357SIG proving to be an unbelievable manstopper??? [Archive] - Page 2 - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : 357SIG proving to be an unbelievable manstopper???


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

Bones13
02-05-2010, 09:36
<h!></h!>...THEORY of BPW and it's possible incapacitating effects on humans and animals in under 5 seconds. It's ALMOST like you want to disprove what hasn't been proven yet. See what I'm getting at?

Your admission that it's an unproven theory is a nice start.
<h!>
</h!>SOME of the questions you ask can't be answered by anyone because there aren't answers yet. At this point, yes, there are many unanswered questions. At the same time, plenty of us can directly relate to what Dr. Courtney's THEORY suggests from shooting various animals with different SD cartridges.

There ARE many unanswered questions. If there's any point I'm trying to make it's that there is a LONG way to go before any of this starts looking solid. You can only relate what you see hunting to this theory if you overlook the many, many questions that remain.

THERE IS A REASON HUMANS AND ANIMALS HAVE BEEN INCAPACITATED IN LESS THAN 5 SECONDS

I can read, no need to shout. Psychology is a not insignificant part of this. Humans and animals can and do choose to "quit". Besides, in "The Ballistic Pressure Wave Theory of Handgun Bullet Incapacitation" on page three the chart clearly shows the minimum incapacitation time as 5 seconds. Remember, there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

It's all beside the point. And the only point is that the data correlated.

Garbage in, garbage out. What part don't you understand? You're really emotionally invested in this stuff, aren't you? There must be better data before you can call a correlation sound. Good research design demands it.

What do you think about stopping trying to find everything that either hasn't been answered or hasn't been studied to be answered, and simply objectively look at what we do know?

What do you think about healthy skepticism and valid criticism versus blind acceptance of bad data?

One of the rounds effectively incapacitated deer quicker on average, and by a pretty fair margin to boot.

Extremely small sample sizes are simply not valid. Sample size for this would need to be in the hundreds if not thousands. Otherwise the statistics are useless.

What we do know at this point is NOBODY has come up with ANYTHING that disproves Dr. Courtney's theory.

Nowhere has your positive bias toward this research been more obvious than in this statement. There is no requirement to disprove, rather the onus is on Courtney to prove. Basic tenet of science.

why would any LE/Gov't Agency choose a +P or +P+ round or 357SIG over 9mm? A Winchester rep has stated 9mm +P+ 127gr has a cult following among LE.

This is related to the science how? The whole point of Fackler's AND Courtney's research is to attempt to provide science based criteria for ammunition selection, as the entire field has long been dominated by hearsay and anecdote. The phrase "cult following" sums this up nicely.

yet what I said is common knowledge.

"Common knowledge" is not science. This entire line of your argument is specious.

What about gravity? Will you stop believing in it when I tell you it isn't proven from all angles?

Ever hear of Occam's razor?

Then you have dentists like DocGKR

Yours and other's repeated ad hominem attacks again betray your extreme prejudice. I don't think you really understand the education health care professionals receive. The basic science portion includes coursework in gross anatomy with cadaver dissection, histology, physiology, biochemistry, neuroanatomy with brain dissection, pathology, microbiology, pharmacology and radiology. Pre-professional training includes chemistry, biochemisty, biology, physics and organic chemistry. Generally, anyone in a profession who is licensed to prescribe medications has a good life sciences base to their education.

there is zero evidence against what Dr. Courtney showed in a scientifically done study, among other supporting work.

No evidence against it? What about the problems with the evidence FOR it? You just can't turn it around like that. The science is in the ability of the research to withstand criticism. Period.

What gets most of us is when some member's choose to post against it, while clearly from the context of their post having on clue as to what they're talking about. Those that say they understand Dr. Courtney's theory, yet have never read his study, or that skimmed it and never got anything out of it anyway. Then there are those who have simply been fed the same lie so long that they believe it, no matter what evidence against what they think you can show them. As for BPW, no, nothings been proven.

This entire rant again betrays your extreme bias for Courtney's work. I've read the studies. It's not a very impressive body of work based on the data he presents. Get better data and it would be more persuasive. Who's being fed lies here? I'm not sure why you seem to think that anyone critical of the research is somehow not qualified to evaluate it, but it's clear that is your opinion.

Yet I still know there's SOMETHING to the theory of BPW.

I agree; there is a basis for further research, a LOT more research, necessary to answer the many valid criticisms. Stating that you already "know" only betrays your bias yet again. Grain of salt, bro.

ATK designed all the barriers around FBI protocol. What conspiracy could you possibly be refering to?

Conspiracy? Any data collected by an entity with a financial stake in the outcome is automatically suspect. That doesn't mean it's invalid but it's only valid if it can be repeated. The federal data looks good but I don't trust it blindly. Take a hint.

You also asked earlier what the equation was for BPW. The following should help explain

I had already found that but thanks for reposting. I understand it, but those equations apply best in a homogeneous material like water or ballistic gel, and the human body is far from homogeneous. I personally think there is a lot we don't fully understand about how tough the body really is. People are very hard to kill. The internal structure is highly resistant to all sorts of trauma. It's flexible, segmented into all sorts of compartments and there's TWO of many important structures.

Think about all the cases where people are shot with multiple high energy projectiles and basically shrug it off. This is part of the reason incapacitation due to TBI from BPW doesn't ring true to me; Drugs and adrenalin shouldn't make a difference but they do.

dahahn
02-05-2010, 09:47
"When you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with..."

What an easy defense. Please, I implore you, find some flaw with the numbers. If there is, and I am leaving it open that there very well could be, I would like to know what it is.

As for pi: when you're dealing with an object with any sort of curved surface, such as a bullet, a wound channel, a gravitational field, etc, pi always figures into it. I am actually aghast as to why you would ask such a question. I can easily interpret that formula, but I could be wrong. Correct me if I am so:

IMPACT ENERGY
---------------
CIRCUMFERENCE

Given that a bullet's circumference would be directly related to a pressure wave, it's very easy to deduce. If I understand BPW correctly, it can be represented by a sinusoidal wave that would experience exponential decay through a viscous medium.

Funny that gravity should be mentioned as this same case arose in the early 1900s during the hot debate over relativity. In fact, even to this day, the solar eclipse that confirmed relativity is contested. Does this change the fact that satellites have to use special relativity to maintain the accuracy of their clocks, and thus their placement coordinates (for GPS satellites)? It does not.

Courtney seems to be able to repeat these test with stunning regularity. Why can't the same be seen on the streets?

I mean no offense, but is this question legitimate? May I quote Bones13, who brings up a legitimate point?

People's recollections of events are notoriously poor. Unless the events are clearly recorded (for instance on camera) then correlated to forensic analysis, you can't really trust the data.Short answer to a non-question: these data aren't "seen on the streets" because Courtney records the data of his experiments and uses a method previously derived to interpret the results. They don't think of doing such "on the streets." Also, as Bones13 has already pointed out, correlating this with data "on the streets" would be a poor choice for any experimenter, as, and I quote, "People's recollections of events are notoriously poor."

BOTTOM LINE, THERE IS A REASON HUMANS AND ANIMALS HAVE BEEN INCAPACITATED IN LESS THAN 5 SECONDS WHEN NO PART OF THE CNS (BRAIN OR SPINE) WAS CONTACTED BY THE PROJECTILE. AND IT ISN'T BECAUSE OF OXYGEN LOSS TO THE BRAIN THROUGH BLOOD LOSS (WHICH TAKES AT LEAST 15 SECONDS IN THE MOST "PERFECT" BEST CASE SCENARIOS, TO MUCH MORE COMMONLY 30 SECONDS OR MORE)Apparently Goransson et al. agree that there is something at work:

Preliminary observations show that under certain circumstances high-energy missile trauma to soft tissue causes a transient depression of the EEG. Similar effects on the central nervous system elicited by the pressure and shock waves might be the cause of the acute behavioural and mental blockage reported in man by nonfatal wounds from missiles of this type.
Abstract: Remote Cerebral Effects on EEG in High-Energy Missile Trauma. The Journal of Trauma. 28(1 Supplement):S204-S205; January 1988.

dahahn
02-05-2010, 10:18
<h!></h!>Extremely small sample sizes are simply not valid. Sample size for this would need to be in the hundreds if not thousands. Otherwise the statistics are useless.

I disagree here. When only small sample sizes are to be had, then one must work with what one is given. In an earlier post you stated that reaction to testing in unanesthetized animals would illicit a backlash, thus it's possible that a data set may be derived based on a sample size that is smaller than intended. The next logical step would be to use the data for what it is: data derived from a small sample that shows an obvious trend in said sample. This is the case in pioneering areas of astrophysics.

<h!></h!>I don't think you really understand the education health care professionals receive. The basic science portion includes coursework in gross anatomy with cadaver dissection, histology, physiology, biochemistry, neuroanatomy with brain dissection, pathology, microbiology, pharmacology and radiology. Pre-professional training includes chemistry, biochemisty, biology, physics and organic chemistry. Generally, anyone in a profession who is licensed to prescribe medications has a good life sciences base to their education.

This argument could also be used to support a medical doctor submitting a paper on the atmosphere of a newly discovered exoplanet. Again, I disagree. Because someone has education that, along the way, has covered microbiology, physiology, etc. does not give them authority outside of their chosen profession. Again, by this logic, since a dentist has taken neuroanatomy it would qualify him/her to publish papers on neuroscience. I believe we can agree that this would not be acceptable in the scientific community. I don't mind seeing data from people without doctorates, or even degrees, but it should be handled as such, much the same as data from someone with a degree in an entirely unrelated field.

No evidence against it? What about the problems with the evidence FOR it? You just can't turn it around like that. The science is in the ability of the research to withstand criticism. Period.

This argument is weak, from any party (no offense). People used the same argument to try to prove that we did not go to the moon. I agree that the onus is on the theorist to prove the theory, but we can also agree that if you want to "disprove" something, you must enter empirical evidence against it.

I conclude with this:

I agree; there is a basis for further research, a LOT more research, necessary to answer the many valid criticisms.

We can all agree on this, and I applaud you for both being skeptical AND realizing the need to look further into this. Unfortunately it seems as if there is a limited minority of people here that can say the same. It seems to me that if a phenomena, such as BPW, is discovered by multiple sources in multiple fields of expertise, it deserves much more research. Unfortunately, it seems as if more people would like to disprove it than look any further into it.

uz2bUSMC
02-05-2010, 11:04
Bones, you say this, as many do, but it's not really relavant. High energy projectile isn't enough info. Bullet construction plays a HUGE part. This has been said many times already... high energy means little if the bullet cannot impart it's energy to the target?

Think about all the cases where people are shot with multiple high energy projectiles and basically shrug it off. This is part of the reason incapacitation due to TBI from BPW doesn't ring true to me; Drugs and adrenalin shouldn't make a difference but they do.

Police Marksman
02-05-2010, 12:03
And the above quoted text by uz2bUSMC is the reason I've computed the numbers to see where various common SD cartridge loads stand comparatively.

The kinetic energy is listed after "KE", penetration depth is listed after "P" and is based on clothed gel for ALL rounds, expanded bullet diameter is listed after "E", wound volume is listed in cubic inches(ci) and is based on 12" penetration for ALL rounds unless a specific round couldn't manage 12" penetration, and in the last column in pounds per square inch(psi) is the peak ballistic pressure wave. Please note - for PBPW, for any round that fragmented to any extent, the PBPW is actually higher than what's shown. All PBPW numbers assume zero fragmentation. Very generally, for the PERCENTAGE a round fragments, that same percentage would be added to the PBPW in psi.

Most of the HST #s and Speer Gold Dot #s are based on averages from the ATK workshop results with various police departments. Those that aren't based on an average were tested only 1 time. Those workshop results can be viewed in their entirety here - http://www.le.atk.com/general/irl/woundballistics.aspx

Win 380auto T Series, 95gr, 1000fps, KE=211, P=7.95, E=.64, 2.6ci, 507psi

Speer 38special+P GD, 135gr, 860fps, KE=222, P=11.75, E=.59, 3.2ci, 361psi
Win 38spcl T Series+P, 130gr, 925fps, KE=247, P=12.00, E=.67, 4.2ci, 393psi

Win 9mm+P+ Ranger, 115gr, 1335fps, KE=455, P=8.50, E=.81, 4.4ci, 1023psi
DT 9mm+P Gold Dot, 115gr, 1415fps, KE=511, P=12.00, E=.70, 4.6ci, 813psi
DT 9mm+P Gold Dot, 124gr, 1310fps, KE=472, P=13.25, E=.70, 4.6ci, 684psi
Federal 9mm+P HST, 124gr, 1200fps, KE=396, P=12.50, E=.66, 4.1ci, 605psi
Federal 9mm HST,,,, 124gr, 1150fps, KE=364, P=13.90, E=.64, 3.9ci, 501psi
Win9mm+P T Series, 124gr, 1180fps, KE=383, P=13.90, E=.67, 4.2ci, 526psi
Win9mm +P Bonded, 124gr, 1180fps, KE=383, P=18.70, E=.54, 2.7ci, 392psi
Win9mm+P+TSeries, 127gr, 1250fps, KE=441, P=12.20, E=.68, 4.4ci, 691psi
DT 9mm+P Gold Dot, 147gr, 1125fps, KE=413, P=14.00, E=.66, 4.1ci, 563psi
Federal 9mm HST,,,, 147gr, 1000fps, KE=326, P=14.40, E=.66, 4.1ci, 433psi
Speer 9mm GD,,,,,,,, 147gr,, 990fps, KE=320, P=15.25, E=.58, 3.2ci, 401psi
Win 9mm T Series,,,, 147gr,, 990fps, KE=320, P=14.50, E=.66, 4.1ci, 422psi
Win 9mm Bonded,,,,, 147gr,, 995fps, KE=323, P=16.50, E=.59, 3.3ci, 374psi

DT 357SIG Gold Dot, 115gr, 1550fps, KE=613, P=12.12, E=.71, 4.8ci, 955psi
DT 357SIG Gold Dot, 125gr, 1450fps, KE=584, P=14.50, E=.66, 4.1ci, 770psi
Win357SIG T Series, 125gr, 1350fps, KE=506, P=12.10, E=.66, 4.1ci, 798psi
Win357SIG Bonded,, 125gr, 1350fps, KE=506, P=15.90, E=.57, 3.1ci, 608psi
DT 357SIG Gold Dot, 147gr, 1250fps, KE=510, P=14.75, E=.73, 5.0ci, 661psi

DT 357mag Gold Dot, 125gr, 1600fps, KE=710, P=12.75, E=.69, 4.5ci, 1063psi
Speer SB 357magGD, 125gr,,, 990fps, KE=294, P=14.50, E=.65, 4.0ci, 388psi
Win 357magSilvertip, 145gr, 1290fps,, KE=536, P=12.50, E=.59, 3.3ci, 819psi
DT 357mag Gold Dot, 158gr, 1400fps, KE=688, P=19.00, E=.56, 3.0ci, 692psi

DT 9X25 Gold Dot, 115gr, 1800fps, KE=827, P=10.00, E=.64, 3.2ci, 1579psi
DT 9X25 Gold Dot, 125gr, 1725fps, KE=826, P=15.00, E=.74, 5.2ci, 1051psi
DT 9X25 Gold Dot, 147gr, 1550fps, KE=784, P=17.50, E=.68, 4.4ci,, 856psi

DT 40S&W Nosler,,,, 135gr, 1375fps, KE=567, P=12.10, E=.72, 4.9ci, 894psi
DT 40S&W Gold Dot, 155gr, 1275fps, KE=559, P=13.00, E=.76, 5.4ci, 825psi
DT 40S&W Gold Dot, 165gr, 1200fps, KE=528, P=14.00, E=.70, 4.6ci, 721psi
Rem Golden Saber,,, 165gr, 1150fps, KE=485, P=14.00, E=.67, 4.2ci, 662psi
Federal 40S&W HST, 165gr, 1130fps, KE=468, P=14.00, E=.75, 5.3ci, 637psi
Win40S&W T Series, 165gr, 1140fps, KE=476, P=13.20, E=.70, 4.6ci, 690psi
Win 40S&W Bonded, 165gr, 1140fps, KE=476, P=19.00, E=.55, 2.9ci, 479psi
Speer 40S&W GD,,,, 180gr. 1025fps, KE=420, P=11.75, E=.72, 4.9ci, 683psi
DT 40S&W Gold Dot, 180gr, 1100fps, KE=484, P=14.75, E=.68, 4.4ci, 626psi
Federal 40S&W HST, 180gr, 1010fps, KE=408, P=13.40, E=.77, 5.6ci, 582psi
Rem JHP (not GS),,,, 180gr, 1015fps, KE=412, P=13.25, E=.69, 4.5ci, 594psi
Win40S&W T Series, 180gr,,, 990fps, KE=392, P=14.30, E=.70, 4.6ci, 524psi
Win 40S&W Bonded, 180gr,, 1070fps, KE=458, P=21.80, E=.51, 2.5ci, 402psi

DT 10mm Nosler,,,, 135gr, 1600fps, KE=767, P=11.00, E=.70, 4.2ci, 1332psi
DT 10mm Gold Dot, 155gr, 1475fps, KE=749, P=13.50, E=.88, 7.3ci, 1061psi
DT 10mm G. Saber, 165gr, 1425fps, KE=744, P=14.75, E=.82, 6.3ci, 964psi
DT 10mm Gold Dot, 165gr, 1400psi, KE=718, P=14.25, E=1.02, 9.8ci, 962psi
DT 10mm Gold Dot, 180gr, 1300fps, KE=675, P=15.25, E=.96, 8.7ci, 846psi
DT 10mm G. Saber, 180gr, 1330fps, KE=707, P=16.00, E=.85, 6.8ci, 844psi
DT 10mm Hor. XTP, 180gr, 1350fps, KE=728, P=17.25, E=.77, 5.6ci, 808psi
DT 10mm Hor. XTP, 200gr, 1250fps, KE=694, P=19.50, E=.72, 4.9ci, 680psi

Win 45GAP T Series, 230gr, 905fps, KE=418, P=12.70, E=.72, 4.9ci, 630psi

DT 45auto Gold Dot, 185gr, 1225fps, KE=616, P=12.75, E=.82, 6.3ci, 923psi
Rem45auto G Saber, 185gr, 1140fps, KE=534, P=14.25, E=.70, 4.6ci, 716psi
Win45auto Silvertip, 185gr, 1000fps, KE=411, P=13.25, E=.70, 4.6ci, 593psi
DT 45auto Gold Dot, 200gr, 1125fps, KE=562, P=14.25, E=.88, 7.3ci, 753psi
DT 45auto Gold Dot, 230gr, 1010fps, KE=521, P=15.25, E=.95, 8.5ci, 653psi
Federal45auto+P HST,230gr, 950fps, KE=461, P=14.60, E=.85, 6.8ci, 603psi
Federal 45auto HST, 230gr,, 890fps, KE=405, P=14.40, E=.86, 7.0ci, 537psi
Speer 45auto G Dot, 230gr,, 890fps, KE=405, P=13.50, E=.70, 4.6ci, 573psi
Rem45auto G Saber, 230gr,, 875fps, KE=391, P=14.00, E=.74, 5.2ci, 534psi
Win 45auto T Series, 230gr, 905fps, KE=418, P=12.70, E=.72, 4.9ci, 630psi
Win45auto+PTSeries, 230gr, 990fps, KE=500, P=15.20, E=.78, 5.7ci, 628psi
Win 45 auto Bonded, 230gr, 905fps, KE=418, P=15.80, E=.67, 4.2ci, 506psi


Good Shooting,
Craig


I could be wrong, but doesn't the Courtney formal for BPW seemed to be flawed? The less penetration a round has the greater the BPW! A round traveling 1400 fps, and expands to .68 diameter and penetrates only four inches will have a much greater BPW, than the same round penetrating fourteen inches. We know that four inches of penetration will not be as effective, so whats up?

It seems to promote less penetrating rounds for the so called BPW! But like I said I could be wrong, I am no scientist.

uz2bUSMC
02-05-2010, 12:29
I could be wrong, but doesn't the Courtney formal for BPW seemed to be flawed? The less penetration a round has the greater the BPW! A round traveling 1400 fps, and expands to .68 diameter and penetrates only four inches will have a much greater BPW, than the same round penetrating fourteen inches. We know that four inches of penetration will not be as effective, so whats up?

It seems to promote less penetrating rounds for the so called BPW! But like I said I could be wrong, I am no scientist.

First off, it doesn't "promote" less penetration. You are correct in that less penetration between to equally waited bullets with equal energy will have a higher PBPW. If it penetrates less that would mean it distributied it's energy more rapidly thus having a higher Peak Ballistic Pressure Wave.

dahahn
02-05-2010, 12:30
I could be wrong, but doesn't the Courtney formal for BPW seemed to be flawed? The less penetration a round has the greater the BPW! A round traveling 1400 fps, and expands to .68 diameter and penetrates only four inches will have a much greater BPW, than the same round penetrating fourteen inches. We know that four inches of penetration will not be as effective, so whats up?

It seems to promote less penetrating rounds for the so called BPW! But like I said I could be wrong, I am no scientist.

As I understand it, and again, I encourage people to correct me if I'm wrong, is BPW is independent of penetration. Case in point: a 22lr bullet that could have potential OVER penetration would have a low PSI for BPW. Pressure decays exponentially from the initial impact of the round. Therefore one would search for a round that has good penetration AND a good BPW.

EDIT: I see uz2bUSMC beat me to it.

remat
02-05-2010, 20:36
Then you have dentists like DocGKR among others preaching agianst it (put a "Dr" in front of anyones name, and they have to be a genious, right? Guess that doesn't work out to well when two Doctors disagree. :shocked: Who would have thunk it?). Blah blah blah. But at the end of the day
...


At the end of the day I would trust the "Dr" that is NDIA published.

glock20c10mm
02-05-2010, 22:54
At the end of the day I would trust the "Dr" that is NDIA published.
The question to me is if you really believe that or if you were simply being arguementative. In the end, how truthful anyone is has no dependence whatsoever on an added title to their name or credentials or where they were or weren't published. Please tell me you didn't really believe that? :upeyes:

glock20c10mm
02-05-2010, 23:11
I could be wrong, but doesn't the Courtney formal for BPW seemed to be flawed? The less penetration a round has the greater the BPW! A round traveling 1400 fps, and expands to .68 diameter and penetrates only four inches will have a much greater BPW, than the same round penetrating fourteen inches. We know that four inches of penetration will not be as effective, so whats up?

It seems to promote less penetrating rounds for the so called BPW! But like I said I could be wrong, I am no scientist.
That's a honest question I guess. But it's written directly into the writeup of the study Dr. Courtney performed and wroteup that; (I'm paraphrasing here) Load selection should not be based on BPW alone, as a load much be choosen that will reach vitals organs above all else. So why would anyone that actually read the study disreguard penetration depth for greater BPW? Unless of course one hadn't closely read the writeup.

Can it not be that it's simply a fact, all else being equal, that less penetration depth equals greater peak ballistic pressure wave in psi? I don't see, nor have I ever seen anyone on GT promoting a load that doesn't penetrate far enough to promote greater PBPW. If you have, sorry. At least now you can correct them if you see it come up again.

glock20c10mm
02-06-2010, 00:33
There ARE many unanswered questions. If there's any point I'm trying to make it's that there is a LONG way to go before any of this starts looking solid.
Then why are you still asking questions if that's what you believe? You could have just posted that and we'ld have all known where you stood.
I can read, no need to shout.
I wasn't shouting, nor did I mean to imply that I was. I didn't think I'ld have to repost the fine print. My bad.
Psychology is a not insignificant part of this. Humans and animals can and do choose to "quit".
That's generally not true. Deer don't stop running away until one of two things happen. 1) They don't have enough oxygen left in them to run further. 2) They run and then choose to lie down assuming they've escaped further danger. In the IWBA Journals it was noted that one good reason to use animals for testing is because they generally aren't subject to many of the same psychological factors as humans.
Besides, in "The Ballistic Pressure Wave Theory of Handgun Bullet Incapacitation" on page three the chart clearly shows the minimum incapacitation time as 5 seconds. Remember, there are lies, damned lies and statistics.
Proving or disproving what?
Garbage in, garbage out. What part don't you understand? You're really emotionally invested in this stuff, aren't you?
As are you it appears. Simply from opposite ends of the proverbial spectrum. Are we having fun yet?
There must be better data before you can call a correlation sound. Good research design demands it.
And you're welcome to that opinion. My basis for using the theory to my advantage comes from the basic understanding of the principal of the theory. Like I said, I have plenty of questions myself, not to mention a larger data set would be awesome. Either way I do believe the theory holds water to enough of an extent based on events aside from the theory for me to apply it in my choice of carry ammo. Got a problem with that?
What do you think about healthy skepticism and valid criticism versus blind acceptance of bad data?
I have no problem with any amount or lack thereof in relation to skepticism or critiscism. Those are for the individual to decide for themselves, or at least up to whatever level they choose. As for bad data, what data are you saying is bad outside of the goat tests or the Marshall/Sanow data set?
Extremely small sample sizes are simply not valid. Sample size for this would need to be in the hundreds if not thousands. Otherwise the statistics are useless.
Why would you think such a thing? What you say is absurd to say the least. You simply don't understand what it means for any data set to be statistically valid and I don't care to explain it to you. BTW, that is fact, not my opinion.
Nowhere has your positive bias toward this research been more obvious than in this statement. There is no requirement to disprove, rather the onus is on Courtney to prove. Basic tenet of science.
Who's argueing against the fact I'm biased toward the research?

