What ever happened to Triton Ammo company?  I use to carry their .45ACP and their 10mm Quick Shock ammo and they were very reasonably priced for Law Enforcement purchase.  I was going to buy some of their .45 ACP 165 Grain Lite loads for my Kimber Compact and tried to get on their site a while back and noticed that it was down.  I have searched but I haven't found any info on the company.  Anybody know what happened?

no longer in existance.  There's better ammo out there anyway.

Quoted: What ever happened to Triton Ammo company?  I use to carry their .45ACP and their 10mm Quick Shock ammo and they were very reasonably priced for Law Enforcement purchase.  I was going to buy some of their .45 ACP 165 Grain Lite loads for my Kimber Compact and tried to get on their site a while back and noticed that it was down.  I have searched but I haven't found any info on the company.  Anybody know what happened?hr

Triton went out of business, more due to bad management than bad ammo.  The Quik-Shok design is very impressive, and the rights were sold to American Ammunition.  Amerc has shipped some quantities in 9mm, but I am unsure if other loads of the Quik-Shok design have shipped yet.  However, some of the ammo retailers still have some original Triton loads in stock.

Michael Courtney

quick shock underpenetrates.

Quoted: quick shock underpenetrates.

If you adhere to the Fackler penetration religion, you might say that Quik-Shok underpenetrates.  (Religion being defined as a belief based on expert pontification rather than objective scientific evidence.)

Quik-Shok penetrates 10" in gelatin.  In carefully controlled experiments, we've seen it penetrate very well and perform very well in deer.  From a variety of shot angles, we've seen it penetrate at least to the far side of the thoracic cavity every single time.  The lungs are pulverized far beyond what we've seen with any other handgun bullet design.   On average, deer shot with the Quik-Shok in .357 Sig run half as far as deer shot with a 147 grain hollow point at 9mm velocities.  Seeing how effectively the Quik-Shok destroys tissue and how quickly it incapacitates, most people would gladly trade 2" of penetration for the extra performance.

Michael Courtney

gelatin tests are scientific analysis, shooting a deer with a 9mm no only proves nothing as you have no control but is irresponsible and generally illegal in mosts states.

Quoted: gelatin tests are scientific analysis,

Fackler has done a good job of showing that the average penetration depths in gelatin are close to the average penetration depths in tissue.  He has published no scientific work  to support his opinion that the optimal penetration depth is at least 12".  Therefore, his claim that 12" is the minumum penetration depth is more of a religious belief (based on expert opinion rather than the scientific method) than a scientific result.

shooting a deer with a 9mm no only proves nothing as you have no control but is irresponsible and generally illegal in mosts states.

We didn't shoot "a" deer, we shot a sufficiently large sample for the results to be significant and the conclusions to be meaningful (based on standard techniques of error analysis and scientific validity.)  We also had very good controls.  The shot placement was in a small region in the center of the chest.  The angle was the same for every shot.  The terrain was well controlled (the same for every shot).  The average size and size distribution of the deer were very close between the different bullets tested.   The range was the same for every shot.  The impact velocity was very close to the muzzle velocity.   The deer were necropsied by an team of scientists including an individual with a PhD in Biomedical Engineering from Harvard university to confirm uniformity of shot placement and the general health of the deer prior to the shot.  The scientists involved agreed that the experiment was well controlled and that the average distances that resulted are a valid comparison between the bullets tested.  What more controls would you want in terms of a live animal experiment?  

Testing the performance of 9mm bullets on deer is legal in many states.  If the 9mm cartridge itself is not legal for deer hunting, there are several options.  One option is to shoot the deer under agricultural damage control conditions where the permitees are often not bound by sport hunting regulations.  Another option is to use a rifle chambered in 9mm, rather than a pistol.  Another option involves pulling the bullet from the 9mm case and loading it in a cartridge that is legal for deer hunting.  9mm bullets can be shot accurately from .357 Magnum cases, and loads can be developped that give a 9mm muzzle velocity at whatever range the deer are being shot.  (It's not difficult to adapt a 9mm TC Contender barrel for a .357 Magnum case with a chamber reaming operation.)  Another option is to load the 9mm bullet in sabot in a 45 caliber muzzle loader and develop a load that gives the proper velocity at whatever range the deer are to be shot.

Your presupposition that using deer for a well controlled experiment in handgun bullet effectiveness shows a lack of understanding of the possibilities for controlling the variables.  Your presupposition that shooting deer with a 9mm was probably illegal shows a lack of imagination and a lack of knowledge of the ballistic possibilities to work with a given state's wildlife regulations.

