack and kill others. I believe this was the point you were trying to get at by bringing up his information. And sure, it does happen. I don't recall anywhere that OSSs are necessarily instantaneous in their stopping ability.
As I said, one shot stops are not a myth. It does happen. What does appear to be a myth is how people apply the data (be it real or false doesn't matter to me) in unrealistic manners, often because they don't actually understand what OSS means, how the supposed data were compiled (rules, inclusions, exclusions), or understand the fact that every time a gun is discharged, it is a unique event, mutually exclusive from other events, particularly in regard to the outcome. So you end up with your high brow gun store commandos saying dumb things like,
I shoot Federal Hydroooshok .45 acp. It has a OSS of 96%. That pretty well means that if a bad guy comes through that door and I have to shoot him, there is only a 4% chance the fight will go beyond that and I got three more mags of Hydrooochoks if it does.
.45 acp Hydrashok may be reported to have a 96% OSS historical rating, but that has no bearing what will happen if the gun store commando shoots somebody. Historical data do not determine or influence future events.
Also, and very significant to OSS is the fact that a bad guy may stop after just one shot and not be wounded or not be seriously wounded. The OSS concept does not imply that the singular shot will necessarily be incapacitating. I think a lot of the interpretive confusion from gun store commando types is that OSS is about physically stopping the bad guys and the reality is that OSS is a mishmash of physical incapacitations and simple behavior modification. The report of a gun and/or the sensation of being shot may be enough to convince said bad guy that he needs to cease current aggression. Once the aggression has ceased, the stop is accomplished.
And this is a serious shortcoming of the OSS concept in regard to determining whether paricular ammo is more or less effective. Of the 96% Hydrashok .45 acp OSS, how many of those were produced by minor or non-incapacitating wounds? How may produced by misses? I don't know as it has been too long, if OSS data were inclusive of shots that did not strike the suspect or not, but you get the idea. Heck, there are numerous accounts of singular warning shots being enough to convince a troubleamaker to cease the troublesome activities. Even more amazing is that are are accounts where a singular warning shot was able to cause a group of troublemakers to cease troublesome activities. So, you could have a OSS that does not actually harm anybody and yet stop the activities of many people.
So to conclude, OSSs do happen. They are supposedly based on real case data compiled under some unrealistic data selection criteria. They are an interesting historical compilation of performance, but so mired in various biases that the value really stops at being an interesting historical complilation. Since each fired round is a unique event, it is unreasonable to believe that historical performance will necessarily be duplicated by any given shot.