No, Dr. Courtney doesn't have to prove anything. He did some studies and wrote up an explanation with the findings. At this point, anyone else on the planet can do or not do whatever they do or don't want with it.

Besides, you already feel rubbed the wrong way by Dr. Courtney. At what point would he ever be done getting you to believe he ever did anything right? Beside the fact you said it would all have to be verified by a third party before you'ld believe it anyway.
"Common knowledge" is not science. This entire line of your argument is specious.
No, it's not specious. I don't have to understand how gravity works to know that what goes up must come down.
Yours and other's repeated ad hominem attacks again betray your extreme prejudice.
They aren't ad hominen attacks when speaking of direct experience in conversing with the person(s) in question.
I don't think you really understand the education health care professionals receive. The basic science portion includes coursework in gross anatomy with cadaver dissection, histology, physiology, biochemistry, neuroanatomy with brain dissection, pathology, microbiology, pharmacology and radiology. Pre-professional training includes chemistry, biochemisty, biology, physics and organic chemistry. Generally, anyone in a profession who is licensed to prescribe medications has a good life sciences base to their education.
And it's obvious you don't understand that any of that learned basic science doesn't prove anyone is or isn't a liar among many other negative adjectives towards anothers trustworthyness.
No evidence against it? What about the problems with the evidence FOR it? You just can't turn it around like that.
What about them?
The science is in the ability of the research to withstand criticism. Period.
That's not always true. Like when someone wrongly preaches for or against anything because of the way it may/will take negative effect on their credebility in one way or another if they don't.
This entire rant again betrays your extreme bias for Courtney's work. I've read the studies. It's not a very impressive body of work based on the data he presents. Get better data and it would be more persuasive. Who's being fed lies here? I'm not sure why you seem to think that anyone critical of the research is somehow not qualified to evaluate it, but it's clear that is your opinion.
Sorry, but I can't be betrayed by something I'm open with. As for you saying; "I'm not sure why you seem to think that anyone critical of the research is somehow not qualified to evaluate it..." I didn't, nor would I say such a thing, as it is not true. But yes, it is my opinion as it were.
I agree; there is a basis for further research, a LOT more research, necessary to answer the many valid criticisms. Stating that you already "know" only betrays your bias yet again. Grain of salt, bro.
Betraying my bias, yes, I think I've covered that. As for criticism....anyone can criticize anything. False accusations could also be construed to be criticism. Nothing wrong with critisism as long as it's honestly derived. But that's not always the case.
Conspiracy? Any data collected by an entity with a financial stake in the outcome is automatically suspect. That doesn't mean it's invalid but it's only valid if it can be repeated. The federal data looks good but I don't trust it blindly. Take a hint.
I didn't need to take the hint. I'm also not paranoid. And in some cases it doesn't matter enough to worry about, like with the ATK workshop testing and results.
I had already found that but thanks for reposting. I understand it, but those equations apply best in a homogeneous material like water or ballistic gel, and the human body is far from homogeneous. I personally think there is a lot we don't fully understand about how tough the body really is. People are very hard to kill. The internal structure is highly resistant to all sorts of trauma. It's flexible, segmented into all sorts of compartments and there's TWO of many important structures.
You say people are very hard to kill. Why? Because they're moving while you're trying for good shot placement? Aside from that, yes, I'm sure there's much more to learn. If not, a whole lot of scientists are studying a whole lot of stuff in vain.
Think about all the cases where people are shot with multiple high energy projectiles and basically shrug it off. This is part of the reason incapacitation due to TBI from BPW doesn't ring true to me; Drugs and adrenalin shouldn't make a difference but they do.
Who cares? There are exceptions to every rule. It's not like the "shrug-it-off" standard is associated with anything close to a majority. And why are you so stuck on TBI? Who cares, TBI or not, if it works toward quicker incapacitation reguardless the mechanism? It may be limited to a percentage basis, but if it works as much as expected, who cares? I'm not saying it does or doesn't within the expected parameters of the threory. Just saying.

Drugs and adrenalin make a difference in what?



Good Shooting,
Craig :cheers:

glock20c10mm
02-06-2010, 00:39
"When you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with..."



What reason is that?




The data correlates to something that did not happen or to a data set which has proven to be skewed?



Courtney seems to be able to repeat these test with stunning regularity. Why can't the same be seen on the streets?



It's been posted; here and on other forums. You choose to ignore them.



Courtney's degree is related to ballistics how?



Can you back that up with fact? What LE agencies currently use this round?



You just described yourself.



How many people hunt deer at contact distances? Is a .357 Magnum a wise choice to shoot deer at 500 yards?



How does this external instrument calculate what is happening inside a living organism? What is the make and model of this transducer so I can refer to it's technical specifications?



"5" was derived how?

How do you know what the energy on target is?

How is Pi relevant in the equation?

How do you know in advance what penetration depth will be?
Did you try to be rude, or did it just come naturally?

Erich1B
02-06-2010, 09:02
:popcorn: Wow, I haven't read this thread in a while and come back to find another BPW debate................

glocksterr
02-06-2010, 09:17
The added advantage is the wording I was looking for, but couldn't find. I enjoy that there's a possibility that, on top of shot placement and action on my part, the bullet may do above what I expect it to do. Am I going to rely on it? No, but it's nice to know that should the conditions be favorable, it may occur.


maybe you where not looking for the right thing or in the right place. sort of under your nose so to speak.


:dunno:

swede1945
02-06-2010, 12:44
The US Army has published work supporting remote wounding and rapid incapacitation effects of ballistic waves. See Ronald Bellamy’s work in the Textbook of Military Medicine. The Swedish Defense Forces also published a number of papers in the Journal of Trauma. A group at the Third Military Medical University (China) confirmed and extended the Swedes’ findings about remote cerebral effects of ballistic waves at handgun levels of energy transfer. Professor Karl Sellier (Institute of Legal Medicine in Bonn, Germany) describes remote wounding effects of ballistic waves in his book, Wound Ballistics and the Scientific Background. A team at West Point has published work in the peer-reviewed journals, Brain Injury and Injury. A shock wave expert at Cal Tech attributed remote spinal injuries to a shock wave produced by a 9mm bullet. A Czech researcher has consistently found brain injuries in autopsies of victims shot in the chest with handgun bullets. In a “Historical Overview of Wound Ballistics Research” an Australian researcher recently summarized the positive findings related to remote wounding effects of ballistic waves. This body of work has been peer-reviewed and positively cited. The minority who continue to espouse negative views have not published anything a peer-reviewed journals for a long time, limiting their opinions to internet forums, knowing how easy it would be to embarrass them with the considerable published evidence that now exists from a wide variety of sources.

glockman23
02-06-2010, 13:03
Wow, this thread is generating a lot of buzz. As far as to the original question I'm sure it's a great stopper if you can hit anything (same with any other caliber I suppose). Then again a .44 mag is a "better stopper" and a .500 is better than that, ect.

I think if you had to shoot through barriers (ie car doors) it would be a good choice, which is why the secret service issues them (at least that's what I heard). For an average citizen like you and me overpenetration is a very bad thing. If I wanted something that overpenetrates and is expensive I'd get a 10mm. I'll stick with 9, .40 or .45 for SD.

remat
02-06-2010, 14:56
The question to me is if you really believe that or if you were simply being arguementative. In the end, how truthful anyone is has no dependence whatsoever on an added title to their name or credentials or where they were or weren't published. Please tell me you didn't really believe that? :upeyes:

You asked what happens when two Dr's disagree. My opinion is based on the body of work. You can marginalize it if you like.

Your words implied that DocGKR had no real experience or knowledge in wound ballistics, and equated his credentials to simply being a dr/dentist. For those unfamiliar with his work I just suggest they do a little homework and decide for themselves. A good place start is to read his work with NDIA.

"Truth" is elusive in medicine and ballistics. It has a lot to do with opinion and the individual cases. So, ask 3 Dr's and you are likely to get at least that many answers.

In the end, the "truth" is what people want to believe it is. If they chose it to be OSS%, +P+, bonded bullets, fragmenting bullets, midweight bullets, heavy bullets, most accurate bullet (hope I didn't miss anybody's camp), so be it. I am not sure why people get so upset that someone doesn't agree. Personally, I still don't want to get shot with a 380 (whether it be an FMJ, 88gr, 90gr, or even 102gr) -- even if it is low on everybody's ballistic ranking.

On that note, other than to say that I wish more folks made a bonded 147gr 357Sig load, I am out of this thread. :)

regards

glock20c10mm
02-06-2010, 15:52
You asked what happens when two Dr's disagree. My opinion is based on the body of work. You can marginalize it if you like.

Your words implied that DocGKR had no real experience or knowledge in wound ballistics, and equated his credentials to simply being a dr/dentist. For those unfamiliar with his work I just suggest they do a little homework and decide for themselves. A good place start is to read his work with NDIA.

"Truth" is elusive in medicine and ballistics. It has a lot to do with opinion and the individual cases. So, ask 3 Dr's and you are likely to get at least that many answers.

In the end, the "truth" is what people want to believe it is. If they chose it to be OSS%, +P+, bonded bullets, fragmenting bullets, midweight bullets, heavy bullets, most accurate bullet (hope I didn't miss anybody's camp), so be it. I am not sure why people get so upset that someone doesn't agree. Personally, I still don't want to get shot with a 380 (whether it be an FMJ, 88gr, 90gr, or even 102gr) -- even if it is low on everybody's ballistic ranking.

On that note, other than to say that I wish more folks made a bonded 147gr 357Sig load, I am out of this thread. :)

regards
In the end, the "truth" is what people want to believe it is. That statement is absurd! That is what opinion is, having nothing directly to do with truth.

IMO Dr. Roberts is a tool, sometimes even trolling when he decides to come into a thread and lay down the law based only on his opinion while belittling the next person. He would like to believe he knows it all, when in reality he refuses any data/study that isn't at least 20 years old. That is not to say he is stupid, as he is not. But just because he's not stupid doesn't always make him always right either.

Tell me, what has Dr. Roberts taught you that you didn't already know in terms of what makes a SD round an acceptable one?

LEAD
02-06-2010, 15:56
The US Army has published work supporting remote wounding and rapid incapacitation effects of ballistic waves. See Ronald Bellamy’s work in the Textbook of Military Medicine. The Swedish Defense Forces also published a number of papers in the Journal of Trauma. A group at the Third Military Medical University (China) confirmed and extended the Swedes’ findings about remote cerebral effects of ballistic waves at handgun levels of energy transfer. Professor Karl Sellier (Institute of Legal Medicine in Bonn, Germany) describes remote wounding effects of ballistic waves in his book, Wound Ballistics and the Scientific Background. A team at West Point has published work in the peer-reviewed journals, Brain Injury and Injury. A shock wave expert at Cal Tech attributed remote spinal injuries to a shock wave produced by a 9mm bullet. A Czech researcher has consistently found brain injuries in autopsies of victims shot in the chest with handgun bullets. In a “Historical Overview of Wound Ballistics Research” an Australian researcher recently summarized the positive findings related to remote wounding effects of ballistic waves. This body of work has been peer-reviewed and positively cited. The minority who continue to espouse negative views have not published anything a peer-reviewed journals for a long time, limiting their opinions to internet forums, knowing how easy it would be to embarrass them with the considerable published evidence that now exists from a wide variety of sources.

You've got a lot to say about this topic. Thanks for the information

English
02-06-2010, 16:31
....
In the end, the "truth" is what people want to believe it is.....

As a single sentence summarry of Post Modernism, that is probably as good as it gets and it is completely false. if you change it to, 'In the end, what people believe is the "truth" is what people want to believe is the truth.', then it describes the though process of most people. Unfortunately, though we might never know the truth about a particular issue, or, if we do know it, it still remains possible that our knowledge is incorrect, the truth does actually exist and all those people are wrong and will fight for their right to be wrong till their dying breath.

The world and the universe are real and not creations of our minds. To think otherwise is a remarkable level of conceit or a remarkable level of credulity. The nature of truth means there is no certainty because we can prove only falsity and never truth. This concept is can be difficult to live with for anyone. For many it seems to be impossible.

What we choose to act on as "truth" is inevitably based on a ballance of probabilities. If we hope to reach a sound decision on truth, those probabilities should be objective rather than subjective. Depending on the subject matter that objective evidence might be anything from extremely strong to relatively weak, but will be all we have to work with. It the case of BPW effects, the work of Dr Courtney and others makes its truth a strong probability. That makes the opposition case corespondingly feeble, no matter the "work" and status of Dr. Roberts.

English

remat
02-06-2010, 18:10
double tapped

remat
02-06-2010, 18:21
Boy, you guys sure get hung up on semantics. I said people "chose" what to believe as "truth." Truth is not necessarily black and white and is highly case dependant.

Truth in medicine? It is called "practicing" medicine and a Dr gives his "opinion" for a reason. Even lab results require "interpretation."

What a person believes to be "truth" is de facto truth to them. Likely, no amount of debate will necessarily change that. What the world "is" is highly debateable and dependant on your frame of reference. If there was truth in what the best bullet was, we would all be carrying it.

I see that we cannot even agree with that and you with to rely on "absolutes." That's fine. Your "truth" is a low opinion of DocGKR. I don't agree with you, get over it.

sigcalcatrant
02-06-2010, 22:10
The added advantage is the wording I was looking for, but couldn't find. I enjoy that there's a possibility that, on top of shot placement and action on my part, the bullet may do above what I expect it to do. Am I going to rely on it? No, but it's nice to know that should the conditions be favorable, it may occur.

Perfect. You seem to have the perfect understanding of the points that are trying to be made regarding BPW, sir. I DON'T KNOW THAT YOUR LAST THREE SENTENCES COULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN ANY BETTER BY ANYONE!Speaking as a mere spectator to this thread, it seems like the anti-BPW guys don't think that BPW should be considered, mentioned, or even thought about as a possibility. They get down right testy. Posts like the above are just begging for an ad hominem barrage of Facklerism-laced epithets.

English
02-07-2010, 06:19
Boy, you guys sure get hung up on semantics. I said people "chose" what to believe as "truth." Truth is not necessarily black and white and is highly case dependant.

Truth in medicine? It is called "practicing" medicine and a Dr gives his "opinion" for a reason. Even lab results require "interpretation."

What a person believes to be "truth" is de facto truth to them. Likely, no amount of debate will necessarily change that. What the world "is" is highly debateable and dependant on your frame of reference. If there was truth in what the best bullet was, we would all be carrying it.

I see that we cannot even agree with that and you with to rely on "absolutes." That's fine. Your "truth" is a low opinion of DocGKR. I don't agree with you, get over it.

You still don't get it but you might be half way there. Truth is not a matter of choice but exists regardless of choice or majority opinion. In contrast, people have a range of opinions about a single truth. Hence, indeed, sensible medical Drs. will give their opinion rather than claim it to be truth. You are confusing the terms "truth" and "opinion".

English

uz2bUSMC
02-07-2010, 06:43
Speaking as a mere spectator to this thread, it seems like the anti-BPW guys don't think that BPW should be considered, mentioned, or even thought about as a possibility. They get down right testy. Posts like the above are just begging for an ad hominem barrage of Facklerism-laced epithets.

Always ready. Why do you think CC happens to be our favorite hangout spot?

happyguy
02-07-2010, 07:13
Then again it doesn't recoil anymore than 40 (differently yes, more no).



Craig :dunno:

I don't know much about the .357 SIG as it doesn't really interest me but I take issue with the above statement.

The .357 round does have more recoil than the .40 SW.

The SAAMI max pressure for .40 SW is 35,000 and for the .357 is 40,000.

The average muzzle energy of the .40 SW is 425 fp and the .357 is 475 fp.

There is no way they have the same recoil.

That is why Glock beefed up the frame of their guns when they introduced the caliber in their guns.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

uz2bUSMC
02-07-2010, 07:35
I don't know much about the .357 SIG as it doesn't really interest me but I take issue with the above statement.

The .357 round does have more recoil than the .40 SW.

The SAAMI max pressure for .40 SW is 35,000 and for the .357 is 40,000.

The average muzzle energy of the .40 SW is 425 fp and the .357 is 475 fp.

There is no way they have the same recoil.

That is why Glock beefed up the frame of their guns when they introduced the caliber in their guns.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

It doesn't work quite the way you think. Take a .45acp 230 @ 850 which produces 370ft.lbs for example. This would have a heavier recoil than the .357sig you mentioned above if they were in similarly weighted pistols. The reason is that it takes more umph to get a heavier bullet started down the barrel.

happyguy
02-07-2010, 07:40
It doesn't work quite the way you think. Take a .45acp 230 @ 850 which produces 370ft.lbs for example. This would have a heavier recoil than the .357sig you mentioned above if they were in similarly weighted pistols. The reason is that it takes more umph to get a heavier bullet started down the barrel.

Your understanding of physics is flawed.

The majority of recoil actually occurs after the bullet has left the barrel. It is caused by the escaping gases and the increased pressure of the .357 SIG and reduced bore size both contribute to increased recoil. Think of a rocket engine.

It's like the difference between a firehose without a nozzle on the end and one with the nozzle adjusted to the tightest stream.

A twelve year old could handle the former where it might take two grown men to handle the latter.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

DocKWL
02-07-2010, 07:50
Your understanding of physics is flawed.

The majority of recoil actually occurs after the bullet has left the barrel. It is caused by the escaping gases and the increased pressure of the .357 SIG and reduced bore size both contribute to increased recoil. Think of a rocket engine.

It's like the difference between a firehose without a nozzle on the end and one with the nozzle adjusted to the tightest stream.

A twelve year old could handle the former where it might take two grown men to handle the latter.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

Your understanding of physics is flawed.

That is the understatement of the century.

uz2bUSMC
02-07-2010, 07:57
That is the understatement of the century.

I missed you too.

Forgot to add: That first half of Duncan's book that you read must have taught you to everything about physics...

uz2bUSMC
02-07-2010, 08:05
Your understanding of physics is flawed.

The majority of recoil actually occurs after the bullet has left the barrel. It is caused by the escaping gases and the increased pressure of the .357 SIG and reduced bore size both contribute to increased recoil. Think of a rocket engine.

It's like the difference between a firehose without a nozzle on the end and one with the nozzle adjusted to the tightest stream.

A twelve year old could handle the former where it might take two grown men to handle the latter.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

The majority of recoil actually occurs after the bullet has left the barrel. It is caused by the escaping gases and the increased pressure of the .357 SIG and reduced bore size both contribute to increased recoil. Think of a rocket engine.


How much recoil would you have by just firing the powder charge?

happyguy
02-07-2010, 08:10
How much recoil would you have by just firing the powder charge?

Very little, because the lack of a bullet would preclude the chamber pressure from rising.

I.E. the fire hose analogy.

I would also add that I am not a physics professor and had a very hard time with advanced mathematics.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

uz2bUSMC
02-07-2010, 08:12
Very little, because the lack of a bullet would preclude the chamber pressure from rising.

I.E. the fire hose analogy.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

Sooo any weighted bullet in front of that charge will give the same effect, yes?

happyguy
02-07-2010, 08:13
I missed you too.

Forgot to add: That first half of Duncan's book that you read must have taught you to everything about physics...

Who is Duncan? Duncan McPherson? Never read his book.

I'm going on what I learned in high school physics and and freshman college physics.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

uz2bUSMC
02-07-2010, 08:16
Who is Duncan? Duncan McPherson? Never read his book.

I'm going on what I learned in high school physics and and freshman college physics.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

That was for Doc.

happyguy
02-07-2010, 08:17
Sooo any weighted bullet in front of that charge will give the same effect, yes?

Edited for content and civility: The difference in bullet weight MAY make a difference, but there are other factors as well, such as speed of acceleration. However, the gases that are pressing back on the cartridge case are the primary cause of felt recoil.


Think of the rocket engine analogy again.

The .40 has 35,000 cup of thrust.

The .357 has 40,000 cup of thrust.

That is not an entirely accurate representation, but you get the idea.


Regards,
Happyguy :)

uz2bUSMC
02-07-2010, 08:24
I'm not going to argue with you. I gave you the truth.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

If you use a recoil calculator... Input the .45 load above with only 6.2 grains and .357sig with 12grns @ 1350 in the same weighted guns...

This doesn't account for all factors like you mentioned. I'm just trying to illistrate the role bullet weight plays in recoil. Types of powders matter a great deal aswell.

uz2bUSMC
02-07-2010, 08:26
Edited for content and civility: The difference in bullet weight MAY make a difference, but there are other factors as well, such as speed of acceleration. But the gases that are pressing back on the cartridge case are the primary cause of felt recoil.



Regards,
Happyguy :)

You are right, but it's the resisitance from the bullet being unwilling to move. A bullet that is twice as heavy should take four times the effort to begin moving. Where's GLOLT when you need him?

happyguy
02-07-2010, 08:32
You are right, but it's the resisitance from the bullet being unwilling to move. A bullet that is twice as heavy should take four times the effort to begin moving. Where's GLOLT when you need him?

So why does the gun barely recoil before the bullet leaves the barrel?

Also, why did Glock find it necessary to reinforce the frames when they introduced the .357?

Regards,
Happyguy :)

uz2bUSMC
02-07-2010, 08:35
So why does the gun barely recoil before the bullet leaves the barrel?

Also, why did Glock find it necessary to reinforce the frames when they introduced the .357?

Regards,
Happyguy :)

The recoil is "sharper" which is more damaging. The quicker energy is transferred the less time the plastic has to try and absorb it and transfer that to motion.

Edit: I'm not arguing, I'm debating. Too me this happens to be an enjoyable discussion. I will also like to use one of your analogies above if you don't mind continuing the debate.

happyguy
02-07-2010, 08:44
The recoil is "sharper" which is more damaging. The quicker energy is transferred the less time the plastic has to try and absorb it and transfer that to motion.

If you watch slow motion photography of a revolver being fired, you will see that the bullet has already left the barrel before there is any significant movement of the gun. And in a revolver there is no moving barrel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIqnvdQn5NM



Regards,
Happyguy :)

uz2bUSMC
02-07-2010, 08:52
If you watch slow motion photography of a revolver being fired, you will see that the bullet has already left the barrel before there is any significant movement of the gun. And in a revolver there is no moving barrel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIqnvdQn5NM



Regards,
Happyguy :)

I know this already, brotha. You have two opposing forces, the bullet and the gun... obviously the little bullet will be on it's way much faster than the gun. If the gases alone were creating the recoil, blanks would have more of an effect in Hollywood.


Let's take your rocket anology:

Place the rockets over sand.

Have the same "thrust" for each.

Have one wiegh 1 ounce, the other 1 pound.

-Which one do you think will disturb more sand?

Bones13
02-07-2010, 13:00
My basis for using the theory to my advantage comes from the basic understanding of the principal of the theory. Like I said, I have plenty of questions myself, not to mention a larger data set would be awesome. Either way I do believe the theory holds water to enough of an extent based on events aside from the theory for me to apply it in my choice of carry ammo. Got a problem with that?

You can do what you like; maybe it will save your life someday, maybe not. My problem is that Courtney hasn't proved this well enough to make recommendations for carry ammo, yet that is exactly what he's done. Better data is crucial and we have already discussed the difficulties in obtaining it. Haphazardly collected "street stop" data and anonymous goats are simply not sufficient.

Why would you think such a thing? What you say is absurd to say the least. You simply don't understand what it means for any data set to be statistically valid and I don't care to explain it to you. BTW, that is fact, not my opinion.

I understand exactly what constitutes a good data set in order for any statistics derived from it to be meaningful. My entire undergraduate degree was based around research design and statistics and I graduated with honors. What do I have to do, post a copy of my degree? In essence, Courtney is trying to say that a projectile with kinetic energy E has a probability of incapacitation X. Calculating that probability requires large sample sizes period. Flip a coin ten times and getting 7 heads does not mean the probability of heads is 70%. Flip the coin 100 or 1000 times gives a more accurate picture.

You can calculate the objective probability of a coin flip as 1:2. It is simply not possible to calculate the objective probability of incapacitation, hence we're stuck needing large sample sizes. End of story.

