STOPPING POWER: A PRACTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LATEST HANDGUN AMMUNITION

Rating:
Summary: outstanding
Review: Finally a book that ends the "my round is better than your round" based on (at best) anecdotal information. The amazing research that has gone into this book made me reconsider what firearm I carry. Solid info, some humor (albeit grim humor) and thorough explanations of their statistics.

Rating:
Summary: outstanding
Review: Finally a book that ends the "my round is better than your round" based on (at best) anecdotal information. The amazing research that has gone into this book made me reconsider what firearm I carry. Solid info, some humor (albeit grim humor) and thorough explanations of their statistics.

Rating:
Summary: I have not read the book but...
Review: from: http://www.firearmstactical.com/afte.htm

Authors:

Dr. Roberts is a U.S. Navy Dental Corps officer involved in wound ballistics research and combat casualty care training. Mr. Wolberg is the Senior Firearms Criminologist at the San Diego Police Department Crime Laboratory.

Rather than being the "Definitive Study" of handgun stopping power as the title self-proclaims, this confusing text provides the reader a schizophrenic mixture of material. The majority of this book is replete with contradictions, mistakes, and unsubstantiated speculation. There are so many gross errors and inconsistencies in the text that it is impossible to mention them all in this short review.

Neurogenic Shock

Dr. Mary Case, a board-certified neuropathologist and forensic pathologist with the St. Louis County Medical Examiner's Office and the St. Louis University School of Medicine, Dr. Michael Graham, a forensic pathologist with the St. Louis County Medical Examiner's Office and the St. Louis University School of Medicine, COL. Charles Van Way, a general surgeon with the U.S. Army 325th General Hospital, and Dr. Thomas Helling, the Director of Trauma Surgery at St. Luke's Hospital in Kansas City, reviewed Chapter 2, "A Neurologist's View of `Stopping Power'". These well qualified scientists are unanimous in their condemnation of this material.

The absurd claims made in this chapter, as well as the similar remarks on pages 6, 7, and 176, regarding the ability of a bullet to remotely stress and shock the central nervous system (CNS) are grossly inaccurate and completely unsupported by any accepted scientific evidence according to Dr. Case. This pseudoscientific speculation is presented as verified scientific fact, yet allusion to Göransson's discredited data is the only scientific reference the authors cite to support their unjustified claims.1 Dr. Helling remarks that this material: "...relates to anecdotal experience and pure hypothesis," while Dr. Van Way states that it: "...would seem not only to be without supporting evidence, but to contradict common sense."

A thorough review of the scientific literature relating to wound ballistics has failed to identify any valid research papers which demonstrate that projectiles can exert a remote effect on the CNS.

Street Results/One-Shot-Stop Percentages

Throughout the text, Marshall and Sanow offer "street results" which purport to show the "stopping power" and percentage of "one-shot stops" that particular handgun bullets have produced in actual shootings. On page 47 they write: "These street results are the heart and soul of this book on stopping power." Accurate, documented field data of bullet performance in actual shootings is a crucial adjunct to laboratory test results; unfortunately, valid information is very difficult to acquire. Their "field data" appears to be based on anecdotal "war stories" which are incomplete and unverified, as illustrated by the example below.

On page 121, Marshall and Sanow state: "The following five Glaser shootings come from Gene Wolberg, Senior Criminologist, San Diego Police Crime Lab." Mr. Wolberg, an author of this review, testified that only the third and fifth incidents described are fully documented and verifiable cases. Mr. Wolberg states he is only casually aware of the fourth incident and emphasizes that his second-hand information is undocumented. Mr. Wolberg denies all knowledge of the first two shooting reports Marshall and Sanow attribute to him. On pages 43 and 44, Marshall and Sanow discuss their data collection methodology:

"4. In order to be included in this study, I insisted on either having or at least being able to review some of the following: police reports, evidence technician reports, statements by the victim (if he survived), homicide reports, autopsy results, and photos. Whenever possible, I also talked to the emergency room doctors and attending physicians.