Finally, let me say that I wouldn't want to depend on any load in a self-defense role if the same load couldn't be depended on to drop deer quickly and cleanly.  Deer routinely run up to 100 yards when well hit with well-accepted hunting projectiles (broadheads on arrows, expanding rifle bullets), so I was quite impressed with the Quik-Shok performance dropping the deer in an average under 50 yards.  The 147 grain Winchester JHP in 9mm was much less impressive with several of the deer going over 100 yards, and one of them still very much alive 5 minutes after the shot when the scientist went out to recover the carcass and prepare for the necropsy.  We've never seen this happen in a single case for the bullets which perform well in people (M&S OSS > 80%) or in goats (< 7 seconds AIT in Strasbourg tests).  The results in deer actually correlate so well with the Strasbourg test results that the scientists conclude with at least 90% certainty that the Strasbourg tests were conducted as described and that the reported average incapacitation times are accurate.  Add to this the fact that the Strasbourg test correlate well with the M&S OSS data and you've got significant experimental evidence that the M&S data set represent a valid basis for comparing the effectiveness of different handgun loads.

Now that the validity of the M&S OSS data is experimentally confirmed, the analysis that Steve Fuller performed on that data set is compelling.  Fuller's analysis shows that the optimum penetration depth for maximum handgun bullet efectiveness is under 10".

Michael Courtney

Thanks for all of the replies.  Sorry to get a debate stirred uphat

The largest attempt to confirm the M&S study, done by Dick Fairburn, failed to replicate M&S results. Fairburn spent 3 years collecting detailed shooting information. He managed to collect only 187 cases despite his persistence, involving just four handgun calibers. Despite using a less stringent model (Fairburn included shootings involving multiple torso hits), this study found only a 49% stopping percentage, versus the 78% stopping percentage for these same four calibers in the M&S studies published to that point. Oh, did I mention that Evan Marshall tried to get Fairburn to not do his study? Whatever would motivate Marshall to do this? The world can only wonder.

Now a study using deer confirms a study using goats, since both got similar results. Both studies are to be taken as confirmation of a third study (using people) which shows a correlation to the first two ungulate studies. On the other hand, a study using people undermines the other study using people, since it got significantly different results. We are asked to ignore this second human subject study, and go with the deer and goats ones instead.

Until Dr. Courtney's study is peer reviewed, published in a reputable scientific journal, and independently replicated, and the authors of the the Strasbourg Tests step forward to answer questions, I will continue to views their theories as unproven. YMMV.

heard that they were gone

i got 500rnds of .45acp and 150 rnds of .357sig (for guns I DONT have yet) from a closeout that sportsmansguide had a week ago....not sure if they have any more left (they also had .40sw triton)

Quoted: The largest attempt to confirm the M&S study, done by Dick Fairburn, failed to replicate M&S results. Fairburn spent 3 years collecting detailed shooting information. He managed to collect only 187 cases despite his persistence, involving just four handgun calibers.

It is very hard to replicate a study with 13,000+ shootings with only 187 cases.

In addition, it is important to note that M&S themselves and most people who see validity in their study only view their work as valid for comparing the relative effectives of different loads, not as saying anything about the absolute effectiveness of a given load.  In other words, the only validity is that a 90% OSS is better than an 80% OSS rating, not that a load rated at 90% will actually produce an effective stop 90% of the time.

Quoted: Despite using a less stringent model (Fairburn included shootings involving multiple torso hits), this study found only a 49% stopping percentage, versus the 78% stopping percentage for these same four calibers in the M&S studies published to that point.

Within the statistical errors of the Fairburn study (due to the small number of cases), there is good agreement on the relative effectiveness of different handgun loads between the two studies.  Therefore, if one properly views the M&S study as relevant only to the relative effectiveness of different handgun loads, one has to conclude that the two studies agree with each other.

Quoted: Now a study using deer confirms a study using goats, since both got similar results. Both studies are to be taken as confirmation of a third study (using people) which shows a correlation to the first two ungulate studies. On the other hand, a study using people undermines the other study using people, since it got significantly different results.

The Fairburn and M&S studies have a high level of correlation when viewed to be studies in the relative effectiveness of different loads rather than studies of the absolute effectiveness.  (Studies in absolute effectiveness would have a much different design and sampling methods.)  Therefore, the Fairburn study actually supports the M&S results.

Quoted: We are asked to ignore this second human subject study, and go with the deer and goats ones instead.

Not at all.  You are only asked not to misinterpret the M&S study as anything more than a study of the relative effectiveness of different loads.  You can't compare two studies of relative effectiveness and claim they don't agree based on difference in the absolute numbers.

Quoted: Until Dr. Courtney's study is peer reviewed, published in a reputable scientific journal, and independently replicated, and the authors of the the Strasbourg Tests step forward to answer questions, I will continue to views their theories as unproven. YMMV.