No, Dr. Courtney doesn't have to prove anything.

You're right; he doesn't need to do a thing. But if he personally wants his research to be more persuasive, he needs better data.

Besides, you already feel rubbed the wrong way by Dr. Courtney. At what point would he ever be done getting you to believe he ever did anything right? Beside the fact you said it would all have to be verified by a third party before you'ld believe it anyway.

I don't see a problem here. In the end it's about what it takes to be persuaded. Third party validation with better data would help a great deal.

--The science is in the ability of the research to withstand criticism. Period. <!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

That's not always true. Like when someone wrongly preaches for or against anything because of the way it may/will take negative effect on their credebility in one way or another if they don't.

Who has credibility at stake? Any investigator's credibility rests on his ability to persuade. The methods exist to answer criticism. Scientific rigor is all about withstanding criticism. Otherwise we're back to anecdote and opinion.

As for you saying; "I'm not sure why you seem to think that anyone critical of the research is somehow not qualified to evaluate it..." I didn't, nor would I say such a thing, as it is not true. But yes, it is my opinion as it were.

Um, you're contradicting yourself here. Besides, the science isn't really all that difficult to understand. There's no point to getting into a pissing contest over credentials.

And in some cases it doesn't matter enough to worry about, like with the ATK workshop testing and results.

Actually I agree with you on this one. The data is presented in a manner that makes it seem objective. In terms of reliability I see no real need to replicate it.

Who cares? There are exceptions to every rule.

That's exactly why you should care. Why are there exceptions? What do they mean with regards to incapacitation from BPW. If the means of incapacitation is physiologic why would drugs or adrenalin make a difference? They shouldn't but they do.

It's not like the "shrug-it-off" standard is associated with anything close to a majority.

Gotta support that assertion with some good quality data, but that data has never been collected. I personally have no idea what the percentages are. I agree that it occurs in the minority of cases. Unless the dude is on PCP. And how would you know that in advance?

And why are you so stuck on TBI? Who cares, TBI or not, if it works toward quicker incapacitation reguardless the mechanism?

Um, because that's what Courtney is talking about? Either we have a physiologic mechanism or we're talking about...what? Shoot a guy and he drops. Why? That's the exact point of this entire body of research, Fackler and Courtney both included. How could you possibly miss this essential point?

It may be limited to a percentage basis, but if it works as much as expected, who cares? I'm not saying it does or doesn't within the expected parameters of the threory. Just saying.

It IS limited to a percentage basis. I do think the entire thing is worthy of further research. With better data the end the entire question of which caliber to choose could come down to a fairly simple test of marksmanship. If you can hit the COM of a target X percent of time with one caliber and Y percent another, you could crunch the numbers to see whether the probability of a miss with a larger caliber is counterbalanced by the increased probability of incapacitation to BPW. A lot of people shoot well with one caliber and poorly with another. Misses can't incapacitate regardless of caliber.

Drugs and adrenalin make a difference in what?

Incapacitation from being shot...If drugs or adrenalin greatly reduce the likelihood of incapacitation due to BPW it would greatly alter the calculation I mention above.

sigcalcatrant
02-07-2010, 13:23
Your understanding of physics is flawed.

As is yours. Recoil is determined by the weight and velocity of the bullet, and the weight of the hand gun, NOT the pressure. Does the phrase, "equal and opposite reaction", ring a bell? The "rocket" and "firehose" effect has very little effect.

However, the gases that are pressing back on the cartridge case are the primary cause of felt recoil.


Nope! Way, WAY, wrong: equal and opposite reaction.

unit1069
02-07-2010, 13:56
I shot a G-22 for the first time about two months ago. The ammo the owner brought to the range was 180-grain WWB. The recoil was much greater than with my G-32 using 125-grain ammo. I gave up any thought of buying a G-23 barrel for my Glock after that experience.

I was surprised because I had shot a couple of .40S&W pistols before (only a round or two) and didn't remember such a strong recoil from that caliber, but that's back when I only owned a .380ACP.

fastbolt
02-07-2010, 14:09
I guess since I unsubscribed to this thread some time ago I missed a lot of stuff, some predictable and some not so predictable.

BPW has stuck its nose under the edge of the tent? (Predictable ;) )

I might as well say it again, since everyone else is repeating their favorite commentary ...

I think that further research into the BPW theory is probably going to continue to be required before it's readily established (wide spread within the scientific community) to have provided an explanation for some of the injuries being observed when people suffer gunshot wounds from typical handgun cartridges.

Further, once that point is reached where it's received wide spread acceptance, I wouldn't be surprised to see that even though the mechanism if more thoroughly understood, that it remains difficult to predict ...

Then, once the effect occurring can be better predicted, the totality of the effect and its potential influence when it comes to 'immediate incapacitation' on any particular human being is going to probably remain a bit difficult to predict.

In the meantime, I think I'll continue to place more emphasis on physical & mental preparation, training and reasonable attention to the selection and compatibility of the handguns & ammunition I commonly use for carry in anticipation of lawful defensive application in the worst of possible conditions.

Now, as to the actual v. felt recoil sidebar ...

I'll use the example of .40 S&W & .357SIG as has been previously discussed by company folks (including armorer instructors).

To put it simply, the fact that 2 cartridges may have similar pressures doesn't take into consideration how the pressures are actually achieved. Specifically, how quickly those pressures are reached.

When the Sig instructor was explaining why we might sometimes see peening on the sides of the barrel feed ramps of pistols chambered in .357SIG, and not in similar models chambered in .40 S&W, he explained it by saying that the rate of the pressure spike of the .357SIG produced force which slammed the bottom of the feed ramp downward against the frame's steel insert harder in the .357SIG than in the .40 S&W. It could sometimes cause the sides of the feed ramp to slightly deform outward after enough time.

It wasn't presented as something he said we'd necessarily see in all .357SIG pistols, but to check for it and address it if it ever reached a point where it appeared as though it might adversely interfere with normal functioning (requiring a file). He said this wasn't something typically seen in the pistols chambered in .40 S&W. Nothing was mentioned about how this mechanical difference connected to the rate of the different recoil forces might be perceived or experienced by the shooters. That can change from one user to the next and is a subjective perception.

Now, back to the original subject.

Some folks like the way they 'feel' and experience the felt recoil and recoil management of the .357SIG cartridge compared to others, such as the .40 S&W. Why can't that be fine for them?

Conversely, for those folks who do find the .357SIG to be fine for them, why can't it not be fine for those folks who find it's recoil and muzzle blast characteristics to be something they don't particularly like?

Might as well argue about the best hair color ...

The pendulum has been swinging a bit since the introduction of the .357SIG when it comes to trying to offer the best compromise in penetration and expansion, and then the whole 'bonded' bullet issue entered the fray.

There's enough in the way of caliber, bullet design and velocity thresholds and windows to go around to satisfy just about anyone, except maybe the most ardent caliber 'loyalist'.

Why not let things go and let everyone choose whatever floats their boat.

Those folks who are restricted for professional reasons to certain calibers & bullet designs can either deal with it by trying to change policy/procurement or else focus on training & practice to accomplish their tasks with the equipment at hand.

uz2bUSMC
02-07-2010, 14:15
As is yours. Recoil is determined by the weight and velocity of the bullet, and the weight of the hand gun, NOT the pressure. Does the phrase, "equal and opposite reaction", ring a bell? The "rocket" and "firehose" effect has very little effect.

Nope! Way, WAY, wrong: equal and opposite reaction.

I tried to 'splain to him...

sigcalcatrant
02-07-2010, 15:09
I tried to 'splain to him...I saw that. I tried to make it simpler, but he's stuck in 'rocket and firehose' land.:supergrin:

NMGlocker
02-07-2010, 16:37
The majority of recoil actually occurs after the bullet has left the barrel.
Incorrect.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The force is equally distributed to the gun and the bullet at all times, from the instant of ignition to the moment when the bullet is no longer containing the gas pressure behind it (the instant it leaves the barrel). As soon as the gas seal is broken by the bullet leaving the barrel, the recoil force ends.
What you are seeing in slow-motion photography (when the gun moves after the bullet leaves the barrel) is the delayed application of the force on the gun due to the gun/shooter combination having more mass than the bullet.
If you clamp the gun into a solid structure of greater mass than the energy generated by the round being fired, the structure would not move at all.
Now, if you take and apply a load cell to measure the forces generated you'd see the steady increase in force applied up until the bullet leaves the barrel and then an instant loss of force.
A simpler way of testing this yourself is with a blowgun.
You blow and the instant the dart leaves the barrel the pressure required to "shoot" it is relieved.
There is no recoil force applied to the gun after the bullet has left the barrel... NONE.
There is no firehose/rocket effect... NONE.

uz2bUSMC
02-07-2010, 16:40
Incorrect.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The force is equally distributed to the gun and the bullet at all times, from the instant of ignition to the moment when the bullet is no longer containing the gas pressure behind it (the instant it leaves the barrel). As soon as the gas seal is broken by the bullet leaving the barrel, the recoil force ends.
What you are seeing in slow-motion photography (when the gun moves after the bullet leaves the barrel) is the delayed application of the force on the gun due to the gun/shooter combination having more mass than the bullet.
If you clamp the gun into a solid structure of greater mass than the energy generated by the round being fired, the structure would not move at all.
Now, if you take and apply a load cell to measure the forces generated you'd see the steady increase in force applied up until the bullet leaves the barrel and then an instant loss of force.
A simpler way of testing this yourself is with a blowgun.
You blow and the instant the dart leaves the barrel the pressure required to "shoot" it is relieved.
there is no recoil force applied to the gun after the bullet has left the barrel... NONE.

Ehh bro, where the frick were you earlier?! Coulda used that pretty explanation alotta hours ago!

Well, said.

glock20c10mm
02-08-2010, 00:12
You can do what you like; maybe it will save your life someday, maybe not. My problem is that Courtney hasn't proved this well enough to make recommendations for carry ammo, yet that is exactly what he's done. Better data is crucial and we have already discussed the difficulties in obtaining it. Haphazardly collected "street stop" data and anonymous goats are simply not sufficient.
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 understand exactly what constitutes a good data set in order for any statistics derived from it to be meaningful. My entire undergraduate degree was based around research design and statistics and I graduated with honors. What do I have to do, post a copy of my degree? In essence, Courtney is trying to say that a projectile with kinetic energy E has a probability of incapacitation X. Calculating that probability requires large sample sizes period. Flip a coin ten times and getting 7 heads does not mean the probability of heads is 70%. Flip the coin 100 or 1000 times gives a more accurate picture.

You can calculate the objective probability of a coin flip as 1:2. It is simply not possible to calculate the objective probability of incapacitation, hence we're stuck needing large sample sizes. End of story.

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.
You're right; he doesn't need to do a thing. But if he personally wants his research to be more persuasive, he needs better data.
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.
I don't see a problem here. In the end it's about what it takes to be persuaded. Third party validation with better data would help a great deal.
And hopefully in my lifetime it will have come to that. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it though.
The science is in the ability of the research to withstand criticism. Period.
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.
Who has credibility at stake? Any investigator's credibility rests on his ability to persuade. The methods exist to answer criticism. Scientific rigor is all about withstanding criticism. Otherwise we're back to anecdote and opinion.
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.
Um, you're contradicting yourself here. Besides, the science isn't really all that difficult to understand. There's no point to getting into a pissing contest over credentials.
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...
That's exactly why you should care. Why are there exceptions? What do they mean with regards to incapacitation from BPW. If the means of incapacitation is physiologic why would drugs or adrenalin make a difference? They shouldn't but they do.
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.
Um, because that's what Courtney is talking about? Either we have a physiologic mechanism or we're talking about...what? Shoot a guy and he drops. Why? That's the exact point of this entire body of research, Fackler and Courtney both included. How could you possibly miss this essential point?
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.
It IS limited to a percentage basis. I do think the entire thing is worthy of further research. With better data the end the entire question of which caliber to choose could come down to a fairly simple test of marksmanship. If you can hit the COM of a target X percent of time with one caliber and Y percent another, you could crunch the numbers to see whether the probability of a miss with a larger caliber is counterbalanced by the increased probability of incapacitation to BPW. A lot of people shoot well with one caliber and poorly with another. Misses can't incapacitate regardless of caliber.
Well said.
Incapacitation from being shot...If drugs or adrenalin greatly reduce the likelihood of incapacitation due to BPW it would greatly alter the calculation I mention above.
True, but like you said; "If."


Craig

glock20c10mm
02-08-2010, 00:26
Just a quick question for those of you trying to decide if Dr. Courtney's theory on BPW is worth taking a look at, consider this;

Assuming the same bullet construction for each and that they'll all penetrate around that magical 12" mark, give or take a couple inches, between all of: 380 Auto, 38 Special, 9mm Luger, 9mm Luger +P/+P+, 357 SIG, and 357 Magnum, do you believe all will incapacitate equally on average?

I don't. I believe 380 Auto and 38 Special will always be on the low end of expectation, and that 357SIG and 357 Magnum will always be on the upper end of expectation. Heck, in my mind for me personally, it's not even opinion, it's fact.

glock20c10mm
02-08-2010, 00:34
Incorrect.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The force is equally distributed to the gun and the bullet at all times, from the instant of ignition to the moment when the bullet is no longer containing the gas pressure behind it (the instant it leaves the barrel). As soon as the gas seal is broken by the bullet leaving the barrel, the recoil force ends.
What you are seeing in slow-motion photography (when the gun moves after the bullet leaves the barrel) is the delayed application of the force on the gun due to the gun/shooter combination having more mass than the bullet.
If you clamp the gun into a solid structure of greater mass than the energy generated by the round being fired, the structure would not move at all.
Now, if you take and apply a load cell to measure the forces generated you'd see the steady increase in force applied up until the bullet leaves the barrel and then an instant loss of force.
A simpler way of testing this yourself is with a blowgun.
You blow and the instant the dart leaves the barrel the pressure required to "shoot" it is relieved.
There is no recoil force applied to the gun after the bullet has left the barrel... NONE.
There is no firehose/rocket effect... NONE.
+1 :thumbsup:

I could see that post being made a sticky all on it's own, let alone the rest of the thread!


Good Shooting,
Craig :cheers:

CynicX
02-08-2010, 20:36
I'd like to add something intelligent to this thread....Then I changed my mind...

.357sig > 9mm

:)

Seriously. I personally prefer the .357sig that is why I traded in my G17 for a G32. But that doesnt mean everyone should prefer it. The best way I can describe the difference is its a more "potent" round. More devastating while pinking, and flatter trajectory while shooting at distance.

I hope I dont and doubt I'll will ever need to shoot a human being. But if I do I want a weapon that I can handle properly and that functions reliably, I'll worry about caliber size and ballistic numbers later... :)

Bones13
02-08-2010, 20:44
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.

You're getting it but not getting it. The coin flip demonstrates the need for large sample sizes when you CAN'T calculate the probability based on possible outcomes. That is the case that applies. A data set of 10 for such a case is simply insufficient. Statistically, 100 would likely be the bare minimum. Has nothing to do with what I would like to see. Go look at statistical significance on wikipedia. It's a good write up for laymen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significance_testing.

I ate, drank and slept with this stuff for two years as an undergrad; I don't want this to come off as a personal attack, but it's very obvious to me that you don't quite grasp the statistics or the requirements of good research design.

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it though.

Me neither, but for the opposite reasons.

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.

Criticism should be clearly answerable either way fact or fiction. Take apart each point & document it. That's how it's supposed to work. I am using the term in it's technical sense in that I am assuming a serious reasoned critique.

DocGKR has credibility at stake if Dr. Courtney's theory holds water at all.

Roberts trained with Fackler as I understand it. Fackler was the anti-BPW so his stance on this isn't surprising. Fackler was trying to make sure more FBI agents didn't get killed due to bad ammo selection criteria. 10MM wasn't designed with BPW in mind but rather the ability to penetrate and make a big hole.


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.

This is true but it doesn't have anything to do with BPW. Basically there is a big drop in my ability to shoot well above a certain caliber. Has nothing to do with BPW and I suspect that any theoretical increase in the percentage likelihood of incapacitation due to BPW would not be sufficient to counterbalance the loss of accuracy.

Besides the fact that you overall seem to believe Dr. Courtney's work is flawed.

Not necessarily fundamentally flawed but lacking support of sufficient data. I also think the conclusions we could draw even if that data were better would be very limited.

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.

No problem. Just referring to the numerous anecdotal reports of people being shot and not being instantly incapacitated. Sorry, but I can't provide data, although as you mention BPW may not be the mechanism of incapacitation anyway. Oh, and wasn't it Courtney who brought up the whole TBI from BPW thing? He had pressure transducers and everything. Just sayin' because he is clearly the one person who DOES profess to know how it all works.

I keep going back to TBI from BPW as the mechanism of incapacitation because that's what Courtney himself talks about and because without a physiologic mechanism we're just talking about magic. If incapacitation occurs because a person simply decides to give up and fall down like they see on TV, BPW doesn't apply but certainly drugs or adrenalin might mitigate that. This is the heart of the problem with the M&S data; we don't really know what caused the "stop"

If we're talking incapacitation from BPW, there's really nothing interesting to discuss unless the mechanism of incapacitation is TBI. Splitting this hair is crucial because if the mechanism of incapacitation is psychologic rather than physiologic then TBI is irrelevant and so is BPW and we're back to discussing magic.

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.

That's ok. The problem I have with ALL of the street stop stuff is in the quality of the data. Collect good data and it's a whole different ball game, but that is extremely difficult to accomplish. Rigorous collection standards and large sample sizes are hard to come by as we have already discussed.

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.

I'd argue that why it works matters a lot. All research is ultimately about prediction. Predictability is the essential quality we're seeking here. That requires quality data; you can't demonstrate a predictable effect without it. Specific, repeatable physiologic events allows us to manipulate those events to our advantage. YOU don't have to know why it works, but to design better ammo SOMEBODY does.

Saying that if you shoot N people with caliber C1 will result in incapacitation X% of the time, but shooting them with caliber C2 incapacitates Y% of the time is only part of the story. If you can explain WHY there is a difference in the rates of incapacitation you can exploit it, e.g. design better ammo. Otherwise you're just blindly recording the difference. And Courtney has attempted to do explain the "why". It's much easier to show the "what" than the "why" but even explaining the "what" needs better data than he currently has.

It's all about the data.

glock20c10mm
02-09-2010, 01:40
The reason I'm quoting less than all you posted is simply because I don't take issue with the vast majority of what I didn't quote of your post.
Roberts trained with Fackler as I understand it. Fackler was the anti-BPW so his stance on this isn't surprising. Fackler was trying to make sure more FBI agents didn't get killed due to bad ammo selection criteria. 10MM wasn't designed with BPW in mind but rather the ability to penetrate and make a big hole.
To my knowledge Fackler has never openly commented toward Dr. Courtney's work which would include anything related to terminology including the phrase ballistic pressure wave. IIRC, what he did take issue with were stuff like: energy dump, hydrostatic shock.....and stuff like that which was really never defined. I believe Dr. Fackler is generally staying out of the public eye.

As for what Fackler's true intentions were from the start of the International Wound Ballistics Association (IWBA), I'm not sure anyone truely knows. Seems to me the FBI couldn't particularily stand having him around. Aside from any of those questionables, all of Fackler/Roberts/McPhearson among others in the IWBA did bring some excellent insight to the table which we've all learned from and probably would have never existed to the rest of us if it weren't for them.

As for Dr. Roberts.......he's kept the Fackler legacy alive and well, but when it comes to Dr. Courtney's work, he doesn't care if it holds water or not, but simply refuses to acknowledge it other than side BS commentary now and then which is getting rarer as time goes by. At any rate I have yet to see DocGKR bring anything intelligent to the table against Dr. Courtney's work, and I have followed it since the beginning.
No problem. Just referring to the numerous anecdotal reports of people being shot and not being instantly incapacitated. Sorry, but I can't provide data, although as you mention BPW may not be the mechanism of incapacitation anyway. Oh, and wasn't it Courtney who brought up the whole TBI from BPW thing? He had pressure transducers and everything. Just sayin' because he is clearly the one person who DOES profess to know how it all works.

I keep going back to TBI from BPW as the mechanism of incapacitation because that's what Courtney himself talks about and because without a physiologic mechanism we're just talking about magic. If incapacitation occurs because a person simply decides to give up and fall down like they see on TV, BPW doesn't apply but certainly drugs or adrenalin might mitigate that. This is the heart of the problem with the M&S data; we don't really know what caused the "stop"

If we're talking incapacitation from BPW, there's really nothing interesting to discuss unless the mechanism of incapacitation is TBI. Splitting this hair is crucial because if the mechanism of incapacitation is psychologic rather than physiologic then TBI is irrelevant and so is BPW and we're back to discussing magic.
True! Dr. Courtney did bring it up and has never shyed from doing so. I have no problem with that, nor do I disagree in any way. What I'm saying is is that the TBI part of it wasn't even part of the theory and is nothing more than a hypothetical. Probably a good hypothetical, but none the less a hypothetical.

The thing is, I don't care who anyone is, they can throw around terminology like "Traumatic Brain Injury" which is probably dang near 100% true in one way or another in the context we're bringing it up, yet doesn't tell you anything definitive in any way whatsoever. TBI is an EXTREMELY broad concept and only a generality at best. So sure, it probably is TBI, but what specific TBI.

IOW, we have a starting point, but not much better than if starting from scratch in the first place. My intention is not to be arguementative with you, but only to point out what little in the way of a mechanism we even have a clue of even if it practically has to be some form of mild to moderate TBI. Especially from the standpoint that there doesn't have to be brain injury for brain damage to occure that may last as minimally as seconds before the brain has repaired whatever misfire occured.
I'd argue that why it works matters a lot. All research is ultimately about prediction. Predictability is the essential quality we're seeking here. That requires quality data; you can't demonstrate a predictable effect without it. Specific, repeatable physiologic events allows us to manipulate those events to our advantage. YOU don't have to know why it works, but to design better ammo SOMEBODY does.

Saying that if you shoot N people with caliber C1 will result in incapacitation X% of the time, but shooting them with caliber C2 incapacitates Y% of the time is only part of the story. If you can explain WHY there is a difference in the rates of incapacitation you can exploit it, e.g. design better ammo. Otherwise you're just blindly recording the difference. And Courtney has attempted to do explain the "why". It's much easier to show the "what" than the "why" but even explaining the "what" needs better data than he currently has.

It's all about the data.
I'm going to answer to this in an unconventional way. Bottomline why I so heavily in general buy into Dr. Courntey's work.

What things haven't proved over plenty of time to incapacitate BGs quicker? Well for one, caliber size (..., .355, .357, .400, .451, ...) by itself doesn't appear to matter at all. Nor by itself does expanded bullet diameter in any caliber. Seems they all just need to penetrate CNS or vital organs to have any amount of success. Obviously the CNS hits will usually create a DRT scenario. The vital organ hits have proved to much of the time to leave some to be desired in quickness of incapacitation. And just so no one freaks out that I'm missing something major, yes, plenty of BGs do quit fighting by their own free will, but those cases are beside the point.

So if any BG quit fighting in less than 5 seconds with proper shot placement does it mean they had to have quit by their own free will, or sometimes can there be more to it than that? I say there can be more to it than that. Some will argue that we hardly ever see it or they've never seen it. My arguement there is that the vast majority of common LE loads wouldn't be expected to produce the effects Dr. Courtney speaks of, especially after the bullet already penetrated a barrier which is relatively common with LE. Nor should LE be expected to arm their officers with the likes of 10mm. Their best chance is with 357 SIG.

Also, I don't buy into the hype that all handgun rounds aren't capable of the retarding forces required for the possible effects of BPW to take place. Many want to base everything they believe on LE shootings. Problem is they're already limiting themselves to the most popular loads LE carry which mostly all end up being around the same BPW level. Where some of us common civilians come out ahead of that game is with hunting/animal control. And plenty of us have seen what a 10mm will do that a 40S&W won't, or what a 357SIG/Magnum will do that 9mm doesn't.

And this is where the equation(s) Dr. Courtney has come up with really shed light. Those equations take all of the following into account and then some: velocity, kinetic energy, penetration depth, bullet weight, bullet construction.....and show us in psi a close approximation to what the expected peak ballistic pressure wave is. No one elses work has ever showed us this level of refinement toward a certain power level of the ammo you're using.

Most equations developed in the past (Taylor Knockout Formula...) simply equate to a reletively arbitrary number and don't take half into account as Dr. Courtney's do.

Dr. Courtney's equations show us why there's never been any apprecialbe difference between, 9, 40, or 45, against BGs. And for the first time, Dr. Courtney's equations actually take into account specific bullet design along with all other specific individual pertinent load properties. I believe it's the most comprehensive way to measure the power of a round in any media it's fired into.

