Originally Posted by pisc1024
Wow, well, where to begin? Of course saying "lots of people use it" is a dumb idea, no argument there. However dose "lots of people use it, and it has been PROVEN successful in real world shootings where lives were on the line" work better for you? I say that because that is what is really happening. I think that you personally don't like the FBI testing because it doesn’t take into account BPW, which I think has been proven to be a non player in handguns. So you suffer from the "testing doesn’t jive with my world view so I'm not going to take it into account, and I'm also going to rip on it every chance I get" side of things. See how that works?
Where indeed! We can start with the idea of "proven". What do you think it means? What it does not mean is that lots of people shot with 9mms have died as a result. Lots of people would die whatever they were shot with. What matters is the time it takes before you can stop shooting them and such evidence as I have seen, none of which is much more than anecdotal with the exception of the BPW work, is that it takes more shots with a 9mm than with a .40S&W or 357SIG to stop someone shooting back. That is practical street results and not some hypothesizing about how quickly and accurately a 9mm can be shot relative to other cartridges.
I disliked the FBI protocol long before BPW effects had been heard of so that little idea doesn't fly. See how that works? I have a strong tendency to attack any kind of nonsense and that is nothing to do with my "world view" beyond the general principle that nonsense should not be left around to replicate itself via lazy minds. Fackler's dogmatic ideas have clearly been nonsense from the begining. It shows a great deal for the dominance of his personality that they have become so firmly entrenched in so many minds and organisations.
If there is one thing that has been firmly established it is that BPW effects are a significant factor within hangun cartridges. They range from zero through a little to quite a lot. What they don't do is provide a guarantee of a one shot stop, but no one in support of the idea EVER suggested that they did so.
I think we have been over this before, but humans and what they do, how they react after being shot are not animals. Animal testing may have its place, but to take a live pig, sit him behind the wheel of a car and shoot at him is just dumb.
Also, larger agencies these days can and do perform their own ballistic testing. They determine what they are most concerned with, and that is what they test for. Most of them are some sort of abbreviated version of the FBI
You know as well as I do that we have been over this before. To some kinds of injuries under some circumstances, animals and humans will react differently. To injuries which produce measurable brain dysfunction they are much the same. How determined you are to fight on in insignificant if you are unconcious beause determination and anger are functions of consciousness. That is as true for animals as it is for men under all circumstances. You, as a fighting man, might take comfort from your fighting spirit, but if you are unconscious it is having no effect.
The primary measure of handgun cartridge effectiveness is how quickly that state incapacity to keep functioning at a lethal level, even if not actual unconsciousness, can be achieved. The secondary measure is how much each hit reduces the chance of your opponent firing back at you before you can fire again.
Testing loads on gelatine is useful only if you can correlate the damage done to the gelatine with the probability of those two measures. That work has never been done. The Courtney's BPW work did not attempt to do it and no one else has attempted to do it. Testing on animals can never be a perfect model for results on people but it is the best that we can do. What you are claiming is that because it isn't perfect we should settle for some half baked idea of what works and what doesn't.
Shooting a pig or a goat is not dumb if the animal is wired up so that the experimenter can see what hapens to its brain waves and signals passing up and down the CNS to and from the muscles. If you want to know how that changes if an identical bullet has first passed through a windscreen or car bodywork you do that as well because other wise you are just guessing. You know what a guess is don't you? It is jumping to a conclusion without sound logic or evidence!
I think that after you have a tragedy like the Miami shootout most people put their ego's in check for a little while. I have seen it happen several times in my life. To say that ego had any reflection on this testing protocol is just despicable personal supposition on your part. You say that they came to a fallacious conclusion? Well then why have they not had some sort of terminal ballistics related disaster ala Miami in the 20+ years since? The FBI and hundreds if not thousands of LEAs seem to be doing just fine with the protocols being proven every day out on the streets of America.
You are confusing a number of things in the apparent belief that they are one. There were several obvious conclusions from the Miami shootout which had little to do with ego. The first was that agents and LEOs should anticipate being in a crash when chasing determined and competent criminals. The follow ons from that are that it is very dangerous to have your only sidearm on the seat under your thigh and that if you depend on glasses to defend yourself and to continue the mission they must be atttacked to you or you must have a spare pair immediately available after a crash. The second is that snub nosed .38Sps are rubbish if you are in a running gun fight with car bodies in the way. They don't have enough power or penetration.
The tactical and equipment lessons learned from this were obvious and if the FBI had just applied those lessons and changed to high capacity 9mms without doing anything else, that alone would have prevented a similar future catastrophe. Undoubtedly there were some who had been claiming that a .38 snubbie was all a proper agent needed, and their egos would have been hurt, but I suspect there were no where near as many of those as now claim the 9mm is all anyone needs. The thing was that there was no major figure whose reputation and carreer was tied to that idea and so minds could change.
The FBI then went further, and that was a good thing because once they had found the .38 to be wanting they should want to know how much better something else would be, if at all. Perhaps all handgun rounds did suck equally after all.
The problem then was that a proper study had to be set up with people of importance and reputation working on it. Now you had real ego problems, but this was virtually inevitable no matter who was involved. This study had to come up with definitive answers in a field which was difficult and full of clap trap. Those answers, right or wrong, would hang round the necks of the principle people for the rest of their careers. They would also hang round the necks of those people who accepted the results of the study and so a lot of important and powerful figures would be invested in maintaining that they were right regardless of future evidence.
One of the first errors of the study set up was its dismissal of anecdotal evidence and its acceptance of the principle that an assailant could only be forced to stop fighting from a direct hit to the CNS or by sufficient loss of blood pressure and flow to the CNS and skeletal muscles. They denied anecdotal evidence but failed to replace it with scientific evidence of effect rather than principle.
Unfortunately these early decisions were incompatible because there was lots of sound anecdotal evidence that many criminals shot collapsed imediately even though they had not been hit in the CNS. Rather than investigate this evidence the study members and associates rubbished it in a scurrilous manner. The LEOs concerned were jumping on a band wagon to gain attention, their time sense was distorted, they were lying, people were falling over when shot because they knew from movies that was what they were supposed to do, and so on. This was the egos of powerful people at work and it was quite shameful. People tasked with making agents safer were more concerned with safe guarding heir reputations than correcting their own mistakes.
You, Pisces, think that, "The FBI and hundreds if not thousands of LEAs seem to be doing just fine with the protocols being proven every day out on the streets of America." but you don't understand the meaning of proof. We don't know how "fine" the are doing because we are stil not doing the work to find out and because many are still sticking to the idea you share with them and denying such evidence as there is. In the mean time it is very possible that many of those FBI agents and LEOs that have died in gunfights would not have been dead if they had been better armed.