If you mean that you won't agree with my conclusions until the IWBA and Fackler accepts them, you might be waiting a long time.  The experiments themselves are easy to repeat and validate.  The ultimate arbiter of scientific truth is repeatable experiment and not expert opinion.  The simple and direct nature of our experiments provide compelling evidence to the pressure wave contribution to handgun bullet incapacitation that will be accepted by many people in the ballistics field.  The fact that the pressure wave contribution might be rejected for some time by entrenched interests who have previously espoused other views is not going to be a big surprise.    

The authors of any scientific study don't have to "step forward and answer questions" if their results can be independently reproduced by other scientists.  The burden in science is to describe one's experiment in sufficient detail that it can be repeated by others, not to provide answers to every question that might be raised about a study.  Many scientists who participate in live animal studies keep their identities quiet in order to avoid harassment by the animal rights wackos.  

Repeatability is much more important to scientific validity than acceptance by the prevailing "experts" at the time.  A lot of important scientific discoveries were ridiculed by the experts of the time when they were originally presented, but these discoveries were ultimately vindicated by repeatability.

Michael Courtney

Overall, don't forget to practice.  Shot placement is what kills.  

<--- killed many deer.  

Quoted: Overall, don't forget to practice.  Shot placement is what kills.

I agree 100%!

Quoted: Overall, don't forget to practice.  Shot placement is what kills.

The goal in self-defense shootings is rapid incapacitation of a threat, rather than the death of the threat.   And indeed, shot placement is very important to rapid incapacitation.  However, even with very good shot placement (center of the chest), some handgun loads incapacitate much more rapidly than others.  Therefore, finding which loads incapacitate more quickly is a worthy undertaking.

Michael Courtney

I don't trust anything is incapacitated until it's dead or in cuffs and disarmed.  

Seen plenty of deer look incapacitated and then get up and shake it off and run like nothing happened a couple minutes later.

Same thing happens with people.  You might have thought you incapacitated somebody and then let your guard down and they wake up and kill you.

That's why I subscribe to the philosophy of if you're going to shoot somebody, make sure they're dead.  Otherwise it wasn't worth shooting them in the first place.

Quoted: I don't trust anything is incapacitated until it's dead or in cuffs and disarmed.   Seen plenty of deer look incapacitated and then get up and shake it off and run like nothing happened a couple minutes later. Same thing happens with people.  You might have thought you incapacitated somebody and then let your guard down and they wake up and kill you. That's why I subscribe to the philosophy of if you're going to shoot somebody, make sure they're dead.  Otherwise it wasn't worth shooting them in the first place.

Even if this is what you really believe, expressing it in an internet forum isn't very wise as it will come back and bite you if you ever end up on trial as a result of a lethal force encounter.

If someone has fallen and does not appear conscious, then they are no longer an imminent threat, and your fear that they might "wake up and kill you" does not justify continuing to shoot.  The forensic evidence will show both the position of their body and the position of their gun hand when the final shots were fired and you will go to trial and most likely be convicted.

I was discussing a case very similar to this last week with the LEO who teaches Criminalistics.  The key point in exposing the self-defense claim as bogus in a recent murder case he investigated was the fact that the shooter kept shooting after the victim was down and no longer able to shoot.  It's a slam-dunk murder conviction if the forensic evidence people do their jobs right.

Once a self-defense shooter realizes his target has ceased to be an imminent threat, he must cease and desist shooting until and unless it becomes apparent the threat is present and imminent once again.  Most self-defense and LEO training emphasizes keeping the former threat covered with the gun or at least keeping the gun at low ready and paying careful attention to the situation

Michael Courtney

Stopping after every shot to assess whether or not the bad guy is incapicitated is not the way you want to go about it.

You empty your gun into them with the best of your ability, reload, then if they're still moving, empty another magazine in them.  If they're still moving, you still have ammo and the ability, empty another magazine into them.  If they're not moving at all within the time frame of a gun fight, then it's likely because they're dead or going to be dead shortly, so it's a moot point.  Anything less than that and they're still a threat.

If you're in a situation where you can afford the luxury of assessing whether a person is "sufficiently" incapacitated in the middle of rounds, then you're not in a justifiable shooting anyway, because you had time and opportunity to flight rather than fight.  

I'm not talking about walking up to somebody cool and calmly and finishing them off with a round to the head just to make sure their dead.  Please don't misinterpret me.

Most typically to ensure incapacitation within the time frame of a gun fight means you have to shoot to kill resulting in their death.

Quoted: Stopping after every shot to assess whether or not the bad guy is incapicitated is not the way you want to go about it.

Correct.

The proper approach is to shoot until the threat has been neutralized.

But if they go from standing and pointing a gun at you laying on the ground, there is opportunity to re-asses while you re-acquire a sight picture.  If you keep shooting after they are on the ground, you had better be able to prove that they still constituted an iminent threat.

Quoted: You empty your gun into them with the best of your ability, reload, then if they're still moving, empty another magazine in them.