At the end of the day, I believe the single biggest downfall for people trying to decide if this should mean anything to them or not, is relying on LE/military to provide all the answers. And that is about the last place you'll get the info you're looking for because of the rounds and loads they limit themselves to in terms of handguns.


Craig

uz2bUSMC
02-09-2010, 03:28
Bunes13 wrote:

I keep going back to TBI from BPW as the mechanism of incapacitation because that's what Courtney himself talks about and because without a physiologic mechanism we're just talking about magic. If incapacitation occurs because a person simply decides to give up and fall down like they see on TV, BPW doesn't apply but certainly drugs or adrenalin might mitigate that. This is the heart of the problem with the M&S data; we don't really know what caused the "stop"


And he discusses peripheral wounding. Also you mentioned people and animals quit or give up. People more so than animals. Animals doen't have a sense of their mortality, the go off of instinct. This is what makes a deer run until it simply can't. Even if they did give up, this would not acccount for instant incaoacitation, there is not enough time to process the information to account for this.

swede1945
02-09-2010, 15:57
TBI is one of three (not necessarily mutually exclusive) proposed physiological mechanisms for the rapidly incapacitating effects of ballistic waves. It has garnered the most attention, because there is considerable published evidence showing brain injury resulting from bullet impacts distant from the brain. The second physiological mechanism is remote spinal injury, which has been documented by a shock wave expert at Cal Tech, and strongly suggested in case studies by others, including the US Army. The third physiological mechanism was described as “neurogenic shock” by neurologist Dennis Tobin, and is basically an overload of the neural system from internal effects of the wave leading to temporary shutdown and collapse. This effect also has some support in experiments that demonstrate reduced remote cerebral effects in animal studies where the vagus nerve is disconnected.

The statistical confidence of any scientific finding increases with sample size. Proponents of the causal relationship between ballistic waves and rapid incapacitation have cited much more data than detractors. How much published incapacitation data is cited by Urey Patrick’s “Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness” or Dr. Roberts’ published advocacy of the 6.8x43mm SPC over the 5.56x45mm NATO? If zero published incapacitation data is cited, the statistical confidence is zero.

It has been correctly pointed out that while there is sufficient data for confidence in the conclusion that increasing the energy transfer from 400J (147 grain 9mm subsonic) to 700J (125 grain .357 Sig) over 30 cm of penetration confers a significant advantage with equivalent shot placement, this advantage has not been quantified with sufficient accuracy to make a well-informed decision in cases where recoil tolerance creates significantly less accuracy or slower shot times with the more powerful load. Each shooter should practice sufficiently to understand the recoil levels where their accuracy degrades, and take care to choose a combination of gun and load that functions well, performs well, and does not significantly degrade accuracy or shot times. However, the published data is sufficient to support choosing a load with larger ballistic wave, other factors being equal (if one shoots that load as well as loads with smaller ballistic waves.) Is there any ammo recommendation based on more published incapacitation data than this one?

uz2bUSMC
02-09-2010, 20:58
As for what Fackler's true intentions were from the start of the International Wound Ballistics Association (IWBA), I'm not sure anyone truely knows. Seems to me the FBI couldn't particularily stand having him around. Aside from any of those questionables, all of Fackler/Roberts/McPhearson among others in the IWBA did bring some excellent insight to the table which we've all learned from and probably would have never existed to the rest of us if it weren't for them.


Yea, I don't see him as beng the "Save the Agents" type. He needed money going into retirement time.

Didn't the rounds penetrate on Platt just fine? Thought it was bad placement?

I like Macpherson, just not the others. Well, in all fairness... I suspect I wouldn't give a crap about what Fackler has to say but family issues apparently have him away from such debates.

uz2bUSMC
02-09-2010, 21:09
Also, I don't buy into the hype that all handgun rounds aren't capable of the retarding forces required for the possible effects of BPW to take place. Many want to base everything they believe on LE shootings. Problem is they're already limiting themselves to the most popular loads LE carry which mostly all end up being around the same BPW level. Where some of us common civilians come out ahead of that game is with hunting/animal control. And plenty of us have seen what a 10mm will do that a 40S&W won't, or what a 357SIG/Magnum will do that 9mm doesn't

+1. People get too caught up on just penetration or just caliber or just energy or just one whatever. It's a cartridges ability to have multifaceted capabilities that becomes advantageous. The key element is how the .357sig's energy can use bullet construction to it's advantage in both penetration plus BPW. The 9mm can only do one thing thing at a time just barely "ok".

NMGlocker
02-09-2010, 21:17
357SIG proving to be an unbelievable manstopper???
Yes... unbelievably average.

uz2bUSMC
02-09-2010, 21:23
357SIG proving to be an unbelievable manstopper???
Yes... unbelievably average.

I liked you, now I don't.

glock20c10mm
02-09-2010, 21:49
357SIG proving to be an unbelievable manstopper???
Yes... unbelievably average.
Was that simply an off the cuff generalized opinion with nothing to back it up, or are you hiding something you could share with the rest of us to help us understand why you would think that?

remat
02-09-2010, 23:27
You still don't get it but you might be half way there. Truth is not a matter of choice but exists regardless of choice or majority opinion. In contrast, people have a range of opinions about a single truth. Hence, indeed, sensible medical Drs. will give their opinion rather than claim it to be truth. You are confusing the terms "truth" and "opinion".

English

Exactly! I think you got it. There is a fine line between truth and opinion and a lot of "truth" is in fact only "opinion" -- but being subjective/interpreted may be good enough for what ever purpose is needed.

Let's be honest, 115gr +P+ has been shown to work. Let's also be honest that 147gr subsonic has also been shown to work. Is it possible that they both work depending on circumstances? If, that is the case then which one is "better" is really only opinion.

PghJim
02-09-2010, 23:32
NMGlocker's tag line:

"America...just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable."
-- Hunter S. Thompson

Just so you know I disagree with that also. Hunter put a 45 slug though his head, indicating he was a real stable person. Also, having a son now in battle, I find it offensive. You should rather thank God for people like him that make the sacrifices that allow you to put such inane statements on your posts.

THplanes
02-10-2010, 01:05
/There is no recoil force applied to the gun after the bullet has left the barrel... NONE.
There is no firehose/rocket effect... NONE.

This is simply wrong. There is still high pressure gas in the barrel. The gas has mass and velocity and does contribute to recoil. In most pistols this effect is small because the powder charge is much lower than the bullet mass. In small bore diameter-large case capacity bottle neck cases the effect is much more noticeable.

N/Apower
02-10-2010, 02:42
Don't have much to add other than I lived with a guy who was shot in the thigh with a G32 at contact distance. The FMJ-FP passed within a few inches of his sciatic nerve. He was around 9-10% body-fat, runner-type build. He walked to his car, and drove to the hospital. If a GSW of that nature cannot disrupt the sciatic nerve, I highly doubt it will do anything to the brain if it hit him in the chest.

If it were causing an increase in pressure, we would note ruptured vessels in the eye on autopsies. Further, we would see venous valve prolapse, quote possibly, as well as other tell-tale signs of "over-pressure" in the circulatory system.

Recoil: Felt-recoil is a function of mass, velocity, and mass of the platform you are launching a projectile from which determines the duration of that recoil.

N/Apower
02-10-2010, 02:50
I was making a pun on the person I was quoting. That went right over your head. Also directing someone to Wikipedia for knowledge is laughable at best.
:rofl:

Imagine how pissed I was to find that the 300 lvl research class I took last semester cited wikipedia in our text-book as a reference. I about **** myself.

At any rate, based on police-usage, I would ask:

TX DPS gave up the .45 for the 357SIG almost 15 years ago. They still have the 357SIG. I take this to mean that they are happy with it, because 15 years is plenty time to recognize and correct a poor choice of that nature, if indeed it was one.

uz2bUSMC
02-10-2010, 07:43
Don't have much to add other than I lived with a guy who was shot in the thigh with a G32 at contact distance. The FMJ-FP passed within a few inches of his sciatic nerve. He was around 9-10% body-fat, runner-type build. He walked to his car, and drove to the hospital. If a GSW of that nature cannot disrupt the sciatic nerve, I highly doubt it will do anything to the brain if it hit him in the chest.

If it were causing an increase in pressure, we would note ruptured vessels in the eye on autopsies. Further, we would see venous valve prolapse, quote possibly, as well as other tell-tale signs of "over-pressure" in the circulatory system.

Recoil: Felt-recoil is a function of mass, velocity, and mass of the platform you are launching a projectile from which determines the duration of that recoil.

This means you did not read the thread, you're all wrong. The operative acronym in your post is FMJ. If you read the post you'll understand what I am talking about.

Bones13
02-10-2010, 10:57
Yea, I don't see him as beng the "Save the Agents" type. He needed money going into retirement time.

Didn't the rounds penetrate on Platt just fine? Thought it was bad placement?

I like Macpherson, just not the others. Well, in all fairness... I suspect I wouldn't give a crap about what Fackler has to say but family issues apparently have him away from such debates.

Needed money? Your bias is showing. Again.

BTW try reading this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1581604904/ref=oss_product

That way you won't be talking out of your ass.

I find this post of yours to be particularly irritating in the way it combines your extreme prejudicial bias with your lack of knowledge.

Fackler, a trauma surgeon, tried to limit the discussion of terminal ballistics to what could be explained by known physiologic principles specifically to counter the arguments and opinions of people with no medical background who relied on data that was both incomplete and haphazardly collected.

Sound familiar?

Bones13
02-10-2010, 12:22
The reason I'm quoting less than all you posted is simply because I don't take issue with the vast majority of what I didn't quote of your post.

More or less the same here. Trying to limit things to what has not been covered. No sense beating dead horses. Move the discussion forward.

To my knowledge Fackler has never openly commented toward Dr. Courtney's work which would include anything related to terminology including the phrase ballistic pressure wave. IIRC, what he did take issue with were stuff like: energy dump, hydrostatic shock.....and stuff like that which was really never defined. I believe Dr. Fackler is generally staying out of the public eye.

Dunno what Fackler thinks about it but I suspect that his main complaint would be that the best that could be done, even with good data, is prove the existence of an unreliable phenomenon.

As for what Fackler's true intentions were from the start of the International Wound Ballistics Association (IWBA), I'm not sure anyone truely knows. Seems to me the FBI couldn't particularily stand having him around. Aside from any of those questionables, all of Fackler/Roberts/McPhearson among others in the IWBA did bring some excellent insight to the table which we've all learned from and probably would have never existed to the rest of us if it weren't for them.

The context in which Fackler published has to be taken into account. As you said before, people were routinely throwing around bull**** terms like "knockdown power". SOMEBODY had to put the discussion on firmer ground. I think he should at least get credit for that. You could even look at Courtney's work as an extension of that line of thought, even if you don't agree with it.

Dunno much about the IWBA or what the FBI thought beyond this:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

You've probably seen it but it bears reading and re-reading.

True! Dr. Courtney did bring it up and has never shyed from doing so. I have no problem with that, nor do I disagree in any way. What I'm saying is is that the TBI part of it wasn't even part of the theory and is nothing more than a hypothetical. Probably a good hypothetical, but none the less a hypothetical.

FWIW Courtney does talk directly about TBI being the mechanism on the first page:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.3053.pdf

My perspective is that even every thought you have can be traced to a particular physiologic event - a specific set of neurons firing in a specific pattern. There has to be a physiologic explanation to take it beyond just saying "I shoot him & he fall down go boom". What exactly do we mean by incapacitation? Seemingly specific words have a way of meaning less than we think. What does it mean to say a neuron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron) fires (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_potential)? It gets complicated very quickly.

The thing is, I don't care who anyone is, they can throw around terminology like "Traumatic Brain Injury" which is probably dang near 100% true in one way or another in the context we're bringing it up, yet doesn't tell you anything definitive in any way whatsoever. TBI is an EXTREMELY broad concept and only a generality at best. So sure, it probably is TBI, but what specific TBI.

All good questions, but specifics are what drives the science. It was asserted earlier in this thread that there is no difference between the type of damage that occurs when sheep butt heads and when BPW causes TBI, which is just silly.

Slamming the brain against the inside of the skull is very different from a fluid pressure wave passing through the tissue. They both might result in unconsciousness or injury, but for far different reasons. You're right; at this point we don't have a clue why it might happen in any detailed way.

And this is where the equation(s) Dr. Courtney has come up with really shed light. Those equations take all of the following into account and then some: velocity, kinetic energy, penetration depth, bullet weight, bullet construction.....and show us in psi a close approximation to what the expected peak ballistic pressure wave is. No one elses work has ever showed us this level of refinement toward a certain power level of the ammo you're using.

It's interesting stuff. I'd like to see it get developed a lot more if for no other reason that to give ER docs something to look for.

Most equations developed in the past (Taylor Knockout Formula...) simply equate to a reletively arbitrary number and don't take half into account as Dr. Courtney's do.

Yup. It's a step in the right direction.

Dr. Courtney's equations show us why there's never been any apprecialbe difference between, 9, 40, or 45, against BGs. And for the first time, Dr. Courtney's equations actually take into account specific bullet design along with all other specific individual pertinent load properties. I believe it's the most comprehensive way to measure the power of a round in any media it's fired into.

Dunno if I'd completely accept the assertion that there's NO difference but I get what you're saying.

At the end of the day, I believe the single biggest downfall for people trying to decide if this should mean anything to them or not, is relying on LE/military to provide all the answers. And that is about the last place you'll get the info you're looking for because of the rounds and loads they limit themselves to in terms of handguns.

The military and LE aren't usually researchers. Sometimes research conducted by military or LE agencies is biased, too. If your boss wants the results to be X, the results have a way of being X, especially if you want a promotion.

The literature talks about psychological versus physiological factors causing incapacitation. Does a larger BPW simply means it hurts more? Or that it gives the victim a greater sense of "having been shot"?

I used to have a link (which of course now I can't find) to an article about how hollywood cliches have informed peoples expectation about what happens when someone is shot. People fall down because they think they're supposed to.

uz2bUSMC
02-10-2010, 12:39
Needed money? Your bias is showing. Again.

BTW try reading this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1581604904/ref=oss_product

That way you won't be talking out of your ass.

I find this post of yours to be particularly irritating in the way it combines your extreme prejudicial bias with your lack of knowledge.

Fackler, a trauma surgeon, tried to limit the discussion of terminal ballistics to what could be explained by known physiologic principles specifically to counter the arguments and opinions of people with no medical background who relied on data that was both incomplete and haphazardly collected.

Sound familiar?

Yea I'm bias of his bad info, period. Fackler and his chronies will say anything to sell his Koolaid. If he's such an angel, and soo concerned for the agents, why did he publicly put down Dr. Roberts?

I can tell you don't know as much as you'd like people to believe.

uz2bUSMC
02-10-2010, 12:56
The literature talks about psychological versus physiological factors causing incapacitation. Does a larger BPW simply means it hurts more? Or that it gives the victim a greater sense of "having been shot"?


What accounts for instant incapacitation? Are you going to dodge this question again? When an animal falls instantly or a person, what's happeneing? It doesn't have ****** to do with "Hollywood"... there's no time to process the information.

And the firearms tactical link is about as rooky of a move that the 9 is fine camper can make, jeez. Good thing Urey's info is so fresh and new

NMGlocker
02-10-2010, 13:19
I liked you, now I don't.
Like I give a **** who likes me and who doesn't...
NMGlocker's tag line:
Just so you know I disagree with that also. .
See above.
I don't give a **** what you agree or disagree with.

uz2bUSMC
02-10-2010, 13:21
Like I give a **** who likes me and who doesn't...

See above.
I don't give a **** what you agree or disagree with.

:wavey: wanna fight?

N/Apower
02-10-2010, 13:50
This means you did not read the thread, you're all wrong. The operative acronym in your post is FMJ. If you read the post you'll understand what I am talking about.

Both cause tissue to be forced away from their path at a 90* angle. Further, we are talking about hydraulic pressure in a system (vessels). A system with a myriad of valves, and weak-points all throughout it. The impact of a projectile on a vessel in the chest would cause plenty of other issues before it ruptured something in the brain.

Further, whether or not one is to accept this, "TBI" as fact, one cannot dispute that it is highly un-reliable. A psychological stop is much more likely than a "TBI" stop, if you will. There are numerous people alive who will attest to that, after having survived a GSW to the thoracic cavity.

Yes, there are things beyond what jello shows us that occur, and I cannot rule out that ruptured vessels in the brain may occur, but I can say that that is the last thing I want to be banking on as a mechanism of "stopping" someone from their course of action.

What accounts for instant incapacitation? Are you going to dodge this question again? When an animal falls instantly or a person, what's happeneing? It doesn't have ****** to do with "Hollywood"... there's no time to process the information.

And the firearms tactical link is about as rooky of a move that the 9 is fine camper can make, jeez. Good thing Urey's info is so fresh and new


What accounts for when this doesn't happen? Not every heart/lung-shot deer drops in its tracks. By all logic, this means that TBI is just as likely as it is not, even assuming that is the mechanism at all. Your own example shows the fallacy considering it a quantifiable, reliable wounding mechanism.

Yea I'm bias of his bad info, period. Fackler and his chronies will say anything to sell his Koolaid. If he's such an angel, and soo concerned for the agents, why did he publicly put down Dr. Roberts?

I can tell you don't know as much as you'd like people to believe.

You think Courtney and Courtney and Dr. Roberts aren't peddaling their own kool-aid? Everyone is selling something. Everyone has an agenda. It's just life.

The fact that there is a debate at all shows that there are things we do not understand. Some scientists stick to measurable, or more easily quantifiable outcomes more strictly than others. Considering the myriad of responses animals and humans have in response to piercing trauma, it is impractical to try to credit the external force with 100% of the outcome. Therefor, I feel that very tangible tests are best when measuring ammunition against ammunition.

That which produces the largest permanent hole, has better effect than that which produces the smallest, with regard to cessation of target action. As the disparity narrows, so does the effectiveness difference, to the point to where a smaller permanent cavity producing projectile, in a certain circumstance, may do better than a different one, because of immeasurable phenomina, or phenomina that is so numerous and inter-related as to be immesurable.

At what point does TC outweigh CC? To what extent? Does it ever?

These are all intangibles.

If I have a choice between equal CC and TC, and equal CC and larger TC, Obviously I want the equal CC and larger TC, but what if it were reversed?

Beyond blood volume loss, expansion, and penetration, and tissue crushed, this is a science of grays. The "gello shooters" are not ignoring this, rather they are choosing not to try to measure that which cannot be quantified and sticking with what can.

Science seeks to quantify what can be observed and measured. If you wish to place your faith in that which cannot, I suggest religion instead.

uz2bUSMC
02-10-2010, 15:16
N/A to be honest, I only began reading your response... then quit once I saw you were still lost.

Do you know what retarding forces are? Do you understand the differences between fmj and hollow points, and what their differences coorelate to regarding retarding forces?

You don't understand the beginning but wish to debate at the end. I'm not even going to bother repeating everything that has been discussed adnauseum, because someone wants to assume they have a grand understanding of the topics at hand but fail to demonstrate the basics.

NMGlocker
02-10-2010, 15:18
:wavey: wanna fight?
Dawn tomorrow, ball peen hammers at 10'.
Good day sir!

uz2bUSMC
02-10-2010, 15:21
Dawn tomorrow, ball peen hammers at 10'.
Good day sir!

:rofl: I still might not like you, but I might like the way you think... sometimes.

Yea, Yea, I know... you don't give a **** !

N/Apower
02-10-2010, 15:30
N/A to be honest, I only began reading your response... then quit once I saw you were still lost.

Do you know what retarding forces are? Do you understand the differences between fmj and hollow points, and what their differences coorelate to regarding retarding forces?

You don't understand the beginning but wish to debate at the end. I'm not even going to bother repeating everything that has been discussed adnauseum, because someone wants to assume they have a grand understanding of the topics at hand but fail to demonstrate the basics.


Yes, I understand retarding-forces. I understand energy transfer. I understand force/time equations.

However, do you understand anatomy? How much knowledge do you possess of the human body and how it is effected by trauma?

From what I can tell, you have a good grasp of physics and logic, but a poor grasp of anatomy and trauma, especially with regards to the circulatory system and the brain, and how these organs react to trauma of various types, and how this trauma is detected in a medical setting and manifested in a "victim" of said trauma. I have sat through lecture after lecture on TIA's and brain-bleeds and torsion brain-injuries and whatnot. I spend several days a week in the ICU. I have talked with a Dr who has saved someone who had been shot multiple times in the chest with a .45.

Admittedly, I have a LOT left to learn.

I think you have under-sold the human body, it's resilience, and its intricacies and that you are trying to apply a fixed, black-white definition to a dynamic situation, and it's not going to work.

uz2bUSMC
02-10-2010, 15:37
Yes, I understand retarding-forces. I understand energy transfer. I understand force/time equations.

However, do you understand anatomy? How much knowledge do you possess of the human body and how it is effected by trauma?

From what I can tell, you have a good grasp of physics and logic, but a poor grasp of anatomy and trauma, especially with regards to the circulatory system and the brain, and how these organs react to trauma of various types, and how this trauma is detected in a medical setting and manifested in a "victim" of said trauma. I have sat through lecture after lecture on TIA's and brain-bleeds and torsion brain-injuries and whatnot. I spend several days a week in the ICU. I have talked with a Dr who has saved someone who had been shot multiple times in the chest with a .45.

Admittedly, I have a LOT left to learn.

I think you have under-sold the human body, it's resilience, and its intricacies and that you are trying to apply a fixed, black-white definition to a dynamic situation, and it's not going to work.

Look man, I have a good understanding of anatomy and other things. I have to say that I do not believe that you possess the knowledge of retarding forces that you believe you do. If you did, you would EASILY understand how a fmj would not impart it's energy towards the retarding forces the way an expanding projectile would, period. It's not even a discussion point but yet, here we are.

Now that doctor you talked to in the ICU ask him what bullets were being used and more importantly, ask him what effect it had on the street.

N/Apower
02-10-2010, 15:42
Look man, I have a good understanding of anatomy and other things. I have to say that I do not believe that you possess the knowledge of retarding forces that you believe you do. If you did, you would EASILY understand how a fmj would not impart it's energy towards the retarding forces the way an expanding projectile would, period. It's not even a discussion point but yet, here we are.

Now that doctor you talked to in the ICU ask him what bullets were being used and more importantly, ask him what effect it had on the street.


The Dr. I spoke with was not in the ICU setting I am currently in. You will further discover many cases "from the street" (one involving Officer Coates, another involving the Miami Shootout) of rapidly expanding, high-energy (if you can call them that) handgun rounds being fired into the thoracic cavity and having no effect leading to incapacitation due to TBI.

Regardless of the forces involved, the evidence of this wounding mechanism appears spotty.

Given your claimed understanding of human anatomy, vessels, and the responses and signs of increased pressure within them as well as the manifestations of TBI's and brain-bleeds and other traumatic injuries to the human body resulting from increases in cellular and intravascular pressure, I think that you can see for yourself why I am so skeptacle based on the evidence (or lack) provided to support it as a reliable mechanism of incapacitation.

uz2bUSMC
02-10-2010, 15:42
Oh, and I'm not trying to apply a fixed black nd white solution... if you read the thread you would know, once a friggin' 'gain. I have said it is an added friggin advantage. I'm tired of a bunch of lazy ****s commin' into threads thinkin they got the answers but haven't got the first clue of what's been explained over and frickin over again. Do your damn homework first and then come to discuss, don't waste me ****in time!

uz2bUSMC
02-10-2010, 15:50
The Dr. I spoke with was not in the ICU setting I am currently in. You will further discover many cases "from the street" (one involving Officer Coates, another involving the Miami Shootout) of rapidly expanding, high-energy (if you can call them that) handgun rounds being fired into the thoracic cavity and having no effect to end of incapacitation due to TBI.

Regardless of the forces involved, the evidence of this wounding mechanism appears spotty.

Given your understanding of human anatomy, vessels, and the response to increased pressure within them as well as the manifestations of TBI's and brain-bleeds and other traumatic injuries, I think that you can see for yourself why I am so skeptacle based on the evidence (or lack) provided to support it as a reliable mechanism of incapacitation.

No, I see that you are unable to put all the pieces together just like everyone else. Do you understand that it is not just expanding? It's not just energy. It's not just "torso".

It's what bullet... what path discerned from the autopsy...how much energy... was their incapacitation. It's all of these things TOGETHER

You are doin what everyone else likes to do, give a bland example...

-This guy kept going after being hit with a .45

-This guy dropped from a .380

-This guy got shot 15 times

...so what, where are the other details, the other pieces?