5. Recovered bullets were either personally examined or photographed by me, or I was provided with photographs of the bullets."

Mr. Wolberg never provided Marshall or Sanow any of the reports, test results, photos or evidence which they insist the inspect prior to including a shooting in their data base. As a result, the veracity of their entire data base is questionable. The verisimilitude of the author's "street result" data is also in doubt since they violate basic principles of scientific research by not publishing their original data and by claiming "secrecy" when asked to identify their source documentation so that independent researchers who investigate wound ballistics could inspect their original information and verify their results.

Additionally, Marshall's and Sanow's "street results" and "one-shot stop" statistics fail to address what anatomic structures are disrupted and damaged by the bullet. They also ignore the crucial fact that many adversaries are incapacitated due to psychological rather than physiological reasons: they decide to stop, but are not forced to stop. While the degree and rapidity of any physiological incapacitation produced by a given bullet is predictable based on what anatomic structures the bullet disrupts and the severity of the tissue damage, psychological incapacitation is an extremely erratic, highly variable, and completely unpredictable individual human response which is independent of any inherent characteristics of the bullet. An eloquent critique analyzing the flaws of these "street results" and "one-shot stop" statistics is presented by Patrick.2

A typical example of the contradictions in this book is the following quotation from page 161, which indicates the authors are fully aware of the meaningless nature of these irrelevant and misleading "street results" and "one-shot stop" statistics:

"To make matters worse, all shooting results are anomalies, or single cases, unique to themselves. The data is strictly anecdotal. As such they blatantly defy direct comparison to one another. Each case is filled with variables almost beyond number. Some of these variables are real. Some are only perceived.

The real fact-based variables include, but are not limited to, the victim's state of mind, the presence of alcohol or other behavior-modifying chemicals such as PCP, and the physical size and stamina of the victim. Other variables include the barrel length and bullet impact velocity, the generation and condition of ammo used, and the presence of obstacles that the bullet passed through to reach the intended target.

The largest variable in any gunfight is the exact path the bullet takes from entry until exit and the exact tissue the bullet engages. Two bullet paths can be identical from entry to exit. If one happens to nick something like a major artery or chip a bone in the spine, the results can be wildly different, even if the rest of the scenario is identical."

Rating:
Summary: Very good, but still waiting for more information.
Review: This book is a continuation of the series that up dates the latest developments. Most of the information in it is useful and needed. The only reason I rated it down to 4 stars is because of chapter 16, the evaluation of the new personal defense ammunition. I feel like they are backsliding on their original opinions of ammunition in this chapter. My opinion of this ammunition is not nearly as high as theirs. I believe that the muzzle velocities are too slow and the resulting energies are too low. The Fuller index gives ratings that are way too low which shows that it is not properly designed for personal defense. The chapters on shotgun slugs and Triton ammo were excellent. As usual, the was no information on the distance at which the ballistic gelatin was shot. This is a needed addition to the series. A section on effective ranges of the listed cartridges would be most helpful. As it is, all of these books only give evaluations on point blank range. Overall, this book is a needed update and is well worth the money for students of terminal ballistics.

Rating:
Summary: Very good, but still waiting for more information.
Review: This book is a continuation of the series that up dates the latest developments. Most of the information in it is useful and needed. The only reason I rated it down to 4 stars is because of chapter 16, the evaluation of the new personal defense ammunition. I feel like they are backsliding on their original opinions of ammunition in this chapter. My opinion of this ammunition is not nearly as high as theirs. I believe that the muzzle velocities are too slow and the resulting energies are too low. The Fuller index gives ratings that are way too low which shows that it is not properly designed for personal defense. The chapters on shotgun slugs and Triton ammo were excellent. As usual, the was no information on the distance at which the ballistic gelatin was shot. This is a needed addition to the series. A section on effective ranges of the listed cartridges would be most helpful. As it is, all of these books only give evaluations on point blank range. Overall, this book is a needed update and is well worth the money for students of terminal ballistics.