jwp... Thanks for posting those links. They're of some value to those who haven't immersed themselves in the Let's Get Marshall & Sanow bloodbath to date. You won't find a lot of links to writings by people asking for civility and discretion when it comes to M&S. I used to be one, but I got tired of the incessant attacks by those who regard Marshall and Sanow with the same emotion that Buffy regards Vampires.
I don't lend a whole lot of credence to the M&S data from a scholarly perspective, but I have conversed with both Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow. I don't hold stock in their company, and I do not subscribe to their methods or conclusions. I prefer to regard them as amateur scientists who came up with a novel way of looking at things, and if nothing else, they "raised consciousness" about wound ballistics at a time when there was a lot less hard evidence than we have today. They have been subjected to a torrent of criticism and abuse that was and is out of all proportion to any "fraud" they may have committed.
I really don't get the virulent anti-M&S attitude out there. If they had been pushing for something that got people killed, I could understand it. If they had been making obscene profits from their publication empire, I could understand it. But none of that applies. So why the vitriol?
The fact is that in 2011 we have access to wonderfully accurate and reliable handguns and ammo that we didn't have in 1986 when this firestorm first erupted.
But wonderful handguns and ammo won't overcome bad training, bad marksmanship, and bad tactics. I can prove that with an overwhelming volume of case by case evidence from my files.
Good tactics and training, and good shot placement trump all other aspects of the discussion. Which is exactly what Evan Marshall wrote in the preface to his first book. So let's get over the M&S bashing, shall we?
"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