Making long ass posts doesn't solve the problem or make you sound more believable or knoledgable

N/Apower
02-10-2010, 16:08
No, I see that you are unable to put all the pieces together just like everyone else. Do you understand that it is not just expanding? It's not just energy. It's not just "torso".

It's what bullet... what path discerned from the autopsy...how much energy... was their incapacitation. It's all of these things TOGETHER

You are doin what everyone else likes to do, give a bland example...

-This guy kept going after being hit with a .45

-This guy dropped from a .380

-This guy got shot 15 times

...so what, where are the other details, the other pieces?


Making long ass posts doesn't solve the problem or make you sound more believable or knoledgable

I have read your posts in this thread and feel that there nothing I can gain from you, nor do I wish to attempt to impart anything. Nothing you have posted is from your own understanding, but rather from the observations of others. I would rather read their observations than your cliff-notes of said observations. Good day to you.

remat
02-10-2010, 19:28
Oh, and I'm not trying to apply a fixed black nd white solution... if you read the thread you would know, once a friggin' 'gain. I have said it is an added friggin advantage. I'm tired of a bunch of lazy ****s commin' into threads thinkin they got the answers but haven't got the first clue of what's been explained over and frickin over again. Do your damn homework first and then come to discuss, don't waste me ****in time!

But, on the internet everybody's an expert!

At least this thread is going better than the thread here where the poor guy asked what a good 380 load was and people chastised him for using 380 because they were, in fact, impervious to being shot with a 380 (well, might be a slight exaggeration but not by much)....or the thread where a guy who bought 100 rounds of Federal had 80 failures with it but it wasn't significant to contact Federal or where he bought....lol

N/Apower
02-10-2010, 19:38
But, on the internet everybody's an expert!

At least this thread is going better than the thread here where the poor guy asked what a good 380 load was and people chastised him for using 380 because they were, in fact, impervious to being shot with a 380 (well, might be a slight exaggeration but not by much)....or the thread where a guy who bought 100 rounds of Federal had 80 failures with it but it wasn't significant to contact Federal or where he bought....lol

The internet allows you to be whatever you can convince people that you are. The only way to get anything useful from it is to become adept at figuring out who is really who.

All that being said, the best .380 load is the one that hits the perp in the eye-socket.

Longshot308
02-10-2010, 21:17
I have the Glock 35 and I brought a .357 sig barrel for it. Like having two guns in one.I just got some LEE .357 sig dies to add to the loading corner. its is a little bit more tricky to load the .357 sig brass as it is necked down .I am in the process of collecting some .357 sig brass as I do not have a lot on hand.

Anglowulf
02-10-2010, 21:31
Owned one, G33. Hands outgrew it. Called it "Thumper". I really like that cartridge.

The way it was explained to me years ago...

Bottom line... The 357 mag was king of the hill on one shot stops for years in police shootings, a round I also like. (125 grain bullet at 1325 fps I think)

This round was eventually supplanted by the 40 S&W. (Yep, another darn good round)

The 40 did not beat the 357 stats because of superiority. Officers began carrying semi-autos rather than revolvers. Not a lot of 357 semi's out there.
The 40 began racking up "stats" while the 357 revolvers were phased out.
It simply had more chances at bat...

I own 9mm, 357, 40, and 44mag.
I hit my targets more frequently with the 9mm.
I get more recoil with the others.
I don't feel undergunned with any of them...


------As the frog said to the scorpion- "You stung me, now we will both drown... Why?
Thrashing in the water the scorpion replied- "I am a scorpion, that's what I do!

uz2bUSMC
02-10-2010, 21:45
I have read your posts in this thread and feel that there nothing I can gain from you, nor do I wish to attempt to impart anything. Nothing you have posted is from your own understanding, but rather from the observations of others. I would rather read their observations than your cliff-notes of said observations. Good day to you.

Yes , if you do not understand why a fmj is not a good example of BPW then there is certainly nothing you can impart.

Good day to you aswell.

N/Apower
02-10-2010, 22:21
Yes , if you do not understand why a fmj is not a good example of BPW then there is certainly nothing you can impart.

Good day to you aswell.


The FMJ is indeed inferior with regards to BPW, but disruption of nerve conductivity has been observed and documented using high-velocity steel spheres on animal tissue. Ergo, the relevance of my former roommate's GSW to the thigh with a flat-point projectile, which we can both agree, I am sure, is superior to a spherical object.

As you will note, C&C are far from the first to study shock-waves caused by ballistic missiles in the body. Also, they are far from the most thorough, shooting a few deer and calling it a "study". While this work is a bit "dated", the human body has not changed much since the 40's, and I have found it to be much more comprehensive and scientific than C&C's work.

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/chapter3.htm

After reading this study and finding no evidence of TBI being caused by missiles at over 3,000fps impacting the body anywhere but in the cranial region, I have, for the most part, put C&C's theory of TBI as a wounding mechanism to bed, in my own mind.

If there is something in this study that I have overlooked, or for some reason misinterpreted, by all means, I am a fan of the 357SIG and would love another reason to sing its praises.

I try to keep an open mind, but I am selective about what I keep in that mind.

uz2bUSMC
02-10-2010, 22:35
The FMJ is indeed inferior with regards to BPW, but disruption of nerve conductivity has been observed and documented using high-velocity steel spheres on animal tissue. Ergo, the relevance of my former roommate's GSW to the thigh with a flat-point projectile, which we can both agree, I am sure, is superior to a spherical object.

The steel shpere, depending upon the diameter might still present more of a frontal area than the .357sig fmj you referred to. Eitherway, the fmj presents little aggression towards retarding forces. A jhp is like a parachute, when it opens drematically, it rapidly sends it's energy off to cause hate and discontent... including peripheral wounding that you did not see in your buddy's wound.

As you will note, C&C are far from the first to study shock-waves caused by ballistic missiles in the body. Also, they are far from the most thorough, shooting a few deer and calling it a "study". While this work is a bit "dated", the human body has not changed much since the 40's, and I have found it to be much more comprehensive and scientific than C&C's work.

I'll check it out, don't know if I have seen it or not.

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/chapter3.htm

After reading this study and finding no evidence of TBI being caused by missiles at over 3,000fps impacting the body anywhere but in the cranial region, I have, for the most part, put C&C's theory of TBI as a wounding mechanism to bed, in my own mind.

In the studies conducted by Suneson, animals were shot in the thigh by high speed missiles. The effects were measured in the brain with high speed transducers. That is a good distance away from the impact site, yet the pressure spike was identified. These were dogs or pigs, can't remember.

If there is something in this study that I have overlooked, or for some reason misinterpreted, by all means, I am a fan of the 357SIG and would love another reason to sing its praises.

I try to keep an open mind, but I am selective about what I keep in that mind.

I've also done some testing and witnessed a few things that would be attributed to this "wave".

FerFAL
02-11-2010, 08:38
There's nothing "special" about the 357 SIG, its just a bit better than all other handgun cartidges in every aspect except price. :supergrin:

FerFAL

KenB22
02-11-2010, 10:24
Look man, I have a good understanding of anatomy and other things.

If its OK with you, I'll make up my own mind about that. I can only evaluate someone's credibility by what I read here since people post anonymously. I see your post #256 "...less penetration between to equally waited bullets..." For the record, its two equally weighted bullets. In you post #334 you say "..Making long ass posts doesn't solve the problem or make you sound more believable or knoledgable" For the record, its knowledgeable.

I figure someone who wanted to us to think he was knowledgeable about statistical modeling, physics, ballistics, anatomy and medicine (all at the same time) would learn how to spell. I would like to hear from people who have first hand knowledge actually researching this topic chime in.

uz2bUSMC
02-11-2010, 10:30
If its OK with you, I'll make up my own mind about that. I can only evaluate someone's credibility by what I read here since people post anonymously. I see your post #256 "...less penetration between to equally waited bullets..." For the record, its two equally weighted bullets. In you post #334 you say "..Making long ass posts doesn't solve the problem or make you sound more believable or knoledgable" For the record, its knowledgeable.

I figure someone who wanted to us to think he was knowledgeable about statistical modeling, physics, ballistics, anatomy and medicine (all at the same time) would learn how to spell. I would like to hear from people who have first hand knowledge actually researching this topic chime in.

Good job Ken, you little spell check ninja. Just so you know, I don't really care 'bout my spelling on here. Everybody makes mistakes and I don't care if I do. If you spent more time learning as apposed to spell checking CC might be an easier place for you.

SDDL-UP
02-11-2010, 10:58
Again...

The 357 Sig does not have a "flat trajectory" it's a mortar round like anything else you would carry. Difference between a 357 Sig and 230gr. 45 ACP is something like 2" at 100 yards. Myth busted.

Feeding problems in my 9mm CZ-75's and Glock are "almost nonexistent" as well. Use good magazines and you should never have a problem - period.

The 357 Sig is a fine round, but it's a 9mm +P+ really, you give up some capacity to gain 50 to 75 FPS over 9mm +P rounds. It's a fine round, but there isn't anything magical about it.

KenB22
02-11-2010, 12:03
Good job Ken, you little spell check ninja. Just so you know, I don't really care 'bout my spelling on here. Everybody makes mistakes and I don't care if I do. If you spent more time learning as apposed to spell checking CC might be an easier place for you.

For the record, its "opposed" not apposed. I am just saying that in trying to evaluate the credibility of an anonymous someone who claims to have expertise and understanding in as many fields as you claim to have, I find it telling that you have no idea how to spell. May not make a difference to others but it does make me question just how much "knoledge" of physics, mathematical modeling, medicine, ballistics and anatomy you really do have. Others mileage may vary.

greyeyezz
02-11-2010, 12:30
The 357 Sig does not have a "flat trajectory" it's a mortar round like anything else you would carry. Difference between a 357 Sig and 230gr. 45 ACP is something like 2" at 100 yards. Myth busted.

Cartridge (Wb@MV) 25 yds. 50 yds. 100 yds.
357 SIG (125 at 1350) +1.7" +2.9" +0.4"
.45 ACP (230 at 850) +2.6" +2.5" -6.9"


http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_trajectory_table.htm

uz2bUSMC
02-11-2010, 12:54
For the record, its "opposed" not apposed. I am just saying that in trying to evaluate the credibility of an anonymous someone who claims to have expertise and understanding in as many fields as you claim to have, I find it telling that you have no idea how to spell. May not make a difference to others but it does make me question just how much "knoledge" of physics, mathematical modeling, medicine, ballistics and anatomy you really do have. Others mileage may vary.

Slow down smoky, I said I have a good understanding, not expertise. Don't put words in my mouth. And what you don't understand is I don't care. If you don't like or trust what I post, I promise it is no loss of sleep to me. I spend no part of my day worrying if KenB22 likes/doesn't like or even reads my posts. And just so YOU know, posting stuff like this...

I'll never buy this BPW stuff. With all of the people getting shot in wars for the last 100 years, anyone from the army ever pay any attention to possible BPW effect? Are there any government agencies that pay attention to this BPW? You'd think the agencies might like their employees to come home safely at night and to have as much edge as possible. Think how much profit the gun makers or ammo makers could make if they could just market their product as taking advantage of this BPW. Yet...the army never discusses it, the FBI and all police departments ignore it and no gun maker or ammo maker is paying any attention to this. Mr. Courtney needs a better agent. He should be inviting the FBI and sky marshals and remington and speer to his home on a daily basis and redoing his tests for them so they can "learn" and take advantage of his superior analysis. Yet they don't. Wonder why??

,,,shows that you are only limited to being my personal spell check and have no real understanding of terminal ballistics and lack the ability to identify someone who does.

N/Apower
02-11-2010, 14:53
Cartridge (Wb@MV) 25 yds. 50 yds. 100 yds.
357 SIG (125 at 1350) +1.7" +2.9" +0.4"
.45 ACP (230 at 850) +2.6" +2.5" -6.9"


http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_trajectory_table.htm

At 100 yards are you capable of placing your shots in a 7" circle using a 4" barreled service-pistol? Does this difference really matter a hill of beans? If you are capable of this level of accuracy using these tools, then I would wager that 7" of hold-over is cake.

KenB22
02-11-2010, 15:30
Slow down smoky, I said I have a good understanding, not expertise. Don't put words in my mouth. And what you don't understand is I don't care. If you don't like or trust what I post, I promise it is no loss of sleep to me. I spend no part of my day worrying if KenB22 likes/doesn't like or even reads my posts. And just so YOU know, posting stuff like this...



,,,shows that you are only limited to being my personal spell check and have no real understanding of terminal ballistics and lack the ability to identify someone who does.


No. I think my point is clear. Nobody in law enforcement, nobody who makes handguns and none of the ammo companies care one whit about ballistic pressure waves. None of them consider BPW at all. It's a non-issue to them. Only people talking about BPW are people on bulletin boards trying to convince others how smart they are and that BPW exists. When people who have to put down bad guys pay attention to this stuff, I will too.

N/Apower
02-11-2010, 15:44
No. I think my point is clear. Nobody in law enforcement, nobody who makes handguns and none of the ammo companies care one whit about ballistic pressure waves. None of them consider BPW at all. It's a non-issue to them. Only people talking about BPW are people on bulletin boards trying to convince others how smart they are and that BPW exists. When people who have to put down bad guys pay attention to this stuff, I will too.


I think that regardless, it is impossible for anyone to dispute that there are MANY cases of high-velocity (for a handgun) JHP's impacting vascular structures in the chest and not causing any form of incapacitation due to TBI.

I refuse to say it is impossible, but I once again assert that to count on it or plan for it, is like a school child in the South wishing for a snow-day in April.

uz2bUSMC
02-11-2010, 16:13
No. I think my point is clear. Nobody in law enforcement, nobody who makes handguns and none of the ammo companies care one whit about ballistic pressure waves. None of them consider BPW at all. It's a non-issue to them. Only people talking about BPW are people on bulletin boards trying to convince others how smart they are and that BPW exists. When people who have to put down bad guys pay attention to this stuff, I will too.

Here again, you know nothing of Law Enforcement or Government agencies, obviously. Pay attention to them all you like, they will teach you nothing. This of course falls right in line with what you already know... nothing.

greyeyezz
02-11-2010, 16:27
At 100 yards are you capable of placing your shots in a 7" circle using a 4" barreled service-pistol?

Didn't say I was capable, was correcting his myth busted statement.

N/Apower
02-11-2010, 16:36
Didn't say I was capable, was correcting his myth busted statement.

Ah, gotcha. I am just saying that at 100 yards, the topic is moot.

English
02-11-2010, 19:20
....
I figure someone who wanted to us to think he was knowledgeable about statistical modeling, physics, ballistics, anatomy and medicine (all at the same time) would learn how to spell. I would like to hear from people who have first hand knowledge actually researching this topic chime in.

This is a really interesting means of verifying depth of knowledge. Spelling is a fascinating branch of learning. How did you learn to spell? Do you even know how you did it or did it just happen? English English and American English orthograpies have some very interesting rules but very few children or adults know more than a few of them. We could say that this knowledge is an intellectual knowledge of how to spell, but, in fact, most people who can spell well do so without thought of any intellectual kind. That is, their skill is not learning at an intellectual level but a kind of training process of the memory which has no connection to intellectual knowledge or ability and has little significance to core knowledge beyond vocabulary or jargon related to that particular core knowledge.

You can see the reverse process at work with almost anyone if they are required to read aloud text containing some long and difficult words with which they are unfamiliar. The result is that they stumble and try to apply those rules they think they understand, some of which are usually incorrect, to synthesise the phoneme sequence of the difficult word.

Of course, orthographical knowledge is not much use if you can't pronouce a word you wish to spell. Bright children automatically generate orthographical rules as they read material beyond their level of vocabulary. Almost all such children will pronounce "askance" as a-skance instead of ask-ance. They have met words like askew, aslant and awry and see its meaning as fitting the same paradigm. They then give it a meaning which they think fits the context of its use on that basis. They are usually a long way into adulthood before they discover their error. That is not a direct example but is an interesting illustration of linguistic development. A more direct example is what I take to be the American pronunciation of "buoy" since I heard it from an American yacht race commentator. He pronounced it "boo-y" and it should be pronounced "boy". If we transpose the "uo" to get "ou" then we can expect it to represent an "oo" or "ow" vowel sound and that is presumably how he, or Americans as a whole, arrived at the pronunciation. Where the silent "u" fits into English orthography is something I don't know but it seems to occur only with the cognate groups of build and buoy.

Quite appart from that, there are fascinating errors that can be seen in a site like this. Many are not typos as such but just examples of where people do not know, for example, the difference between sight and site. Others introduce incorrect vowels, "a" in place of "o" is remarkably common even though the writer knows perfectly well that he should use "o". "i" in place of "o" is a different category which occurs simply because the two keys lie next to each other. Some appear to be caused by triggering a mirror action of the finger of the wrong hand. Some introduce a phonetic spelling, although the writer, once again, knows the correct spelling. A common failing of mine is to miss the last letter of a word and write her instead of here. I never write hre instead of here. Most strange!

It would be far better, I believe, if more people took more care with spelling, choice of words and phraseology as they write here, or anywhere else, but I also believe that such ability or care has bugger all relationship to their knowledge or thinking ability. As you have made such a claim, would you explain the relationship?

English

N/Apower
02-11-2010, 19:44
This is a really interesting means of verifying depth of knowledge. Spelling is a fascinating branch of learning. How did you learn to spell? Do you even know how you did it or did it just happen? English English and American English orthograpies have some very interesting rules but very few children or adults know more than a few of them. We could say that this knowledge is an intellectual knowledge of how to spell, but, in fact, most people who can spell well do so without thought of any intellectual kind. That is, their skill is not learning at an intellectual level but a kind of training process of the memory which has no connection to intellectual knowledge or ability and has little significance to core knowledge beyond vocabulary or jargon related to that particular core knowledge.

You can see the reverse process at work with almost anyone if they are required to read aloud text containing some long and difficult words with which they are unfamiliar. The result is that they stumble and try to apply those rules they think they understand, some of which are usually incorrect, to synthesise the phoneme sequence of the difficult word.

Of course, orthographical knowledge is not much use if you can't pronouce a word you wish to spell. Bright children automatically generate orthographical rules as they read material beyond their level of vocabulary. Almost all such children will pronounce "askance" as a-skance instead of ask-ance. They have met words like askew, aslant and awry and see its meaning as fitting the same paradigm. They then give it a meaning which they think fits the context of its use on that basis. They are usually a long way into adulthood before they discover their error. That is not a direct example but is an interesting illustration of linguistic development. A more direct example is what I take to be the American pronunciation of "buoy" since I heard it from an American yacht race commentator. He pronounced it "boo-y" and it should be pronounced "boy". If we transpose the "uo" to get "ou" then we can expect it to represent an "oo" or "ow" vowel sound and that is presumably how he, or Americans as a whole, arrived at the pronunciation. Where the silent "u" fits into English orthography is something I don't know but it seems to occur only with the cognate groups of build and buoy.

Quite appart from that, there are fascinating errors that can be seen in a site like this. Many are not typos as such but just examples of where people do not know, for example, the difference between sight and site. Others introduce incorrect vowels, "a" in place of "o" is remarkably common even though the writer knows perfectly well that he should use "o". "i" in place of "o" is a different category which occurs simply because the two keys lie next to each other. Some appear to be caused by triggering a mirror action of the finger of the wrong hand. Some introduce a phonetic spelling, although the writer, once again, knows the correct spelling. A common failing of mine is to miss the last letter of a word and write her instead of here. I never write hre instead of here. Most strange!

It would be far better, I believe, if more people took more care with spelling, choice of words and phraseology as they write here, or anywhere else, but I also believe that such ability or care has bugger all relationship to their knowledge or thinking ability. As you have made such a claim, would you explain the relationship?

English


In summary, can I provide the observation that the IQ of the man whos fist smashes anothers face is irrelevant?

GVFlyer
02-11-2010, 19:57
In summary, can I provide the observation that the IQ of the man whos fist smashes anothers face is irrelevant?


The arena here is formed by the limits of intellect and the weapons are words not fists.

N/Apower
02-11-2010, 20:22
The arena here is formed by the limits of intellect and the weapons are words not fists.


If it is intellect that is to be championed, then words should be used as tools instead of weapons.

GVFlyer
02-11-2010, 21:50
If it is intellect that is to be championed, then words should be used as tools instead of weapons.

Mixed metaphors. Try to stay consistent.

mikeflys1
02-12-2010, 01:36
This is a really interesting means of verifying depth of knowledge. Spelling is a fascinating branch of learning. How did you learn to spell? Do you even know how you did it or did it just happen? English English and American English orthograpies have some very interesting rules but very few children or adults know more than a few of them. We could say that this knowledge is an intellectual knowledge of how to spell, but, in fact, most people who can spell well do so without thought of any intellectual kind. That is, their skill is not learning at an intellectual level but a kind of training process of the memory which has no connection to intellectual knowledge or ability and has little significance to core knowledge beyond vocabulary or jargon related to that particular core knowledge.

You can see the reverse process at work with almost anyone if they are required to read aloud text containing some long and difficult words with which they are unfamiliar. The result is that they stumble and try to apply those rules they think they understand, some of which are usually incorrect, to synthesise the phoneme sequence of the difficult word.

Of course, orthographical knowledge is not much use if you can't pronouce a word you wish to spell. Bright children automatically generate orthographical rules as they read material beyond their level of vocabulary. Almost all such children will pronounce "askance" as a-skance instead of ask-ance. They have met words like askew, aslant and awry and see its meaning as fitting the same paradigm. They then give it a meaning which they think fits the context of its use on that basis. They are usually a long way into adulthood before they discover their error. That is not a direct example but is an interesting illustration of linguistic development. A more direct example is what I take to be the American pronunciation of "buoy" since I heard it from an American yacht race commentator. He pronounced it "boo-y" and it should be pronounced "boy". If we transpose the "uo" to get "ou" then we can expect it to represent an "oo" or "ow" vowel sound and that is presumably how he, or Americans as a whole, arrived at the pronunciation. Where the silent "u" fits into English orthography is something I don't know but it seems to occur only with the cognate groups of build and buoy.

Quite appart from that, there are fascinating errors that can be seen in a site like this. Many are not typos as such but just examples of where people do not know, for example, the difference between sight and site. Others introduce incorrect vowels, "a" in place of "o" is remarkably common even though the writer knows perfectly well that he should use "o". "i" in place of "o" is a different category which occurs simply because the two keys lie next to each other. Some appear to be caused by triggering a mirror action of the finger of the wrong hand. Some introduce a phonetic spelling, although the writer, once again, knows the correct spelling. A common failing of mine is to miss the last letter of a word and write her instead of here. I never write hre instead of here. Most strange!

It would be far better, I believe, if more people took more care with spelling, choice of words and phraseology as they write here, or anywhere else, but I also believe that such ability or care has bugger all relationship to their knowledge or thinking ability. As you have made such a claim, would you explain the relationship?

English

This is, quite possibly, one of the most fantastic responses I've ever read here. :rofl:

unit1069
02-12-2010, 09:46
This is a really interesting means of verifying depth of knowledge. Spelling is a fascinating branch of learning. How did you learn to spell? Do you even know how you did it or did it just happen? English English and American English orthograpies have some very interesting rules but very few children or adults know more than a few of them. We could say that this knowledge is an intellectual knowledge of how to spell, but, in fact, most people who can spell well do so without thought of any intellectual kind. That is, their skill is not learning at an intellectual level but a kind of training process of the memory which has no connection to intellectual knowledge or ability and has little significance to core knowledge beyond vocabulary or jargon related to that particular core knowledge.

You can see the reverse process at work with almost anyone if they are required to read aloud text containing some long and difficult words with which they are unfamiliar. The result is that they stumble and try to apply those rules they think they understand, some of which are usually incorrect, to synthesise the phoneme sequence of the difficult word.

Are you saying that when I repeatedly mispronounce "corpsman" as "corpseman" it betrays an immature intellect and/or lack of knowledge?

jwizzl497
02-12-2010, 10:07
Unsubscribed!

unit1069
02-12-2010, 10:17
Shane!

Come back!

Come back, Shane!

KenB22
02-12-2010, 11:13
As you have made such a claim, would you explain the relationship?
English

Everyone who has ever read posts on a bulletin board has struggled with the problem of trying to ascertain whether or not the poster knows what he/she is talking about. True of my posts, true of everyone's posts. Since most do it anonymously, that is a very hard task. One reason why I respect Dr. Roberts’s posts is that he does not post anonymously. I can see who he is and look up his CV and publications and decide for myself whether he is someone who should be listened to. Same when Dr. Courtney posts under his name and not as Pasteur or whoever he is going by these days. I may or may not agree with anyone's analysis but I respect the posting under a real name. In evaluating this theory and its evidence, I am reminded of the Ghost Hunters program on the Sci Fi channel. I have seen digital recorders to capture electronic voice phenomena, electromagnetic field detectors, thermal imaging cameras and white noise generators as a catalyst to draw out paranormal activity all used to prove ghosts exist.

