I can understand you and others feel that way. For myself and some others though, we aren't betting the farm on Dr. Courtney's work alone. A number of us have always believed from what we've seen in the past that Dr. Courtney's work holds water. None of us claim to know the exact parameters of the percentage basis that all this works off of, but myself and some others do feel Dr. Courtney's work is a good start to what we already knew existed. I disagree. Before you ever flip a coin it's already known there's going to be a 50/50 chance it'll land heads or tails because there are only 2 possible outcomes reguardless of the amount of times you flip it consecutively. With Dr. Courtney's work each individual outcome is virtually infinite. I think we learn a lot more from individual outcomes that each have infinite possibilities, especially when beginning from a controlled study set up. Even if a data set 10 is a relatively small data set, it still holds statistical value. Maybe not to within the margin of error YOU would like to see, but statistically valid none-the-less. Which is exactly why it's ok for us as individuals to decide either yes or no toward applying Dr. Courtney's work to our choice of SD carry round. Heck, I already had it applied before Dr. Courtney's work even existed. Now with his work available I've simply fine-tuned my choice of an SD carry round. And hopefully in my lifetime it will have come to that. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it though. This may be seen as nitpicking, but in your wording I disagree from you use of the word "criticism". Criticism can be based on fact or fiction. Either it stands up over time or it doesn't. Currently it does. I don't believe you'll ever see a change in that overall, but only in fine-tuning of what we've learned so far. DocGKR has credibility at stake if Dr. Courtney's theory holds water at all. And again I strongly disagree with your use of the term "criticism". Criticism can be honest or dishonest. Criticism can also be anecdote and/or opinion therefore contradicting your choice of using the word "criticism". Again, you may see me as nitpicking your choice of wording. But in this specific example of your use of the word "criticism" I don't believe it can be rightly used, particularily in an open forum type setting. I can see where it could easily be taken that way. I didn't, but don't feel it will help to spend time expaining it so I'ld just as soon move on... First of all, I'm not aware that you're buying into Dr. Courtney's threory in any way whatsoever, as least not so in as much as you'll ever choose to apply it in your choice of carry ammo. Besides the fact that you overall seem to believe Dr. Courtney's work is flawed. That said, how can you even have an opinion on drugs or adrenalin effecting the possible effects of BPW? Heck, at this point there is no one in existance that assumes to know how BPW and it's incapacitating effects even work! But you somehow KNOW that drugs and adrenalin will lessen if not completely negate it's effects all together that you don't even seem to believe exist? Please explain. I guess I'm most specifically wondering what you do or don't believe. Maybe it's that you don't know yourself at this point. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, just saying. Fair enough. For me personally though, I don't care how it works as long as it does. Either greater retarding forces promote quicker incapacitation or they don't. Loosely, that's all I really care about. Kind of like my microwave. I don't care to know it's operating principals. All I care to know is that when I put some food in it for a certain amount of time is should come out warmer than when I first put it in the microwave. If you have to know the way everything works before you'll choose to use it, fine. I don't. There is no benefit to me in knowing why more PBPW incapacitates quicker on average, as long as it does. Well said. True, but like you said; "If." Craig Wanna kill these ads? We can help!