You clearly haven't seen how many claims of self-defense play out in court.  "Still moving" is not justification to "empty another magazine in them" after you reload.  The time it takes to reload is sufficient to determine whether or not the threat is still imminent, and if the target has gone from standing to laying on the ground, most juries will have a reasonable expectation that you should have reassessed the situation.  

Quoted: If they're still moving, you still have ammo and the ability, empty another magazine into them.  If they're not moving at all within the time frame of a gun fight, then it's likely because they're dead or going to be dead shortly, so it's a moot point.  Anything less than that and they're still a threat.

"Still moving" is insufficient to demonstrate the person's ability, opportunity, and intent to cause great bodily harm.  

Quoted: If you're in a situation where you can afford the luxury of assessing whether a person is "sufficiently" incapacitated in the middle of rounds, then you're not in a justifiable shooting anyway, because you had time and opportunity to flight rather than fight.

I am not suggesting assessing between every shot.  I am suggesting re-assessing if the attacker falls to the ground or there is a need to reload.

Quoted: I'm not talking about walking up to somebody cool and calmly and finishing them off with a round to the head just to make sure their dead.  Please don't misinterpret me.

The forensic evidence will determine the position of the target and the angle from which the shot was fired.  If the target is on the ground and you're shooting at a downward angle, the prosecution is going to describe the physical evidence as portraying a scene where you walked up calmly and finished them off.  Combined with your statements here that your intent is to kill rather than merely incapacitate, you'll most likely be spending a long time in prison unless you can show that the person still presented an imminent threat from the ground (they were still conscious and able to shoot a gun at you).

Quoted: Most typically to ensure incapacitation within the time frame of a gun fight means you have to shoot to kill resulting in their death.

The expert witnesses are going to crucify you if you try and argue this in court.  There are simply too many cases of people surviving after being incapacitated by handgun rounds.

Michael Courtney

Are you one of those people who come in to a message board just to tell everybody they're wrong about everything and that you are end of all of know it alls?

All that is your opinion, and you're entitled to it.  I'm still going to follow my own opinion based on my life's experiences and learnings.

Examine the term "justifiable use of lethal force."  Lethal = deadly in my dictionary, as in dead.   You were in a situation which allowed you to kill the bad guy.  People that get themselves into trouble claiming a self defense argument didn't have the justification to shoot in the first place.  If you have 100% justification to shoot in the first place, whether or not you killed the guy trying to stop him is moot after that.  

The way I feel about it, is if somebody is shooting at you and you got them on the ground but they're still moving and armed, they're still posing a threat and if you're still in a position where you can't avoid his shots (which is the only reason you should be shooting in the first place), you can keep shooting to eliminate that threat and the only way to do that reliably and fairly quickly is with a fatal shot, i.e. shooting to kill.  That's what I mean when I say shoot to kill because that is the only sure method of incapacitation.

Quoted: There are simply too many cases of people surviving after being incapacitated by handgun rounds.

Of course, but that's not because it was a planned result.

Quoted: All that is your opinion, and you're entitled to it.  I'm still going to follow my own opinion based on my life's experiences and learnings.

Almost every one who teaches or gives legal advice on the subject of self-defense emphasizes that you shoot to stop, not to kill.

Michael Courtney

Dr. Courtney:

Until your study is published, peer reviewed and confirmed by subsequent independent researchers it has little credibility. You are just a guy making claims on the internet. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that is life. We have yet to see a single statistical test,  p-value, photo, graph, or formula. We only have your claims.

Plenty of people on the internet claim to have done things that never were.

Please keep us posted as to when and where we can read your study.

Quoted: Dr. Courtney: Until your study is published, peer reviewed and confirmed by subsequent independent researchers it has little credibility. You are just a guy making claims on the internet. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that is life. We have yet to see a single statistical test,  p-value, photo, graph, or formula. We only have your claims. Plenty of people on the internet claim to have done things that never were. Please keep us posted as to when and where we can read your study.

Of course one needs to read a more complete description of our work.  On the other hand, I am more than "just a guy making claims on the internet."  Most internet trolls are anonymous.  I have identified myself, described my credentials in some detail (as well as the credentials of my colleagues), and provided means by which those credentials can be verified.  

Your point that scientific work needs to be "independently verified" is a very good one; but on the other hand you run the risk of falling into a trap of never being satisfied.  You see, in many ways the goal of our experimental design was to independently test the Strasbourg results (particularly the average incapacitation times and the pressure wave aspects).  So demanding that our work be independently confirmed by yet another experiment brings up the question of how many independent confirmations you think are necessary.  In other words, if our work is verfied by an independent project, then are you going to insist that the independent project which confirms our results be confirmed by yet another independent project before you give it credibility?  You see, demanding repeatability is one thing, always demanding at least one more experiment is something else.  Fortunately, we were very careful in the designs of our live animal experiments to maximize the ease with which future researchers can repeat our results, and we have a high level of confidence that any group which implements the same careful control will yield results that are the same (within the margins of error determined by standard statistical techniques of error analysis, of course.)  Our analytical results (based on the Strasbourg and M&S data) will also be very simple to reproduce for anyone with the appropriate analysis skills.