In discussing the OP's post, people here have tried to use physics, ballistics, wounding mechanisms, human anatomy, the circulatory system and mathematical modeling and how they all interrelate to explain why the .357 sig is proving to be an unbelievable manstopper. These are all very precise fields of study. I can't put someone on a witness stand and cross examine them to see who they are, what they do for a living, what publications they have authored and how much they really understand.

Here is what juries are told about witnesses: <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <u1:WordDocument> <u1:View>Normal</u1:View> <u1:Zoom>0</u1:Zoom> <u1:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </u1:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->To weigh the evidence, you must consider the credibility and reliability of the witnesses.
You should apply the tests of truthfulness and reliability that you apply when acting upon the most important of your own affairs. These tests include the appearance of each witness while testifying (can't do that here);

his or her manner of testifying (In trying to determine if someone can think precisely, or understand precise terminology or subject matters, I think it makes sense to see if they can be precise. On a bulletin board, one such piece of evidence is how they write or how they spell. I agree it isn't necessarily true that a bad speller doesn't know physics but I would argue that ability to spell and differentiate between to and two is some evidence of ability to think precisely or interpret precise concepts. When posting here at Glock Talk, posts have spell check in them that underline misspelled words. You can right click on the underlined word to get suggested spellings. To ignore these underlined words and post things with obvious spelling and grammatical errors are some evidence on the issue of whether the poster thinks precisely or can read precise texts. I also think whether or not someone proofreads their posts is a clue if the poster can read things precisely. We are trying to cull out those who really know a subject matter from those who slept at a Holiday Inn Express.
The reasonableness of the testimony;

the opportunity the witness had to see, hear, and know the things about which he or she testified; We won't know that until people start posting résumé’s and publications along with their posts.

The witness’s accuracy of memory; Probably not an issue here.
frankness or lack of it; Hard to evaluate with anonymous postings
intelligence; Hard with no résumé’s or the ability to cross examine. Best I can do on a bulletin board is look at sentence structure, spelling, and grammar to gain potential insight into whether a poster is capable of understanding those topics he/she is discussing. To give an extreme example, lets take a post on nuclear physics. If it was posted using an average 1st grader's sentence structure and spelling and grammar, wouldn't it raise a red flag whether or the poster truly understands the topic.
Interest and bias, if any; hard with anonymous postings. Probably impossible
together with all the facts and circumstances surrounding the testimony. I would argue that certain surrounding circumstances here are important. 1)
Apart from bulletin boards, are there people out there in the real world who should have an interest in this topic. I would say "yes” law enforcement in all of it various branches. I assume they have an interest in putting down bad guys quickly. 2) Has anyone who should have an interest in these theories actually adopted them in any meaningful way? Not to my knowledge. Please correct me if I'm wrong and give me the cite to where ammo choices were made by law enforcement using BPW leading to increased incapacitation as a consideration in ammo procurement. 3-Why not? Is it safe to assume law enforcement doesn't believe it? Look at all the things the FBI did after the perceived ammo failure in Miami. Why would they exhaustively try and find a better round to arm their field agents with in the 1980's and not do the same thing today?
Applying these tests, you will assign to the testimony of each witness such weight as you think proper. YMMV

swede1945
02-12-2010, 14:16
No. I think my point is clear. Nobody in law enforcement, nobody who makes handguns and none of the ammo companies care one whit about ballistic pressure waves. None of them consider BPW at all. It's a non-issue to them. Only people talking about BPW are people on bulletin boards trying to convince others how smart they are and that BPW exists. When people who have to put down bad guys pay attention to this stuff, I will too.

Work in this field has been published by military researchers in the United States, China, and Sweden as well as forensic scientists in several countries. Various terms are used to refer to the potential for BPW effects: shock wave, hydrodynamic shock, hydrostatic shock, etc. A number of ammunition designers and suppliers mention ideas related to hydrostatic shock in their patents and marketing literature: Charlie Kelsey (radially dynamic bullets), David Harris, Tom Burczynski (Quik-Shok, Hydra Shok), Bruce McArthur, Federal Cartridge (Hydra Shok), American Ammunition (Quik-Shok), the THV bullet, Hornady (Super Shock Tip, SST), Barnes Bullets (Triple Shock), TC Arms (Shock Wave), and Elite Ammunition. One handgun manufacturer makes the point with a video showing exploding watermelon heads.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
In his book on hostage rescuers, Leroy Thompson discusses the importance of hydrostatic shock in choosing a specific design of .357 Magnum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.357_Magnum) and 9x19mm Parabellum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9x19mm_Parabellum) bullets. In “Armed and Female,” Paxton Quigley explains that hydrostatic shock is the real source of “stopping power.” Jim Carmichael, who served as shooting editor for Outdoor life magazine for 25 years, also believes that hydrostatic shock is important to “a more immediate disabling effect” and is a key difference in the performance of .38 Special (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.38_Special) and .357 Magnum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.357_Magnum) hollow point bullets. In “The search for an effective police handgun,” Allen Bristow describes that police departments recognize the importance of hydrostatic shock when choosing ammunition. A research group at West Point suggests handgun loads with at least 500 ft-lbs of energy and 12 inches of penetration. A number of law enforcement and military agencies have adopted the 5.7x28mm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.7x28mm) cartridge, which is reputed to cause considerable hydrostatic shock. These agencies include the Navy SEALs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_SEALs), the United States Secret Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secret_Service), and the Federal Protective Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federal_Protective_Service) branch of the ICE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_%26_Customs_Enforcement).
<o:p></o:p>
Dr. Randall Gilbert describes hydrostatic shock as an important factor in bullet performance on whitetail deer, “When it [a bullet] enters a whitetail’s body, huge accompanying shock waves send vast amounts of energy through nearby organs, sending them into arrest or shut down.” Dave Ehrig expresses the view that hydrostatic shock depends on impact velocities above 1100 feet per second. Sid Evans explains the performance of the Nosler Partition bullet and Federal Cartridge Company’s decision to load this bullet in terms of the large tissue cavitation and hydrostatic shock produced from the frontal diameter of the expanded bullet. The North American Hunting Club also suggests big game cartridges that create enough hydrostatic shock to quickly bring animals down.
<o:p></o:p>
In an article in Outdoor Life, Jim Carmichael describes an experiment in a Cape Buffalo culling operation where 1) Brain hemorrhaging is observed in animals shot in the chest and 2) Animals where hemorrhaging is observed drop immediately whereas, animals with no remote brain hemorrhaging do not drop immediately:
<o:p></o:p>
Whereas virtually all of our opinions about knockdown power are based on isolated examples, the data gathered during the culling operation was taken from a number of animals. Even more important, the animals were then examined and dissected in a scientific manner by professionals.
<o:p></o:p>
Predictably, some of the buffalo dropped where they were shot and some didn't, even though all received near-identical hits in the vital heart-lung area. When the brains of all the buffalo were removed, the researchers discovered that those that had been knocked down instantly had suffered massive rupturing of blood vessels in the brain. The brains of animals that hadn't fallen instantly showed no such damage. <o:p></o:p>

uz2bUSMC
02-12-2010, 18:52
KenB22 wrote:

I also think whether or not someone proofreads their posts is a clue if the poster can read things precisely. We are trying to cull out those who really know a subject matter from those who slept at a Holiday Inn Express.


The work I do requires I be precise, Glocktalk is not a job... so I'm not required too.

Not to my knowledge. Please correct me if I'm wrong and give me the cite to where ammo choices were made by law enforcement using BPW leading to increased incapacitation as a consideration in ammo procurement. 3-Why not?

Here again it is clear you have no idea how LEA work or the military. Budget is first and foremost, then everything else. There are LEAs out there that don't pay for their officer's vests, but somehow you think that they would buy top of the line ammo? You never fail to dissapoint.

uz2bUSMC
02-12-2010, 18:54
And by the way Ken, spell check doesn't automatically correct your posts, you have to download Iespell to do it.

English
02-12-2010, 19:15
Are you saying that when I repeatedly mispronounce "corpsman" as "corpseman" it betrays an immature intellect and/or lack of knowledge?

I would never suspect you of having an immature intellect but all intellects have limits. In this case I don't know the correct pronunciation. it is clearly derived from the French, as in esprit de corps, and therefore English orthography does not apply. I would guess that it should follow the French and should be pronounced cor-man but, if it is, it does seem to be one of the things that bright youngsters get wrong and then take a long time to catch up with because of its rarity in spoken speach.

But now, it seems, you know how it should be pronounced, but continue to pronounce it corpseman. Is this just because it keeps coming out that way or is it because the general American usage is corpseman and you would just not be understood if you started pronouncing it a la francais?

English

unit1069
02-12-2010, 19:43
I would never suspect you of having an immature intellect but all intellects have limits. In this case I don't know the correct pronunciation. it is clearly derived from the French, as in esprit de corps, and therefore English orthography does not apply. I would guess that it should follow the French and should be pronounced cor-man but, if it is, it does seem to be one of the things that bright youngsters get wrong and then take a long time to catch up with because of its rarity in spoken speach.

But now, it seems, you know how it should be pronounced, but continue to pronounce it corpseman. Is this just because it keeps coming out that way or is it because the general American usage is corpseman and you would just not be understood if you started pronouncing it a la francais?

English

Thanks, English.

Actually, I know "core-man" is the correct pronunciation but I was asking for a friend of mine who keeps mispronouncing the word and none of his associates will correct him.

He was a visiting lecturer at a college at one time and doesn't take kindly to anyone pointing out he's not perfect.

English
02-12-2010, 20:15
KenB22,
A good post but you are looking for secondary characterisers to qualify primary quality. My youngest son has a First Class degree in Physics from one of the World's top 5 institutions but he is dyslexic and does not write at all well. Not too bad but definitely not well! This has not been helped by the fact that the UK educational system specialises at an earlier age than the US system and so the last 6 years of his education have been almost essay free.

I believe that the only way you can judge content is by following the explanation and comparing it to your own base knowledge. The difficulty then is in deciding what amongst the things you know is knowledge and what is authorative sounding clap trap that you have accepted from someone else without sufficient questioning or fundamental knowledge to question.

Certainly there are linguistic clues, but they still depend on base knowledge. One example is the use of the term "hydrostatic" to describe a hydrodynamic phenomenon, but in science it is the experimental result that is king and not the precision of the language used to describe it. The Romans produced a hard, durable, mortar some 2,000 years before we had the knowledge of chemistry to understand it. If you read Gearge Sorros's book on investment it is inpenetratable English but you can't argue with his results.

We are not a jury trying to judge the quality of a witness but people trying to make sense of a large category of wounding phenomena or people trying hard to pretend that the phenomena do not really exist by applying labels like "psychological factors" to it which do not fit the data. The Courtneys' work goes part way to explaining the anomalous data by providing a correlation between the peak pressure of a ballistic pressure wave and the probability of rapid collapse. They show a clear monotonic increase of effect with increase of pressure. They did not profess to have determined the mechanism involved and, as Swede1945 said a few pages back, it could have been one of three things. But it did have to have an effect directly on the brain! Since then a study at a Czech institute has shown the presence of characteristic minor brain trauma from remote gunshot wounds. This is not correlated to type of cartridge or rapidity of collapse but does show damage from remote wounding.

So far this seems to be a convincing tale of the probable existence of a real and useable effect. Almost the only way in which it could be wrong is for the Corneys to have doctored their data and many here have virtually claimed that they and independent Czech researchers have done so. I am not allowed to give my comment on this. In contrast, the opponents of the BPW effect produce a string of non arguments and no contradictory data. People professing a knowledge of scientific method claim that it is up to the Courtneys' to do more work to prove their case although the scientific method is that it is up to others to repeat the experiments or invent experiments to falsify the Courtney's hypothesis. These people claim that a sound hypothesis or theory should be able to stand up to attack. So it should but the attack should come from experimental evidence and not from verbal argument and character assasination. It should make no difference whether Dr. Courtney is really a 105 year old Nazi death camp Doctor in disguise. His work stands or falls on its scientific base and is independent of the scientist who created it.

It is now far too late and I am going to bed.

English

uz2bUSMC
02-12-2010, 20:41
KenB22,
A good post but you are looking for secondary characterisers to qualify primary quality. My youngest son has a First Class degree in Physics from one of the World's top 5 institutions but he is dyslexic and does not write at all well. Not too bad but definitely not well! This has not been helped by the fact that the UK educational system specialises at an earlier age than the US system and so the last 6 years of his education have been almost essay free.

I believe that the only way you can judge content is by following the explanation and comparing it to your own base knowledge. The difficulty then is in deciding what amongst the things you know is knowledge and what is authorative sounding clap trap that you have accepted from someone else without sufficient questioning or fundamental knowledge to question.

Certainly there are linguistic clues, but they still depend on base knowledge. One example is the use of the term "hydrostatic" to describe a hydrodynamic phenomenon, but in science it is the experimental result that is king and not the precision of the language used to describe it. The Romans produced a hard, durable, mortar some 2,000 years before we had the knowledge of chemistry to understand it. If you read Gearge Sorros's book on investment it is inpenetratable English but you can't argue with his results.

We are not a jury trying to judge the quality of a witness but people trying to make sense of a large category of wounding phenomena or people trying hard to pretend that the phenomena do not really exist by applying labels like "psychological factors" to it which do not fit the data. The Courtneys' work goes part way to explaining the anomalous data by providing a correlation between the peak pressure of a ballistic pressure wave and the probability of rapid collapse. They show a clear monotonic increase of effect with increase of pressure. They did not profess to have determined the mechanism involved and, as Swede1945 said a few pages back, it could have been one of three things. But it did have to have an effect directly on the brain! Since then a study at a Czech institute has shown the presence of characteristic minor brain trauma from remote gunshot wounds. This is not correlated to type of cartridge or rapidity of collapse but does show damage from remote wounding.

So far this seems to be a convincing tale of the probable existence of a real and useable effect. Almost the only way in which it could be wrong is for the Corneys to have doctored their data and many here have virtually claimed that they and independent Czech researchers have done so. I am not allowed to give my comment on this. In contrast, the opponents of the BPW effect produce a string of non arguments and no contradictory data. People professing a knowledge of scientific method claim that it is up to the Courtneys' to do more work to prove their case although the scientific method is that it is up to others to repeat the experiments or invent experiments to falsify the Courtney's hypothesis. These people claim that a sound hypothesis or theory should be able to stand up to attack. So it should but the attack should come from experimental evidence and not from verbal argument and character assasination. It should make no difference whether Dr. Courtney is really a 105 year old Nazi death camp Doctor in disguise. His work stands or falls on its scientific base and is independent of the scientist who created it.

It is now far too late and I am going to bed.

English

Man, Eng... I always enjoy reading your posts!

N/Apower
02-12-2010, 22:06
KenB22,
A good post but you are looking for secondary characterisers to qualify primary quality. My youngest son has a First Class degree in Physics from one of the World's top 5 institutions but he is dyslexic and does not write at all well. Not too bad but definitely not well! This has not been helped by the fact that the UK educational system specialises at an earlier age than the US system and so the last 6 years of his education have been almost essay free.

I believe that the only way you can judge content is by following the explanation and comparing it to your own base knowledge. The difficulty then is in deciding what amongst the things you know is knowledge and what is authorative sounding clap trap that you have accepted from someone else without sufficient questioning or fundamental knowledge to question.

Certainly there are linguistic clues, but they still depend on base knowledge. One example is the use of the term "hydrostatic" to describe a hydrodynamic phenomenon, but in science it is the experimental result that is king and not the precision of the language used to describe it. The Romans produced a hard, durable, mortar some 2,000 years before we had the knowledge of chemistry to understand it. If you read Gearge Sorros's book on investment it is inpenetratable English but you can't argue with his results.

We are not a jury trying to judge the quality of a witness but people trying to make sense of a large category of wounding phenomena or people trying hard to pretend that the phenomena do not really exist by applying labels like "psychological factors" to it which do not fit the data. The Courtneys' work goes part way to explaining the anomalous data by providing a correlation between the peak pressure of a ballistic pressure wave and the probability of rapid collapse. They show a clear monotonic increase of effect with increase of pressure. They did not profess to have determined the mechanism involved and, as Swede1945 said a few pages back, it could have been one of three things. But it did have to have an effect directly on the brain! Since then a study at a Czech institute has shown the presence of characteristic minor brain trauma from remote gunshot wounds. This is not correlated to type of cartridge or rapidity of collapse but does show damage from remote wounding.

So far this seems to be a convincing tale of the probable existence of a real and useable effect. Almost the only way in which it could be wrong is for the Corneys to have doctored their data and many here have virtually claimed that they and independent Czech researchers have done so. I am not allowed to give my comment on this. In contrast, the opponents of the BPW effect produce a string of non arguments and no contradictory data. People professing a knowledge of scientific method claim that it is up to the Courtneys' to do more work to prove their case although the scientific method is that it is up to others to repeat the experiments or invent experiments to falsify the Courtney's hypothesis. These people claim that a sound hypothesis or theory should be able to stand up to attack. So it should but the attack should come from experimental evidence and not from verbal argument and character assasination. It should make no difference whether Dr. Courtney is really a 105 year old Nazi death camp Doctor in disguise. His work stands or falls on its scientific base and is independent of the scientist who created it.

It is now far too late and I am going to bed.

English


Personally, my issue is this:

Dr. Courtney's work suggests that a light, fast, violently fragmenting or expanding JHP is the way to go.

The Courtneys take the position that the more, faster, harder, etc. with kinetic energy transfer, the better--and I agree.

The problem arises when you step out into the real world.

You cannot have a 9mm/.45/357SIG, whatever, that violently fragments/expands and still penetrates 12" through a variety of barriers. It just doesn't work that way.

So what you have now, is a decision to make: Do you want to cause a TBI (assuming you can, which, every study shown shows that even if this IS possible, it is FAR from assured, even with high-powered rifles), or do you want to ensure 12" of penetration in your target?

I think we can all agree that if a bullet could violently expand and fragment and all that and still penetrate 12" after various barriers, that THAT is the round we would want. However, since we can't have that (yet, anyways), we are forced to choose.

C&C would champion the fragmenting or violently expanding bullet.

I would propose that this is a poor decision.

TBI is iffy, even if we accept that it is real. However, there is nothing "iffy" about the fact that numerous people have been killed because they used ammunition that would not penetrate deep enough to kill their assailant.

Officer Coates, FBI Miami shootout, a local cop in dallas using 55gr BST's trying to shoot a perp in a car, the list goes on and on and on.

Therefor, while I think the 357SIG's extra energy on soft tissue is certainly a good thing (how could it not be?), I don't think that one should use 115gr Corbon's, or that one should state that the 357SIG is "far superior" to a 147gr 9mm that expands properly.

*With regards to damage of microvascular structures due to remote injury, if the retinal structures, and other various delicate vessels in the body are not damaged, I do not feel that the brain is at much risk with regard to any immediate effect. Kindof like worrying about blowing up the transmission in a corvette when doing a burn-out on a set of spare tires. When I start hearing about blindness and occular hemmhoraging due to GSW's to other parts of the body, then I will give this phenomina more thought.

NMGlocker
02-12-2010, 22:32
My .355" dia. hole puncher is better than your .355" hole puncher.
70fps is the difference between a poodle shooter and Thors Hammer!
Don't you people know how ridiculous this argument is?
:upeyes:
If you spent as much time training as you do typing... I guarantee your "stopping power" percentages would improve exponentially.

N/Apower
02-12-2010, 23:25
My .355" dia. hole puncher is better than your .355" hole puncher.
70fps is the difference between a poodle shooter and Thors Hammer!
Don't you people know how ridiculous this argument is?
:upeyes:
If you spent as much time training as you do typing... I guarantee your "stopping power" percentages would improve exponentially.

More like 150fps, and while I agree with you, I would also remind you that 50fps is all most +P loads gain over non+P loads, yet they seem to be ALL the rage.

glock20c10mm
02-13-2010, 02:00
Both cause tissue to be forced away from their path at a 90* angle. Further, we are talking about hydraulic pressure in a system (vessels). A system with a myriad of valves, and weak-points all throughout it. The impact of a projectile on a vessel in the chest would cause plenty of other issues before it ruptured something in the brain.

Further, whether or not one is to accept this, "TBI" as fact, one cannot dispute that it is highly un-reliable. A psychological stop is much more likely than a "TBI" stop, if you will. There are numerous people alive who will attest to that, after having survived a GSW to the thoracic cavity.

Yes, there are things beyond what jello shows us that occur, and I cannot rule out that ruptured vessels in the brain may occur, but I can say that that is the last thing I want to be banking on as a mechanism of "stopping" someone from their course of action.

What accounts for when this doesn't happen? Not every heart/lung-shot deer drops in its tracks. By all logic, this means that TBI is just as likely as it is not, even assuming that is the mechanism at all. Your own example shows the fallacy considering it a quantifiable, reliable wounding mechanism.

You think Courtney and Courtney and Dr. Roberts aren't peddaling their own kool-aid? Everyone is selling something. Everyone has an agenda. It's just life.

The fact that there is a debate at all shows that there are things we do not understand. Some scientists stick to measurable, or more easily quantifiable outcomes more strictly than others. Considering the myriad of responses animals and humans have in response to piercing trauma, it is impractical to try to credit the external force with 100% of the outcome. Therefor, I feel that very tangible tests are best when measuring ammunition against ammunition.

That which produces the largest permanent hole, has better effect than that which produces the smallest, with regard to cessation of target action. As the disparity narrows, so does the effectiveness difference, to the point to where a smaller permanent cavity producing projectile, in a certain circumstance, may do better than a different one, because of immeasurable phenomina, or phenomina that is so numerous and inter-related as to be immesurable.

At what point does TC outweigh CC? To what extent? Does it ever?

These are all intangibles.

If I have a choice between equal CC and TC, and equal CC and larger TC, Obviously I want the equal CC and larger TC, but what if it were reversed?

Beyond blood volume loss, expansion, and penetration, and tissue crushed, this is a science of grays. The "gello shooters" are not ignoring this, rather they are choosing not to try to measure that which cannot be quantified and sticking with what can.



Personally, my issue is this:

Dr. Courtney's work suggests that a light, fast, violently fragmenting or expanding JHP is the way to go.

The Courtneys take the position that the more, faster, harder, etc. with kinetic energy transfer, the better--and I agree.

The problem arises when you step out into the real world.

You cannot have a 9mm/.45/357SIG, whatever, that violently fragments/expands and still penetrates 12" through a variety of barriers. It just doesn't work that way.

So what you have now, is a decision to make: Do you want to cause a TBI (assuming you can, which, every study shown shows that even if this IS possible, it is FAR from assured, even with high-powered rifles), or do you want to ensure 12" of penetration in your target?

I think we can all agree that if a bullet could violently expand and fragment and all that and still penetrate 12" after various barriers, that THAT is the round we would want. However, since we can't have that (yet, anyways), we are forced to choose.

C&C would champion the fragmenting or violently expanding bullet.

I would propose that this is a poor decision.

TBI is iffy, even if we accept that it is real. However, there is nothing "iffy" about the fact that numerous people have been killed because they used ammunition that would not penetrate deep enough to kill their assailant.

Officer Coates, FBI Miami shootout, a local cop in dallas using 55gr BST's trying to shoot a perp in a car, the list goes on and on and on.

Therefor, while I think the 357SIG's extra energy on soft tissue is certainly a good thing (how could it not be?), I don't think that one should use 115gr Corbon's, or that one should state that the 357SIG is "far superior" to a 147gr 9mm that expands properly.

*With regards to damage of microvascular structures due to remote injury, if the retinal structures, and other various delicate vessels in the body are not damaged, I do not feel that the brain is at much risk with regard to any immediate effect. Kindof like worrying about blowing up the transmission in a corvette when doing a burn-out on a set of spare tires. When I start hearing about blindness and occular hemmhoraging due to GSW's to other parts of the body, then I will give this phenomina more thought.

I don't know what your job title is but I'ld bet quite a bit of money it ain't "Doctor". I've never been in the medical profession and it seems I know more than you. Some of what you post is just plain think-you-know but you just plain don't. I'm not saying this to ridicule you, it's just a fact.

As for what you seem to think is required toward diagnosing mild to moderate TBI, how about I just explain a few things to you.

In the sense of objectivity and comprehensive thought (whether one chooses to consider it or not), I think the following is important to keep in mind toward Dr. Courtney's scientific study of BPW and it's possible attributes of quicker incapacitation some percentage of the time (not to mention among quite a bit of other supporting scientific study), in reguard to actually finding symptoms.

With reguard to brain trauma, how can those that treat gunshot wound victims know if there was remote brain damage or not? MRIs and CT scans don't usually even tell doctors if someone has a concussion.

