Originally Posted by pisc1024
Say what you will about the FBI criteria, but it has and is used by many law enforcement agencies to choose their ammo. This testing has shown to be a reliable predictor of how ammo will work in real world scenarios. I think this is one of the few times the .gov has gotten it right. It took a fairly epic fail from the FBI to wake them up sadly. If I'm not mistaken your new duty ammo dose quite well in the FBI tests, not too sure if that is why your agency chose it. Could you shed any light on it?
This is a classic error. "If lots of people use it, it must be OK." It woud be true if there was a fairly simple objective measure. As it is, it s very hard to get sound comparitive evidence for the effectiveness of different handgun rounds. In that cirumstance people tend to fall back on whatever will convince them, such as superior authority, or irelevant criteria, such as, "The government changed to .45ACP when the .38 did not stop the Moros and it has been working well ever since."
The FBI did have a fairly epic fail that made them want an objective measure. Unfortunately they did not understand what objective science implied in this case and they used authority again instead. They were probably the only agency in the country with the clout to get funding for a proper objective test but they didn't do it. At the least, that would have involved shooting lots of human sized animals under controlled conditions with at least some of them behind windscreens or car bodywork and correlating those findings with the same shots made on ballistic gelatine.
Instead of doing an objective study of what incapacitated animals quickly they jumped to insufficiently founded conclusions and reached a decision on a fallacious basis. The fact that they jumped from a hot part of the fire into a less hot part of the fire was a random product. More important is that the egos involved with the decision have made it hard to re-examine the study itself and do something better.