Rather than repeating our work in deer, I think it would me much more enlightening to look for the incapacitation effects of the pressure wave in another species of comparable size with humans.  In other words, take two handgun loads which produce comparable permanent crush cavity volumes, but differ by a wide margin (factor of 3 or 4) in the pressure wave they create.  If the only contributor to rapid incapacitation is wound channel, the average incapacitation measure (time or distance) will not be statistically different between the two loads.  If the load with the greater pressure wave produces a significantly more rapid average incapacitation, the experiment has confirmed in another species that the pressure wave makes a significant contribution to incapacitation.  Of course, factors such as shot placement, animal size and health, etc. need to be carefully controlled (as they were in our deer experiment).  I believe that feral hogs and black bear are excellent candidates for this type of experiment.  Of course, a full picture wil require more than two loads.  But three to five pairs of loads (each pair with the same crush cavity size and different pressure wave magnitudes) is probably sufficient to repeatedly see the more rapid incapacitation time due to the pressure wave.  

One of the things our paper will present is a formula for average incapacitation time as a function of permanent crush cavity and pressure wave magnitude.  We believe that our formula is quite general and applies to a wide variety of animal species.  Each species will have a characteristic crush cavity size and pressure wave magnitude which is species dependent, but otherwise, we believe that the functional form of how incapacitation time depends on pressure wave and crush cavity may be the same for different species.   Since our model only has  two adjustable parameters (the characteristic crush cavity size and pressure wave magnitude for a given species), testing 6-10 different loads in a given species is sufficient to see whether or not our model applies to a given species.

My point in the earlier post was that it is obvious that there are certain "peers" in the field of terminal ballistics that are already entrenched in their position and have already spoken out so definitively against the M&S works and Strasbourg goat tests that they are unlikely to be very quick to view new research positively if this new research tends to support the M&S and Strasbourg results.  

If a researcher in the field of terminal ballistics has a track record of going beyond the normal tenor of scientific discussion and engaging in ad hominem attacks and exaggerations when writing of work with which he disagrees, then it's probably not unreasonable to expect a certain amount of prejudice when that researcher comments on subsequent works which tend to support earlier research with which that researcher vehemently disagrees.

The terminal ballistics debate has been polarized to the degree that almost no one whose work or viewpoint shows any level of agreement with M&S or Strasbourg is considered a legitimate peer by the IWBA crowd.  If the very definition of "peer" in scientific "peer review" only contains one viewpoint, then peer review is much less objective than experimental repeatability.  

The bottom line is that expecting Fackler or any of the FBI or IWBA people to agree with any work which tends to support M&S or Strasbourg is unreasonable, regardless of the quality of the work.  There are many people in the field of wound ballistics that are so committed to the idea that incapacitation can only result from wounding that is evident to a trauma surgeon or medical examiner that this becomes a prejudice and significant obstacle in evaluating work which suggests otherwise.  Even calling the field "wound ballistics" rather than "terminal ballistics" demonstrates a prejudice toward the position that wounding is central and necessary to rapid incapacitation.

Michael Courtney

I truly appreciate Dr Courtney's research and presentations here!

He is not 'selling' a one cartridge, one bullet, one load, ultimate design but rather a researched rating system that bears a correlation to real world results.

The real world introduces more variables than can be effectively researched.

I first look at how the tests were conducted. I also have to be satisfied that the methods approximate what I would expect to encounter. If I am satisfied with the methods, then I read on.

If I accept the research as valid, then I have to accept the results! That can be the hardest part. I am a .45 ACP fan and not one research rates it as the "the best". I accept that I am carrying "the 2nd best" and don't lose any sleep over it.

On the other hand I also have been a devotee of the Keith style bullet and those have never been supported in any of the more recent research… They are relegated to practice now.

I would hope that members would welcome someone who clearly has the ability to discuss matters rather than pass along self-righteous clichés.

The only thing shooting deer, bear or pigs definitively proves is how well the cartridge works on those particular animals.

When an animal gets shot it doesn't understand it's been shot like a human does.   Animals also don't have the thought processes and reasoning of a human.  Therefore, the mental reaction within an animal getting shot is completely irrelevant to a human's mental reaction from getting shot.  These mental differences result in differences in physical reaction.

Secondly, there are anatomical differences between humans and animals.  Animals are four legged and their chest is deeper than wide.  Human chests are wider than deep and move with two legs.  

So while animal testing may be fun and an interesting endevor, I don't feel it has as much merit in predicting human outcomes as the Mr. Courtney professes, although it is thoughtful.