Much of mild traumatic brain injury is far from being understood, let alone they don't know how to diagnose much of it. Yet mild to moderate TBI still clearly exists even though they have trouble with the explanation part.

The defense dept has been throwing out grant money to study all kinds of forms of brain injury for years now.

The same mild TBI that they don't fully know how to diagnose or treat yet, sometimes the symptoms go away by themselves. So far as they know right now, the effects of mild TBI can disappear in seconds to years, after whatever happened to happen to cause it to happen.

All the doctors can do is see if the patient has symptoms of being mentally screwed up in any way, physical or mental. Brain injury does not necessarily mean brain damage.

Grade 1 concussion is defined as mild, very brief, neurological disturbance such as confusion, without loss of consciousness. And therefore anyone treating a gunshot wound victim may very well NOT know the person had a grade 1 concussion, as the symptoms for it may very well have subsided by the time the vitim was seen by anyone with a medical background.

A concussion is a traumatically induced transient loss of normal brain function. Who knows if they (doctors and such) can even explain a fraction of what diagnosing the brain all actually entails?

So what about the shootees on the good side paying attention to what happens to the BGs after they are shot by whatever round? Much of the time they can't remember what they did themselves.

They (doctors and such) already know that anatomical imaging such as computerized tomography (CT scans) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) don't always tell them much of anything in relation to obvious signs of mild TBI. Contrast-enhanced CT scans help a little, but still leave some to be desired.

So now a days studies and testing are being done with functional imaging like: Functional MRI (fMRI), Positron emission tomography (PET scanning), Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT scan), and ELECTRO-PHYSIOLOGICAL STUDIES (EEG, evoked potentials, and 'brain mapping'). And thats besides Neuro-psychological (NP) testing.

Brain injury can simply be trivial, and completely reversible by natural healing processes, again, taking anywhere from seconds to years. The symptoms of concussion alone, limited to what they know so far are varying degrees of impairment of limb movement, vision, speech, and cognitive function, not to mention coma.

Another thing to keep in mind is if there isn't a symptom, they don't look for a cause or vis versa. Especially symtoms that may subside before the GSW victim gets to the folks meant to treat the GSW.

In a way, this leaves believers and nonbelievers in a predicament as to who's right or wrong. All I know is we have a more than fair amount of supporting evidence (IMO), with zero evidence going against it. Problem at this point and time is, both sides still need "proof" which will require further scientific analysis/study which neither has, and doesn't seem to be available to us either way if any does exist somewhere.

That said, I don't feel there probably have to be ruptured vessels in the brain for mild to moderate TBI to have occured. And BTW, who here was claiming mild to moderate TBI being a quantifiable, reliable wounding mechanism. You made that up in your own mind!

And who is trying to credit what external force with 100% of what outcome??? What are you talking about?

To say; "That which produces the largest permanent hole, has better effect than that which produces the smallest, with regard to cessation of target action.", would be akin to saying all 45 Auto loads are better than any 9mm Luger loads in terms of quickest to incapacitate a BG. Are you saying that?

You said; "Beyond blood volume loss, expansion, and penetration, and tissue crushed, this is a science of grays. The "gello shooters" are not ignoring this, rather they are choosing not to try to measure that which cannot be quantified and sticking with what can." That said, what are they sticking with that can, be measured?

As for what you think the Courtney's work tells you to do, you are dead wrong!!! The position the Courtney's actually take is that proper penetration depth must be met for any personal risk assessment one deems neccessary before the amount of BPW is taken into account. That is explicitly stated in their paper on the deer incapacitation study.

This is a fraction of the reason why uz2bUSMC tells you you don't know what you're talking about because you clearly don't.

I have run the numbers for various common SD loads where I could get the pertinent apples to apples comparison data so we can see how different loads stack up against each other. The list is as follows -

The kinetic energy is listed after "KE", penetration depth is listed after "P" and is based on clothed gel for ALL rounds, expanded bullet diameter is listed after "E", wound volume is listed in cubic inches(ci) and is based on 12" penetration for ALL rounds unless a specific round couldn't manage 12" penetration, and in the last column in pounds per square inch(psi) is the peak ballistic pressure wave. Please note - for PBPW, for any round that fragmented to any extent, the PBPW is actually higher than what's shown. All PBPW numbers assume zero fragmentation. Very generally, for the PERCENTAGE a round fragments, that same percentage would be added to the PBPW in psi.

Most of the HST #s and Speer Gold Dot #s are based on averages from the ATK workshop results with various police departments. Those that aren't based on an average were tested only 1 time. Those workshop results can be viewed in their entirety here - http://www.le.atk.com/general/irl/woundballistics.aspx

Win 380auto T Series, 95gr, 1000fps, KE=211, P=7.95, E=.64, 2.6ci, 507psi

Speer 38special+P GD, 135gr, 860fps, KE=222, P=11.75, E=.59, 3.2ci, 361psi
Win 38spcl T Series+P, 130gr, 925fps, KE=247, P=12.00, E=.67, 4.2ci, 393psi

Win 9mm+P+ Ranger, 115gr, 1335fps, KE=455, P=8.50, E=.81, 4.4ci, 1023psi
DT 9mm+P Gold Dot, 115gr, 1415fps, KE=511, P=12.00, E=.70, 4.6ci, 813psi
DT 9mm+P Gold Dot, 124gr, 1310fps, KE=472, P=13.25, E=.70, 4.6ci, 684psi
Federal 9mm+P HST, 124gr, 1200fps, KE=396, P=12.50, E=.66, 4.1ci, 605psi
Federal 9mm HST,,,, 124gr, 1150fps, KE=364, P=13.90, E=.64, 3.9ci, 501psi
Win9mm+P T Series, 124gr, 1180fps, KE=383, P=13.90, E=.67, 4.2ci, 526psi
Win9mm +P Bonded, 124gr, 1180fps, KE=383, P=18.70, E=.54, 2.7ci, 392psi
Win9mm+P+TSeries, 127gr, 1250fps, KE=441, P=12.20, E=.68, 4.4ci, 691psi
DT 9mm+P Gold Dot, 147gr, 1125fps, KE=413, P=14.00, E=.66, 4.1ci, 563psi
Federal 9mm HST,,,, 147gr, 1000fps, KE=326, P=14.40, E=.66, 4.1ci, 433psi
Speer 9mm GD,,,,,,,, 147gr,, 990fps, KE=320, P=15.25, E=.58, 3.2ci, 401psi
Win 9mm T Series,,,, 147gr,, 990fps, KE=320, P=14.50, E=.66, 4.1ci, 422psi
Win 9mm Bonded,,,,, 147gr,, 995fps, KE=323, P=16.50, E=.59, 3.3ci, 374psi

DT 357SIG Gold Dot, 115gr, 1550fps, KE=613, P=12.12, E=.71, 4.8ci, 955psi
DT 357SIG Gold Dot, 125gr, 1450fps, KE=584, P=14.50, E=.66, 4.1ci, 770psi
Win357SIG T Series, 125gr, 1350fps, KE=506, P=12.10, E=.66, 4.1ci, 798psi
Win357SIG Bonded,, 125gr, 1350fps, KE=506, P=15.90, E=.57, 3.1ci, 608psi
DT 357SIG Gold Dot, 147gr, 1250fps, KE=510, P=14.75, E=.73, 5.0ci, 661psi

DT 357mag Gold Dot, 125gr, 1600fps, KE=710, P=12.75, E=.69, 4.5ci, 1063psi
Speer SB 357magGD, 125gr,,, 990fps, KE=294, P=14.50, E=.65, 4.0ci, 388psi
Win 357magSilvertip, 145gr, 1290fps,, KE=536, P=12.50, E=.59, 3.3ci, 819psi
DT 357mag Gold Dot, 158gr, 1400fps, KE=688, P=19.00, E=.56, 3.0ci, 692psi

DT 9X25 Gold Dot, 115gr, 1800fps, KE=827, P=10.00, E=.64, 3.2ci, 1579psi
DT 9X25 Gold Dot, 125gr, 1725fps, KE=826, P=15.00, E=.74, 5.2ci, 1051psi
DT 9X25 Gold Dot, 147gr, 1550fps, KE=784, P=17.50, E=.68, 4.4ci,, 856psi

DT 40S&W Nosler,,,, 135gr, 1375fps, KE=567, P=12.10, E=.72, 4.9ci, 894psi
DT 40S&W Gold Dot, 155gr, 1275fps, KE=559, P=13.00, E=.76, 5.4ci, 825psi
DT 40S&W Gold Dot, 165gr, 1200fps, KE=528, P=14.00, E=.70, 4.6ci, 721psi
Rem Golden Saber,,, 165gr, 1150fps, KE=485, P=14.00, E=.67, 4.2ci, 662psi
Federal 40S&W HST, 165gr, 1130fps, KE=468, P=14.00, E=.75, 5.3ci, 637psi
Win40S&W T Series, 165gr, 1140fps, KE=476, P=13.20, E=.70, 4.6ci, 690psi
Win 40S&W Bonded, 165gr, 1140fps, KE=476, P=19.00, E=.55, 2.9ci, 479psi
Speer 40S&W GD,,,, 180gr. 1025fps, KE=420, P=11.75, E=.72, 4.9ci, 683psi
DT 40S&W Gold Dot, 180gr, 1100fps, KE=484, P=14.75, E=.68, 4.4ci, 626psi
Federal 40S&W HST, 180gr, 1010fps, KE=408, P=13.40, E=.77, 5.6ci, 582psi
Rem JHP (not GS),,,, 180gr, 1015fps, KE=412, P=13.25, E=.69, 4.5ci, 594psi
Win40S&W T Series, 180gr,,, 990fps, KE=392, P=14.30, E=.70, 4.6ci, 524psi
Win 40S&W Bonded, 180gr,, 1070fps, KE=458, P=21.80, E=.51, 2.5ci, 402psi

DT 10mm Nosler,,,, 135gr, 1600fps, KE=767, P=11.00, E=.70, 4.2ci, 1332psi
DT 10mm Gold Dot, 155gr, 1475fps, KE=749, P=13.50, E=.88, 7.3ci, 1061psi
DT 10mm G. Saber, 165gr, 1425fps, KE=744, P=14.75, E=.82, 6.3ci, 964psi
DT 10mm Gold Dot, 165gr, 1400psi, KE=718, P=14.25, E=1.02, 9.8ci, 962psi
DT 10mm Gold Dot, 180gr, 1300fps, KE=675, P=15.25, E=.96, 8.7ci, 846psi
DT 10mm G. Saber, 180gr, 1330fps, KE=707, P=16.00, E=.85, 6.8ci, 844psi
DT 10mm Hor. XTP, 180gr, 1350fps, KE=728, P=17.25, E=.77, 5.6ci, 808psi
DT 10mm Hor. XTP, 200gr, 1250fps, KE=694, P=19.50, E=.72, 4.9ci, 680psi

Win 45GAP T Series, 230gr, 905fps, KE=418, P=12.70, E=.72, 4.9ci, 630psi

DT 45auto Gold Dot, 185gr, 1225fps, KE=616, P=12.75, E=.82, 6.3ci, 923psi
Rem45auto G Saber, 185gr, 1140fps, KE=534, P=14.25, E=.70, 4.6ci, 716psi
Win45auto Silvertip, 185gr, 1000fps, KE=411, P=13.25, E=.70, 4.6ci, 593psi
DT 45auto Gold Dot, 200gr, 1125fps, KE=562, P=14.25, E=.88, 7.3ci, 753psi
DT 45auto Gold Dot, 230gr, 1010fps, KE=521, P=15.25, E=.95, 8.5ci, 653psi
Federal45auto+P HST,230gr, 950fps, KE=461, P=14.60, E=.85, 6.8ci, 603psi
Federal 45auto HST, 230gr,, 890fps, KE=405, P=14.40, E=.86, 7.0ci, 537psi
Speer 45auto G Dot, 230gr,, 890fps, KE=405, P=13.50, E=.70, 4.6ci, 573psi
Rem45auto G Saber, 230gr,, 875fps, KE=391, P=14.00, E=.74, 5.2ci, 534psi
Win 45auto T Series, 230gr, 905fps, KE=418, P=12.70, E=.72, 4.9ci, 630psi
Win45auto+PTSeries, 230gr, 990fps, KE=500, P=15.20, E=.78, 5.7ci, 628psi
Win 45 auto Bonded, 230gr, 905fps, KE=418, P=15.80, E=.67, 4.2ci, 506psi

So what you consider to be a "poor decision", doesn't have to be.

You said; "However, there is nothing "iffy" about the fact that numerous people have been killed because they used ammunition that would not penetrate deep enough to kill their assailant." So what about the old 158gr 38 Special load that used to be popular among LE that they finally dubbed the "Widow Maker" for that exact reason EXCEPT that it did penetrate far enough?

What about where you say; "Therefor, while I think the 357SIG's extra energy on soft tissue is certainly a good thing (how could it not be?), I don't think that one should use 115gr Corbon's, or that one should state that the 357SIG is "far superior" to a 147gr 9mm that expands properly."???

In what way do you suggest the 357SIG's extra energy on soft tissue is certainly a good thing to the extent of suggesting is must be? Not to mention that everyone's definition of far superior probably varies by quite a bit.

As for sticking up for 9mm, at least from the standpoint of you suggesting the 357SIG is not far superior to it, consider what SSA Urey Patrick of the Firearms Training Unit, FBI Academy, Quantico, VA, when asked; "Are you saying the 9mm is no good?" , replied;

"No, we are saying it is as good as the 38 Special, which has served us for a long time. It has severe limitations, which we are not willing to accept. It is woefully inadequate for shooting at people in cars, for example, and over half of our shootings involve vehicles. It is a marginally adequate wounding agent. We have had a number of 9mm shootings over the past couple of years, and if you define a good shooting as one in which the subject stops whatever he was doing when he gets shot, we have yet to have a good one, and we are hitting our adversaries multiple times. We have shot half a dozen dogs in the past year and have not killed one yet, although we have run up a significant veteranary bill. The 9mm with proper ammunition is not a bad round. It is just no where near as effective as the 10mm and 45 offerings and the disparity between it and the larger calibers has remained a constant throughout all the testing we have done over the past two years."

Yet many of us have learned just how superior the 357SIG is according to those who have used both against humans and animals. Texas DPS alone has praised it.

Much of your comentary ranges from far reaching to plain absurd at best. Have you ever actually read Dr. Courtney's paper on the deer study?

glock20c10mm
02-13-2010, 02:06
Nobody in law enforcement, nobody who makes handguns and none of the ammo companies care one whit about ballistic pressure waves. None of them consider BPW at all. It's a non-issue to them.
Wow! Somebody is definately out of the loop. And he goes by the name of KenB22. I'ld explain, but others have touched on it quite knowledgeably already.

N/Apower
02-13-2010, 02:15
I don't know what your job title is but I'ld bet quite a bit of money it ain't "Doctor". I've never been in the medical profession and it seems I know more than you. Some of what you post is just plain think-you-know but you just plain don't. I'm not saying this to ridicule you, it's just a fact.

As for what you seem to think is required toward diagnosing mild to moderate TBI, how about I just explain a few things to you.

In the sense of objectivity and comprehensive thought (whether one chooses to consider it or not), I think the following is important to keep in mind toward Dr. Courtney's scientific study of BPW and it's possible attributes of quicker incapacitation some percentage of the time (not to mention among quite a bit of other supporting scientific study), in reguard to actually finding symptoms.

With reguard to brain trauma, how can those that treat gunshot wound victims know if there was remote brain damage or not? MRIs and CT scans don't usually even tell doctors if someone has a concussion.

Much of mild traumatic brain injury is far from being understood, let alone they don't know how to diagnose much of it. Yet mild to moderate TBI still clearly exists even though they have trouble with the explanation part.

The defense dept has been throwing out grant money to study all kinds of forms of brain injury for years now.

The same mild TBI that they don't fully know how to diagnose or treat yet, sometimes the symptoms go away by themselves. So far as they know right now, the effects of mild TBI can disappear in seconds to years, after whatever happened to happen to cause it to happen.

All the doctors can do is see if the patient has symptoms of being mentally screwed up in any way, physical or mental. Brain injury does not necessarily mean brain damage.

Grade 1 concussion is defined as mild, very brief, neurological disturbance such as confusion, without loss of consciousness. And therefore anyone treating a gunshot wound victim may very well NOT know the person had a grade 1 concussion, as the symptoms for it may very well have subsided by the time the vitim was seen by anyone with a medical background.

A concussion is a traumatically induced transient loss of normal brain function. Who knows if they (doctors and such) can even explain a fraction of what diagnosing the brain all actually entails?

So what about the shootees on the good side paying attention to what happens to the BGs after they are shot by whatever round? Much of the time they can't remember what they did themselves.

They (doctors and such) already know that anatomical imaging such as computerized tomography (CT scans) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) don't always tell them much of anything in relation to obvious signs of mild TBI. Contrast-enhanced CT scans help a little, but still leave some to be desired.

So now a days studies and testing are being done with functional imaging like: Functional MRI (fMRI), Positron emission tomography (PET scanning), Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT scan), and ELECTRO-PHYSIOLOGICAL STUDIES (EEG, evoked potentials, and 'brain mapping'). And thats besides Neuro-psychological (NP) testing.

Brain injury can simply be trivial, and completely reversible by natural healing processes, again, taking anywhere from seconds to years. The symptoms of concussion alone, limited to what they know so far are varying degrees of impairment of limb movement, vision, speech, and cognitive function, not to mention coma.

Another thing to keep in mind is if there isn't a symptom, they don't look for a cause or vis versa. Especially symtoms that may subside before the GSW victim gets to the folks meant to treat the GSW.

In a way, this leaves believers and nonbelievers in a predicament as to who's right or wrong. All I know is we have a more than fair amount of supporting evidence (IMO), with zero evidence going against it. Problem at this point and time is, both sides still need "proof" which will require further scientific analysis/study which neither has, and doesn't seem to be available to us either way if any does exist somewhere.

That said, I don't feel there probably have to be ruptured vessels in the brain for mild to moderate TBI to have occured. And BTW, who here was claiming mild to moderate TBI being a quantifiable, reliable wounding mechanism. You made that up in your own mind!

And who is trying to credit what external force with 100% of what outcome??? What are you talking about?

To say; "That which produces the largest permanent hole, has better effect than that which produces the smallest, with regard to cessation of target action.", would be akin to saying all 45 Auto loads are better than any 9mm Luger loads in terms of quickest to incapacitate a BG. Are you saying that?

You said; "Beyond blood volume loss, expansion, and penetration, and tissue crushed, this is a science of grays. The "gello shooters" are not ignoring this, rather they are choosing not to try to measure that which cannot be quantified and sticking with what can." That said, what are they sticking with that can, be measured?

As for what you think the Courtney's work tells you to do, you are dead wrong!!! The position the Courtney's actually take is that proper penetration depth must be met for any personal risk assessment one deems neccessary before the amount of BPW is taken into account. That is explicitly stated in their paper on the deer incapacitation study.

This is a fraction of the reason why uz2bUSMC tells you you don't know what you're talking about because you clearly don't.

I have run the numbers for various common SD loads where I could get the pertinent apples to apples comparison data so we can see how different loads stack up against each other. The list is as follows -

The kinetic energy is listed after "KE", penetration depth is listed after "P" and is based on clothed gel for ALL rounds, expanded bullet diameter is listed after "E", wound volume is listed in cubic inches(ci) and is based on 12" penetration for ALL rounds unless a specific round couldn't manage 12" penetration, and in the last column in pounds per square inch(psi) is the peak ballistic pressure wave. Please note - for PBPW, for any round that fragmented to any extent, the PBPW is actually higher than what's shown. All PBPW numbers assume zero fragmentation. Very generally, for the PERCENTAGE a round fragments, that same percentage would be added to the PBPW in psi.

Most of the HST #s and Speer Gold Dot #s are based on averages from the ATK workshop results with various police departments. Those that aren't based on an average were tested only 1 time. Those workshop results can be viewed in their entirety here - http://www.le.atk.com/general/irl/woundballistics.aspx

Win 380auto T Series, 95gr, 1000fps, KE=211, P=7.95, E=.64, 2.6ci, 507psi

Speer 38special+P GD, 135gr, 860fps, KE=222, P=11.75, E=.59, 3.2ci, 361psi
Win 38spcl T Series+P, 130gr, 925fps, KE=247, P=12.00, E=.67, 4.2ci, 393psi

Win 9mm+P+ Ranger, 115gr, 1335fps, KE=455, P=8.50, E=.81, 4.4ci, 1023psi
DT 9mm+P Gold Dot, 115gr, 1415fps, KE=511, P=12.00, E=.70, 4.6ci, 813psi
DT 9mm+P Gold Dot, 124gr, 1310fps, KE=472, P=13.25, E=.70, 4.6ci, 684psi
Federal 9mm+P HST, 124gr, 1200fps, KE=396, P=12.50, E=.66, 4.1ci, 605psi
Federal 9mm HST,,,, 124gr, 1150fps, KE=364, P=13.90, E=.64, 3.9ci, 501psi
Win9mm+P T Series, 124gr, 1180fps, KE=383, P=13.90, E=.67, 4.2ci, 526psi
Win9mm +P Bonded, 124gr, 1180fps, KE=383, P=18.70, E=.54, 2.7ci, 392psi
Win9mm+P+TSeries, 127gr, 1250fps, KE=441, P=12.20, E=.68, 4.4ci, 691psi
DT 9mm+P Gold Dot, 147gr, 1125fps, KE=413, P=14.00, E=.66, 4.1ci, 563psi
Federal 9mm HST,,,, 147gr, 1000fps, KE=326, P=14.40, E=.66, 4.1ci, 433psi
Speer 9mm GD,,,,,,,, 147gr,, 990fps, KE=320, P=15.25, E=.58, 3.2ci, 401psi
Win 9mm T Series,,,, 147gr,, 990fps, KE=320, P=14.50, E=.66, 4.1ci, 422psi
Win 9mm Bonded,,,,, 147gr,, 995fps, KE=323, P=16.50, E=.59, 3.3ci, 374psi

DT 357SIG Gold Dot, 115gr, 1550fps, KE=613, P=12.12, E=.71, 4.8ci, 955psi
DT 357SIG Gold Dot, 125gr, 1450fps, KE=584, P=14.50, E=.66, 4.1ci, 770psi
Win357SIG T Series, 125gr, 1350fps, KE=506, P=12.10, E=.66, 4.1ci, 798psi
Win357SIG Bonded,, 125gr, 1350fps, KE=506, P=15.90, E=.57, 3.1ci, 608psi
DT 357SIG Gold Dot, 147gr, 1250fps, KE=510, P=14.75, E=.73, 5.0ci, 661psi

DT 357mag Gold Dot, 125gr, 1600fps, KE=710, P=12.75, E=.69, 4.5ci, 1063psi
Speer SB 357magGD, 125gr,,, 990fps, KE=294, P=14.50, E=.65, 4.0ci, 388psi
Win 357magSilvertip, 145gr, 1290fps,, KE=536, P=12.50, E=.59, 3.3ci, 819psi
DT 357mag Gold Dot, 158gr, 1400fps, KE=688, P=19.00, E=.56, 3.0ci, 692psi

DT 9X25 Gold Dot, 115gr, 1800fps, KE=827, P=10.00, E=.64, 3.2ci, 1579psi
DT 9X25 Gold Dot, 125gr, 1725fps, KE=826, P=15.00, E=.74, 5.2ci, 1051psi
DT 9X25 Gold Dot, 147gr, 1550fps, KE=784, P=17.50, E=.68, 4.4ci,, 856psi

DT 40S&W Nosler,,,, 135gr, 1375fps, KE=567, P=12.10, E=.72, 4.9ci, 894psi
DT 40S&W Gold Dot, 155gr, 1275fps, KE=559, P=13.00, E=.76, 5.4ci, 825psi
DT 40S&W Gold Dot, 165gr, 1200fps, KE=528, P=14.00, E=.70, 4.6ci, 721psi
Rem Golden Saber,,, 165gr, 1150fps, KE=485, P=14.00, E=.67, 4.2ci, 662psi
Federal 40S&W HST, 165gr, 1130fps, KE=468, P=14.00, E=.75, 5.3ci, 637psi
Win40S&W T Series, 165gr, 1140fps, KE=476, P=13.20, E=.70, 4.6ci, 690psi
Win 40S&W Bonded, 165gr, 1140fps, KE=476, P=19.00, E=.55, 2.9ci, 479psi
Speer 40S&W GD,,,, 180gr. 1025fps, KE=420, P=11.75, E=.72, 4.9ci, 683psi
DT 40S&W Gold Dot, 180gr, 1100fps, KE=484, P=14.75, E=.68, 4.4ci, 626psi
Federal 40S&W HST, 180gr, 1010fps, KE=408, P=13.40, E=.77, 5.6ci, 582psi
Rem JHP (not GS),,,, 180gr, 1015fps, KE=412, P=13.25, E=.69, 4.5ci, 594psi
Win40S&W T Series, 180gr,,, 990fps, KE=392, P=14.30, E=.70, 4.6ci, 524psi
Win 40S&W Bonded, 180gr,, 1070fps, KE=458, P=21.80, E=.51, 2.5ci, 402psi

DT 10mm Nosler,,,, 135gr, 1600fps, KE=767, P=11.00, E=.70, 4.2ci, 1332psi
DT 10mm Gold Dot, 155gr, 1475fps, KE=749, P=13.50, E=.88, 7.3ci, 1061psi
DT 10mm G. Saber, 165gr, 1425fps, KE=744, P=14.75, E=.82, 6.3ci, 964psi
DT 10mm Gold Dot, 165gr, 1400psi, KE=718, P=14.25, E=1.02, 9.8ci, 962psi
DT 10mm Gold Dot, 180gr, 1300fps, KE=675, P=15.25, E=.96, 8.7ci, 846psi
DT 10mm G. Saber, 180gr, 1330fps, KE=707, P=16.00, E=.85, 6.8ci, 844psi
DT 10mm Hor. XTP, 180gr, 1350fps, KE=728, P=17.25, E=.77, 5.6ci, 808psi
DT 10mm Hor. XTP, 200gr, 1250fps, KE=694, P=19.50, E=.72, 4.9ci, 680psi

Win 45GAP T Series, 230gr, 905fps, KE=418, P=12.70, E=.72, 4.9ci, 630psi

DT 45auto Gold Dot, 185gr, 1225fps, KE=616, P=12.75, E=.82, 6.3ci, 923psi
Rem45auto G Saber, 185gr, 1140fps, KE=534, P=14.25, E=.70, 4.6ci, 716psi
Win45auto Silvertip, 185gr, 1000fps, KE=411, P=13.25, E=.70, 4.6ci, 593psi
DT 45auto Gold Dot, 200gr, 1125fps, KE=562, P=14.25, E=.88, 7.3ci, 753psi
DT 45auto Gold Dot, 230gr, 1010fps, KE=521, P=15.25, E=.95, 8.5ci, 653psi
Federal45auto+P HST,230gr, 950fps, KE=461, P=14.60, E=.85, 6.8ci, 603psi
Federal 45auto HST, 230gr,, 890fps, KE=405, P=14.40, E=.86, 7.0ci, 537psi
Speer 45auto G Dot, 230gr,, 890fps, KE=405, P=13.50, E=.70, 4.6ci, 573psi
Rem45auto G Saber, 230gr,, 875fps, KE=391, P=14.00, E=.74, 5.2ci, 534psi
Win 45auto T Series, 230gr, 905fps, KE=418, P=12.70, E=.72, 4.9ci, 630psi
Win45auto+PTSeries, 230gr, 990fps, KE=500, P=15.20, E=.78, 5.7ci, 628psi
Win 45 auto Bonded, 230gr, 905fps, KE=418, P=15.80, E=.67, 4.2ci, 506psi

So what you consider to be a "poor decision", doesn't have to be.