Quoted: Almost every one who teaches or gives legal advice on the subject of self-defense emphasizes that you shoot to stop, not to kill.

Semantics.

The way to stop somebody is to aim for a spot that's going to kill them.   If the instructors aren't teaching that, then they're endangering peoples' lives.

Quoted: The only thing shooting deer, bear or pigs definitively proves is how well the cartridge works on those particular animals.

Scientists generally accept that once an effect is demonstrated in experiments on several different mammals of varying physiology that this is compelling evidence that the effect probably occurs in humans also.  This is the underlying basis for most live animal research and has proven true much more often than it has proven false in research in many areas of biology and medicine.

Now when the effect that is demonstrated in live animal experiments can also be correlated with epidemiological-type studies in humans it's generally accepted to be confirmation of the validity of the statistical studies in humans and it is basically a slam dunk that the effect is occuring in humans.

Asserting that science should adopt a different set of rules for studying bullet effectiveness is completely unwarranted when the set of rules is very well established and has been shown to be reliable in so many other areas of biological and medical research.

Michael Courtney

There may be some correlation between animal results vs. human results on ammo choices.  However, I feel these difference are miniscule in relation to the whole picture.

Without the person the bullet is going nowhere.  Shootability and training are what makes a bullet deadly.  If you want to become more lethal, spend more time practicing than slaving over a PC keyboard trying to convince the world of all that mumbo jumbo.

A .32 FMJ to the heart is going to incapicitate much faster than 125 gr .357 that missed.  When you shoot at people in a self defense situation, they aren't going to be standing broadside oblivious to your actions like a poor little groundhog.  You won't have time to set up your shot carefully, breathe off as you squeeze the trigger.

You're going to need a weapon, bullet, skill combination that allows you to point and fire and hit a vital spot repeatedly in seconds.

You can go around with the best baddest bullet around, but if you've spent all your time researching which bullet might be better than the rest, which is marginal, instead of training to learn which weapon/bullet combo you shoot best and train with it until it's like pointing your finger, you might as well be out there with a brick.

Dr. Courtney,

I am trying to be as polite as possible. I am certain that you are a physicist from MIT, and that you currently teach physics and math at Lorain County Community College in Elyria, Ohio. I also believe you did the study you keep referring to. My issues with your claims are two-fold.

First, you  have not provided nearly enough information to determine whether your study has validity. You have not given anywhere near enough information about the experimental design, sampling methods, potential confounding factors, control of untested variables, etc.  I am sorry, but until I see this information, as well as information on sample sizes, what statistical tests were performed on the data, at what levels of significance, and estimates of error, it is not enough to make a judgement.

Second, you decry the IWBA followers for worshipping expert opinion. However, you have giving us even less to go on. We are to take on PURE FAITH that your study took place, that it got the results you claim, and that it as important as you believe. It may be all those things, but until others can read it and replicate it, we do not know

My advice would be to stop referring others to your study results until those results are published. Then there can be a scholarly debate with the evidence available to discuss things in a reasonable and rational manner. Science is full of studies that never made it to publication because during the review process, errors were uncoverd which undermined the results. I am not saying this will happen to your study, but it may. Who knows.

Patience, like all the great virtues, is not easy to master.

Preliminary scientific results are shared in informal venues all the time before they've had the benefit of publication, review by the scientific community, and attempts at replication.  

Most interested parties are excited and grateful to sneek a peak and consider the potential implications of scientific results prior to publication.  Of course publication and all that entails bring greater merit and ability to fully evaluate the results.  But I've never known any interested party to take the position of "Don't bother to refer to your research until it is published."  

On the contrary, getting a discussion going about some of the main ideas in a research project is an important part of the process of preparing work for publication.  It allows the authors to see how to best communicate findings and avoid miscommunications with readers.  It allows the authors to see how readers view earlier contributions in the field and to explore the biases that readers might bring when considering the description of the more recent study.  Sharing our work in forums such as this one has also led to forum participants pointing out a few lesser known published papers (European mostly) that we should include as references in our paper.  (Regardless of the quality and thoroughness of one's literature search, you always miss something.  It's better to have someone point out a missed reference in an informal setting, than get berated by an angry reviewer for missing their "seminal" paper.)

Finally, sharing research results prior to publication usually considerably speeds up the process of the research being repeated and extended by other parties.  I've had past projects go back and forth in the typical editing/review/wait cycles of publishing for over two years from the time the project completed until the publication hit the streets.   Sharing our work in forums such as this one has already provided an opportunity to advise the experimental design for a group doing a study suprisingly similar to ours in feral hogs.  By communicating about experimental design, the results of the two studies will be easier to compare.  

Michael Courtney

Great! Since we are very interested in the topic, can we get a sneak peak at just a tiny bit of the data? In several threads, you have touted the .357 SIG and downplayed the effectiveness of 147 gr. 9mm loads.

For both calibers, pick a representative loading and provide the sample size, mean and median distance to incapacitation, maximum and minimum distances, and standard deviation. Even better would be to provide all data points in the sample for each of the two chosen loads. Obviously, we will also need to know the two key input factor levels for both loads.

I would also like to know what possible confounding effects your team investigated, and how they were ruled out as potential causes of the phenomenon you report. Finally, I would be very interested in simply knowing what statistical methods your team used to prove the correlation between TSC and incapacitation distance was significant, and at what level.

As you can see, I am not asking for anything that should violate any reasonable non-disclosure agreement. Only information that would allow us to better evaluate the validity of your conclusions.

Quoted: Great! Since we are very interested in the topic, can we get a sneak peak at just a tiny bit of the data? In several threads, you have touted the .357 SIG and downplayed the effectiveness of 147 gr. 9mm loads. For both calibers, pick a representative loading and provide the sample size, mean and median distance to incapacitation, maximum and minimum distances, and standard deviation. Even better would be to provide all data points in the sample for each of the two chosen loads. Obviously, we will also need to know the two key input factor levels for both loads. I would also like to know what possible confounding effects your team investigated, and how they were ruled out as potential causes of the phenomenon you report. Finally, I would be very interested in simply knowing what statistical methods your team used to prove the correlation between TSC and incapacitation distance was significant, and at what level. As you can see, I am not asking for anything that should violate any reasonable non-disclosure agreement. Only information that would allow us to better evaluate the validity of your conclusions.

Some of the details you've asked for violate the non-disclosure, other details do not.  

Here's what I'm allowed to say at this point:

Load: .357 Sig 115 grain Triton Quik-Shok at 1450 FPS impact velocity
Mean Incapacitation Distance: 49.6 Yards
Uncertainty in Mean Incapacitation Distance: 14.6 Yards
Predicted Incapacitation Distance (from Strasbourg tests): 48 Yards
Permanent Crush Cavity Volume: 4.1 cubic inches
Pressure Wave Magnitude (1" from wound channel): 246.7 PSI

Load: 9mm 147 Grain Winchester JHP (WWB) at 990 FPS impact velocity
Mean Incapacitation Distance: 97.6 Yards
Uncertainty in Mean Incapacitation Distance: 15.7 Yards
Predicted Incapacitation Distance (from Strasbourg tests): 99 Yards
Permanent Crush Cavity Volume: 4.2 cubic inches
Average Pressure Wave Magnitude (1" from wound channel): 76.4 PSI

These predicted incapacitation distances simply take the most comparable load used in the Strasbourg goat tests and multiply the Strasbourg incapacitation times by 10 yards per second.  (This relation between average velocity and incapacition time in deer is from previously published work testing hunting bullet effectiveness in deer.)  Using Chi-square analysis, one can compare the predictions from Strasbourg with our results and conclude with at least 90% confidence level that the Strasbourg results are not fraudulent.

Because the PCC volumes between the two bullets are comparable and the incapacitation distance for the 115 grain Quik-Shok is significantly smaller, one can conclude with at least 90% certainty that there is a significant contribution to incapacitation other than the PCC volume.

With 90% confidence that the Strasbourg average incapacitation times are genuine, one can use regression analysis (least squares fitting) to show correlations between the Strasbourg average incapacitation times and gelatin parameters (PCC, TSC, pressure wave).  Depending on the model, one obtains correlation coefficients are between 0.6 and 0.7 for TSC alone.  These are significantly larger than correlations between the average incapacitation times and PCC alone (under 0.5).  The pressure wave magnitude gives the highest correlation coefficient (0.75) in regression analysis using a single independent variable.  A model using both pressure wave and PCC does a bit better at giving the incapacitation times.

In our study on deer, the animals were weighed and necropsied to minimize confounding effects.  Sample groups for different loads have nearly the same average weight and weight distributions.  Shot placement was confirmed by noting the entry and exit points in the thoracic cavity.  All bullets entered between the 4th and 9th ribs (counting from the back) and within 1" of the horizontal mid line.  All deer were hit within 15 degrees of being squarely broadside.  Deer that were determined to be injured or in poor health prior to the shot were excluded.  All deer were shot within 3 yards of the same range and in the same level terrain in an area of moderately thick vegetation that does not impede the movement of deer.

Here's a draft copy of our abstract with a couple of details X'd out to satisfy the non-disclosure.  Sorry for the long abstract, but this is the version if we decide to publish the results from three separate projects in a single paper.

Abstract:
This article describes direct and compelling experimental evidence that incapacitation can be caused by a ballistic pressure wave completely independently from wounding caused by crushing and cutting effects of a bullet in the wound channel.  Live XXXXXX (10-20 lb mammals) immersed in water were observed to be incapacitated by a ballistic pressure wave created by a bullet passing through the water very close to the test subject without any wound channel.  A second experiment provides compelling experimental support for the veracity of the Strasbourg goat tests by using a substantially similar experimental design observing incapacitation of whitetail deer by carefully controlled shot placement.  Predictions based directly on the Strasbourg tests were validated in whitetail deer by showing that bullets of comparable wound channel volumes incapacitate much more quickly when a large ballistic pressure wave is present.  Using comparable shot placement as the Strasbourg tests, one obtains an accurate prediction for the average incapacitation distance of deer by multiplying the Strasbourg average incapication time by the average death run speed of deer, 10 yards per second.  This supports the Strasbourg observation of a large pressure wave causing rapid incapacitation by inserting a high-speed pressure gauge into the carotid artery.  Upon necropsy of the deer, tissue damage due to the pressure wave was also observed in the deer shot with handgun bullets creating higher pressure waves.  This damage was remote from the wound channel and well beyond the range of the temporary stretch cavity.   Finally, this article presents an empirical model for predicting relative incapacitation probability in humans by employing the hypothesis that the wound channel and pressure wave effects each have an associated independent probability of incapacitation.  Combining these two independent probabilities with the elementary rules of statistics and performing a least-squares fit to the Marshall and Sanow data provides a empirical model with only two adjustable parameters for predicting “one shot stops” with a standard error of X.X%.  The success of this model supports the hypothesis that wound channel and pressure wave effects are independent, and it also allows assignment of the relative contribution of each effect for a given handgun load.  For example, the Federal 90 grain Hydra-Shok load in .380 ACP that has a Marshal and Sanow One-Shot Stop rating of 69% has a stopping power contribution of 55% from the pressure wave and 29% from the wound channel.  This empirical model also gives the expected limiting behavior in the cases of very small and very large variables (wound channel and pressure wave), as well as for incapacitation by rifle and shotgun projectiles.  Finally, we present a prediction for average incapacitation times of humans shot near the center of the chest.  Our model is uses the crush cavity and pressure wave magnitudes as independent variables.  We believe the functional form of our model is independent of species for mammals between 10 and 1000 lbs, with only the two adjustable parameters being species specific.

Michael Courtney

Is the sample size part of the non-disclosure agreement? If so, that is quite odd. Sample size information really is critical to judging the significance of the effect. I would also be interested in the R-squared and R-squared adjusted values in your regression model.

In my opinion there is better ammo out there anyway. The 9mm seemed to set back after only one or two chamberings, and since they are running at +P pressures, I ended up throwing away a bunch of them.

Reasons for the non-disclosure terms do not need to make sense to third parties or even the investigators to be binding on the investigators.   The non-disclosure agreement is protecting the interests of different parties with a wide variety of interests.  Some of the main motives for the non-disclosure terms are:

1.  Not giving away any significant competitive advantage to other research groups or other ballistics interests prior to publication.
2.  Not disqualifying the research from publication.  Some periodicals disqualify a work from publication if too much of the information has already been made public.
3.  Not bringing professional difficulties on the contributors.  Controversial research can have negative professional consequences.  Even if the work is high-quality, some institutions prefer to avoid controversy, and it is not uncommon for research professionals to experience negative professional consequences for work that is ultimately vindicated by later work.
4.  Avoiding harassment from the animal rights extremists.  Animal rights extremists routinely harass researchers in live animal experiments.  Releasing certain kinds of information before publication greatly add to the possibility of these difficulties.

For this same reason, most experimenters in live animal experiments do not ever release photographs to the general public and only release photographs to other professionals in the field with carefully written non-disclosure agreements with significant penalty clauses.

In any case, the major impact of the sample sizes is on determining the uncertainty in average incapacitation distances.  Since we have specified this uncertainty, very little relevant information is left in the sample sizes themselves, although these will be contained in the final publication.  

Specifying the correlation coefficient for the regression analyses conveys the same information as the R value (equivalently R squared).  We may not publish the adjusted R values.  Other work in the field has published the R-squared values and the standard error values for the regession analyses, and we will probably stick with this trend.  After the work is published this will be one of many details that we will be willing to communicate to professionals in the field.  A lot of non-essential technical details get left out of many scientific papers for reasons of clarity and conciseness.  (Anyone with a spreadsheet or good statistics software will be able to compute the adjusted R values from the published information, so it's not like we're hiding anything.  There are just many, many ways of assessing goodness of fit and publishing more than a couple of them negatively impacts readability and is not necessary if the authors have provided sufficient information for interested readers to compute whatever measure of goodness of fit that they may desire. )

Michael Courtney

Great discussion.   What are the best loads for personal defense with a small, 3" barrel 9mm?  There is no ballistic data available that I could find for the mouseguns.  Mr. Fackler certainly can be convincing in his support for the sub-sonic 147g rounds.