You said; "However, there is nothing "iffy" about the fact that numerous people have been killed because they used ammunition that would not penetrate deep enough to kill their assailant." So what about the old 158gr 38 Special load that used to be popular among LE that they finally dubbed the "Widow Maker" for that exact reason EXCEPT that it did penetrate far enough?

What about where you say; "Therefor, while I think the 357SIG's extra energy on soft tissue is certainly a good thing (how could it not be?), I don't think that one should use 115gr Corbon's, or that one should state that the 357SIG is "far superior" to a 147gr 9mm that expands properly."???

In what way do you suggest the 357SIG's extra energy on soft tissue is certainly a good thing to the extent of suggesting is must be? Not to mention that everyone's definition of far superior probably varies by quite a bit.

As for sticking up for 9mm, at least from the standpoint of you suggesting the 357SIG is not far superior to it, consider what SSA Urey Patrick of the Firearms Training Unit, FBI Academy, Quantico, VA, when asked; "Are you saying the 9mm is no good?" , replied;

"No, we are saying it is as good as the 38 Special, which has served us for a long time. It has severe limitations, which we are not willing to accept. It is woefully inadequate for shooting at people in cars, for example, and over half of our shootings involve vehicles. It is a marginally adequate wounding agent. We have had a number of 9mm shootings over the past couple of years, and if you define a good shooting as one in which the subject stops whatever he was doing when he gets shot, we have yet to have a good one, and we are hitting our adversaries multiple times. We have shot half a dozen dogs in the past year and have not killed one yet, although we have run up a significant veteranary bill. The 9mm with proper ammunition is not a bad round. It is just no where near as effective as the 10mm and 45 offerings and the disparity between it and the larger calibers has remained a constant throughout all the testing we have done over the past two years."

Yet many of us have learned just how superior the 357SIG is according to those who have used both against humans and animals. Texas DPS alone has praised it.

Much of your comentary ranges from far reaching to plain absurd at best. Have you ever actually read Dr. Courtney's paper on the deer study?


So what you are saying, after all of that, is that the old "1-shot-stop" data is going to track right along with Courtney's data. Right?

I will have to go and look at the correlation, but that would be a logical assumption. I mean, if 10 deer are a study, then hundreds of OIS's, etc. are as well.

I am going to go look at the data and see if it tracks. I have not looked at it yet, but am curious.

I still see nothing other than mental ************, with regards to BPW. I am not interested in theory, or proof/disproof, or semantics. I am interested in what puts a target down, and BPW seems to be rather sketchy in doing it.

glock20c10mm
02-13-2010, 02:32
I have to say (in reguard to N/Apower ) that I do not believe that you possess the knowledge of retarding forces that you believe you do. If you did, you would EASILY understand how a fmj would not impart it's energy towards the retarding forces the way an expanding projectile would, period. It's not even a discussion point but yet, here we are.
You're right, he doesn't get it. Maybe now he will. My fingers are crossed. Now I see he's posted back as I've quoted you.



N/Apower,

Here is some info that should help you understand and answer to your curiousness -

The equation for JHP handgun bullets with 100% mass retention is -
p = (5*E)/(pi*d)

p is the peak pressure wave magnatude on the surphase of a 1" diameter cylinder centered on the wound channel (in psi). E is the impact energy (in ft-lbs) and d is the penetration depth (in feet).

If a JHP bullet fragments then generally whatever % the bullet fragments is the same % you need to add to the PBPW originally figured for nonfragmentation.

For FMJ handgun bullets the equation changes to a reasonable approximation of -
p = (3*E)/(pi*d)

For FMJ rifle bullets there is much more variation because some tumble deep and some tumble at shallow depths and some fragment. The retarding force profile (the more retarding force the greater the PBPW) is dominated by the depth at which a FMJ rifle bullet tumbles.

An FMJ rifle bullet which does not fragment and tumbles late in the penetration (10" or more) will have a peak pressure wave comparable to the formula for FMJ pistol bullets.

An FMJ rifle bullet which does not fragment and tumbles early (first 4") will have a peak pressure wave comparable to the formula for JHP handgun bullets.

You might wonder why PBPW goes up with bullet fragmentation. This involves a bunch more math which I can post if you like, but I don't see that it's necessary. What I do understand is the basic principal which I believe will be simple for you also once you simply basically understand the basic equations above for equating PBPW.

If it is necessary for you, maybe this will help, and it's about as far into as I'ld prefer to get. If kinetic energy and penetration depth are equal, bullets that fragment create a larger pressure wave than bullets that retain 100% of their mass because the average penetration depth is shorter than the maximum penetration depth. Less penetration depth with equal kinetic energy = higher PBPW.


Also, not to rush you, but I did ask you specific questions you haven't answered in your last post. I'm hoping to hear from you on them unless you're simply acknowledging you were wrong by ignoring them.


Good Shooting,
Craig

glock20c10mm
02-13-2010, 02:46
I am interested in what puts a target down, and BPW seems to be rather sketchy in doing it.
If you expect to see it at all from most any load in, 9mm, 40S&W, or 45 Auto, you'ld be looking in the wrong place!

Are you still of the belief there have to be ruptured blood vessels in the brain for incapacitation by BPW to have occured?

glock20c10mm
02-13-2010, 03:55
N/Apower,

The following are the current estimated probabilities of BPW playing a role for humans taking an unobstructed hit to the chest for given pressure wave magantudes:

BPW Probablility
500psi = 15%
700psi = 50%
1000psi = 75%
1300psi = 90%

The probability approaches 100% as BPW continues to increase, but will never really reach 100%. The accuracy in the prediction is roughly 10%.




And, since I have time right now, and in case you and/or others want to know, here is why bullet fragmentation increases the level of peak ballistic pressure wave -

If kinetic energy and penetration depth are equal, bullets that fragment create a larger pressure wave than bullets that retain 100% of their mass. This is because the average penetration depth is shorter than the maximum penetration depth. Recall that the average force with no mass loss is given by [COC06c]

Fave = E/d,

where E is the kinetic energy and d is the maximum penetration depth.

If we consider the case of a bullet with some fraction, f, of mass lost to fragmentation, the fraction of retained mass is (1-f) and the average force is then given by

Fave = (1-f)E/d + f E/df,

where df is depth of the center of mass of the bullet fragments. In other words, df is the average penetration depth of the fragments. Most fragments do not penetrate as deeply as the maximum penetration depth d, so that the average fragment penetration depth df can be expressed as a fraction of the maximum penetration depth

df = d/k,

where k is greater than 1. Consequently, the average force becomes,

Fave = (1-f)E/d + f k E/d.

This can be rewritten as

Fave = [1 + f (k-1)]E/d.

So we see that the enhancement factor for the average force is [1 + f(k – 1)], where f is the fraction of lost mass, and k describes the relative penetration depth of the mass lost by fragmentation. If the mass lost by fragmentation penetrates ½ of the maximum penetration depth on average, k = 2, and the enhancement factor for the average force is (1+f). In other words, a 40% loss of mass increases the average force (and thus the pressure wave) by 40%.

If the mass lost by fragmentation penetrates ⅓ of the maximum penetration depth on average, k = 3, and the enhancement factor for the average force is (1+2f). In other words, a 40% loss of mass increases the average force (and thus the pressure wave) by 80%.

Consequently, bullets that fragment can create larger pressure waves than bullets that do not fragment but have the same kinetic energy and penetration depth. Most fragmenting bullets have an average fragment penetration depth of ⅓ to ½ of their maximum penetration depth, so that the pressure wave enhancement factor is between (1+f) and (1+2f).

In other words, a bullet which loses 10% of its original mass has a BPW 10-20% larger than one which retains 100% of its original mass. Likewise , a bullet which loses 30% of its original mass to fragmentation has a BPW 30-60% larger than one which retains 100% of its original mass.



Good Shooting,
Craig

N/Apower
02-13-2010, 04:10
You're right, he doesn't get it. Maybe now he will. My fingers are crossed. Now I see he's posted back as I've quoted you.



N/Apower,

Here is some info that should help you understand and answer to your curiousness -

The equation for JHP handgun bullets with 100% mass retention is -
p = (5*E)/(pi*d)

p is the peak pressure wave magnatude on the surphase of a 1" diameter cylinder centered on the wound channel (in psi). E is the impact energy (in ft-lbs) and d is the penetration depth (in feet).

If a JHP bullet fragments then generally whatever % the bullet fragments is the same % you need to add to the PBPW originally figured for nonfragmentation.

For FMJ handgun bullets the equation changes to a reasonable approximation of -
p = (3*E)/(pi*d)

For FMJ rifle bullets there is much more variation because some tumble deep and some tumble at shallow depths and some fragment. The retarding force profile (the more retarding force the greater the PBPW) is dominated by the depth at which a FMJ rifle bullet tumbles.

An FMJ rifle bullet which does not fragment and tumbles late in the penetration (10" or more) will have a peak pressure wave comparable to the formula for FMJ pistol bullets.

An FMJ rifle bullet which does not fragment and tumbles early (first 4") will have a peak pressure wave comparable to the formula for JHP handgun bullets.

You might wonder why PBPW goes up with bullet fragmentation. This involves a bunch more math which I can post if you like, but I don't see that it's necessary. What I do understand is the basic principal which I believe will be simple for you also once you simply basically understand the basic equations above for equating PBPW.

If it is necessary for you, maybe this will help, and it's about as far into as I'ld prefer to get. If kinetic energy and penetration depth are equal, bullets that fragment create a larger pressure wave than bullets that retain 100% of their mass because the average penetration depth is shorter than the maximum penetration depth. Less penetration depth with equal kinetic energy = higher PBPW.


Also, not to rush you, but I did ask you specific questions you haven't answered in your last post. I'm hoping to hear from you on them unless you're simply acknowledging you were wrong by ignoring them.


Good Shooting,
Craig


I skimmed his paper when I first saw it, saw that there was a sample size of 10, noted that he included no real data, and threw it out as unacceptable work based on lack of data/information. It would have gotten an "F" in any intermediate college class he chose to turn it during.

When you asked your question, I half-heartedly went looking for it, and didn't find it, and didn't worry about it.

The numbers above would have you believe that the answer to the problem is the shotgun loaded with bird-shot at close range. However, real-world use of this proves it's fallacy.

On the same hand, it would make one think that hard-cast solids are horrible bullets to use on nasty animals like cape buffalo, etc--yet we know that this is not the case.

Sure, BPW exists, but what does it DO? Whatever it does (or doesn't) do, it's mighty un-predictable. I would much rather choose my tools based on something predictable, like penetration and expansion.

Given the numbers/percentages of probability of BPW, there is a lot wrong with it if you review some OIS's and look at how people kept trucking after multiple shots.

This sticky from this forum shows as much.
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2004/oct2004/oct04leb.htm#page_15

You can talk about BPW all you want, throw all the equations out there you want, etc. but that doesn't make it any more effective.

unit1069
02-13-2010, 09:14
Sure, BPW exists, but what does it DO? Whatever it does (or doesn't) do, it's mighty un-predictable. I would much rather choose my tools based on something predictable, like penetration and expansion.

If you've read Courtney's work you know he has stated clearly that for self-defense rounds penetration, expansion, accuracy, etc ... are perquisites before any BPW consideration is taken into account.

It truly amazes me how many GT members come to the many BPW threads, begin criticizing BPW theory, and inexplicably hold the incorrect notion that any BPW advocate has asserted BPW is more important than the perquisite factors everyone agrees are of primary importance.

KenB22
02-13-2010, 10:47
The work I do requires I be precise, Glocktalk is not a job... so I'm not required too.

OK Batman. Whatever you say. You have your Pulitzer prize winning story now: The FBI is letting innocent agents die because they are too cheap and uncaring to buy the ammunition that you and everyone with half a brain knows is clearly superior in stopping BG's. I say go for it. I'll set up the meeting with Dan Rather. You can be famous and save lives at the same time. Isn't that what a Batman does??

glock20c10mm
02-13-2010, 11:28
I skimmed his paper when I first saw it, saw that there was a sample size of 10, noted that he included no real data, and threw it out as unacceptable work based on lack of data/information. It would have gotten an "F" in any intermediate college class he chose to turn it during.

When you asked your question, I half-heartedly went looking for it, and didn't find it, and didn't worry about it.

The numbers above would have you believe that the answer to the problem is the shotgun loaded with bird-shot at close range. However, real-world use of this proves it's fallacy.

On the same hand, it would make one think that hard-cast solids are horrible bullets to use on nasty animals like cape buffalo, etc--yet we know that this is not the case.

Sure, BPW exists, but what does it DO? Whatever it does (or doesn't) do, it's mighty un-predictable. I would much rather choose my tools based on something predictable, like penetration and expansion.

Given the numbers/percentages of probability of BPW, there is a lot wrong with it if you review some OIS's and look at how people kept trucking after multiple shots.

This sticky from this forum shows as much.
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2004/oct2004/oct04leb.htm#page_15

You can talk about BPW all you want, throw all the equations out there you want, etc. but that doesn't make it any more effective.
It appears skimming is all you're capable of, clearly explaining you lack of knowledge/understanding of anything you've commented on in this thread thus far. It's no wonder everything you question is such a far reach for you to understand.

And again, not to rush you, but I did ask you specific questions in my post #376 you haven't answered. I'm expecting to hear from you on them unless you're simply acknowledging you were wrong by ignoring them.

I've offered you a wealth of information directly pertaining to much of your misunderstanding. There's more but I feel you have enough to digest at one time. But since skimming seems to be all you're capable of it seems I may have wasted my time.

And on top of all that you've done nothing but skim Dr. Courntey's original work (I have to assume at this point you haven't a clue he's furthered his studies) and yet have the audacity as you claim above to make such uneducated statements as; "The numbers above would have you believe that the answer to the problem is the shotgun loaded with bird-shot at close range." To say/believe anything that far off base shows you are void of any intelligent knowledge reguarding Dr. Courtney's theory of BPW, as has been recently pointed out to you already by at least 3 other GT members.

Oh, and again, since skimming is your trade signature I should remention - not to rush you, but I did ask you specific questions in my post #376 you haven't answered. I'm expecting to hear from you on them unless you're simply acknowledging you were wrong by ignoring them.

As for that link you posted which I've read more than once over the years now, please point out what it claimed toward BPW being a falsehood (I don't mean directly, indirectly is fine). I'm assuming you're mostly leaning toward the one-shot-stop stuff? Help us out here. The charts showing death certianly don't tell us anything toward temporary incapactitation. Nor does the literature itself which I read. Please show me what I clearly must have missed.

And again, since you're a self-admitted skimmer and I have no way of knowing where you'll start reading again, you should know - I did ask you specific questions in my post #376 you haven't answered. I'm expecting to hear from you on them unless you're simply acknowledging you were wrong by ignoring them.


Hopefully the next time you post back it will show that you know what you're talking about as you now have the info to do so. How anyone can skim anything and come away believing they understand the full content of what was discussed is far beyond my comprehension! Arent' you the one who claimed they work in/around ICUs???

I'm surprised uz2bUSMC put up with you as long as he did! His patience generally don't extend that far. Maybe he thinks there's hope for you. Well, lets all hope there is. Then there's KenB22... :faint: Let's hope he's learning now too. :whistling:



Are we clear? :director:

Craig :thumbsup:




:popcorn:

glock20c10mm
02-13-2010, 11:42
OK Batman. Whatever you say. You have your Pulitzer prize winning story now: The FBI is letting innocent agents die because they are too cheap and uncaring to buy the ammunition that you and everyone with half a brain knows is clearly superior in stopping BG's. I say go for it. I'll set up the meeting with Dan Rather. You can be famous and save lives at the same time. Isn't that what a Batman does??
Why do you presume everyone with half a brain knows???

Would you think it wise for all FBI agents to carry 10mm Auto???

You do realize they have long guns too, right???

You do realize many agents limit themselves to the bare minimum required tactical practice and many of them wouldn't consider themselves shooters, right???

You do realize the vast majority of FBI agents don't get the same training as Navy Seals, right???

You do realize a number of agencies in some departments have dumped 180gr 40S&W loads in favor of much faster and lighter 155gr 40S&W loads, right???

You do realize the ammo companies know they still have to come up with the lowest bid for ammo while simply meeting the FBI's basic list of requirements, right???

You do realize not all federal agencies carry the same ammo, right? Does the Secret Service carrying 357SIGs know something the FBI doesn't, or do you presume the Secret Service to be stupid because the FBI already knows what's best???

Can you explain why Winchester says there is a cult following to their 9mm 127gr +P+ load among LE???

You do realize many LE depts have ammo choosen for them by some bean counter who has an office window with a view that could care less what ammo they shoot, right???

You do realize there are LE depts carrying Federal EFMJ, right??? (That's a VERY POOR carry choice if you didn't know!)


I could go on, but I'm quite sure you're lost already.



Good Shooting,
Craig

N/Apower
02-13-2010, 14:13
See below.

N/Apower
02-13-2010, 14:33
I don't know what your job title is but I'ld bet quite a bit of money it ain't "Doctor". I've never been in the medical profession and it seems I know more than you. Some of what you post is just plain think-you-know but you just plain don't. I'm not saying this to ridicule you, it's just a fact.

As for what you seem to think is required toward diagnosing mild to moderate TBI, how about I just explain a few things to you.

In the sense of objectivity and comprehensive thought (whether one chooses to consider it or not), I think the following is important to keep in mind toward Dr. Courtney's scientific study of BPW and it's possible attributes of quicker incapacitation some percentage of the time (not to mention among quite a bit of other supporting scientific study), in reguard to actually finding symptoms.

With reguard to brain trauma, how can those that treat gunshot wound victims know if there was remote brain damage or not? MRIs and CT scans don't usually even tell doctors if someone has a concussion.

Brain-bleeds show up on imaging. How ELSE is there going to be TBI from a remote GSW, if not from a brain-bleed caused by a "pressure spike"?

Much of mild traumatic brain injury is far from being understood, let alone they don't know how to diagnose much of it. Yet mild to moderate TBI still clearly exists even though they have trouble with the explanation part.

You are right, lots of TBI won't show up on imaging, but bleeding does. Again, this person isn't recieving a torsional injury. There is a supposed vessicular "over-pressure" condition.

The defense dept has been throwing out grant money to study all kinds of forms of brain injury for years now.

The same mild TBI that they don't fully know how to diagnose or treat yet, sometimes the symptoms go away by themselves. So far as they know right now, the effects of mild TBI can disappear in seconds to years, after whatever happened to happen to cause it to happen.

All the doctors can do is see if the patient has symptoms of being mentally screwed up in any way, physical or mental. Brain injury does not necessarily mean brain damage.

Grade 1 concussion is defined as mild, very brief, neurological disturbance such as confusion, without loss of consciousness. And therefore anyone treating a gunshot wound victim may very well NOT know the person had a grade 1 concussion, as the symptoms for it may very well have subsided by the time the vitim was seen by anyone with a medical background.

Again...so? I don't want to cause a grade 1 concussion. I want to cause incapacitation. Hell, being shot period is likely to cause "brief confusion", so I guess as long as Mr. Courtney can prove GSW's cause confusion, we can't DISPROVE that it didn't cause a grade 1, now can we? Sounds almost like religion to me. You can't show me your savior, but I can't NOT show you your savior either. :upeyes:

A concussion is a traumatically induced transient loss of normal brain function. Who knows if they (doctors and such) can even explain a fraction of what diagnosing the brain all actually entails?

Not me.

So what about the shootees on the good side paying attention to what happens to the BGs after they are shot by whatever round? I don't know. Much of the time they can't remember what they did themselves.

They (doctors and such) already know that anatomical imaging such as computerized tomography (CT scans) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) don't always tell them much of anything in relation to obvious signs of mild TBI. Contrast-enhanced CT scans help a little, but still leave some to be desired.

So now a days studies and testing are being done with functional imaging like: Functional MRI (fMRI), Positron emission tomography (PET scanning), Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT scan), and ELECTRO-PHYSIOLOGICAL STUDIES (EEG, evoked potentials, and 'brain mapping'). And thats besides Neuro-psychological (NP) testing.

Brain injury can simply be trivial, and completely reversible by natural healing processes, again, taking anywhere from seconds to years. The symptoms of concussion alone, limited to what they know so far are varying degrees of impairment of limb movement, vision, speech, and cognitive function, not to mention coma.

Another thing to keep in mind is if there isn't a symptom, they don't look for a cause or vis versa. Especially symtoms that may subside before the GSW victim gets to the folks meant to treat the GSW. Once again, the religious type dogma of "you can't prove it's NOT real".

In a way, this leaves believers and nonbelievers in a predicament as to who's right or wrong. Yes it does. All I know is we have a more than fair amount of supporting evidence (IMO), with zero evidence going against it. You also have zero-evidence that there isn't a tea-pot circling the earth so fast and so far away that we cannot spot it that is controlling everything that happens with magic-waves. Problem at this point and time is, both sides still need "proof" which will require further scientific analysis/study which neither has, and doesn't seem to be available to us either way if any does exist somewhere. That's right. More proof is needed. Why? because the effect claimed is so variable as to be attributable to many other things.

That said, I don't feel there probably have to be ruptured vessels in the brain for mild to moderate TBI to have occured. And BTW, who here was claiming mild to moderate TBI being a quantifiable, reliable wounding mechanism. You made that up in your own mind! Perhapse I did, but it was IMPLIED that this was so, otherwise why waste your time with the theory?

And who everyone who is a fan of BPW being the cause of this incapacitation is trying to credit what a bullet external force with 100% of what incapacitation outcome??? What are you talking about?

State of mind plays a larger roll in how someone behaves upon being shot than BPW does whether it is real or not.
To say; "That which produces the largest permanent hole, has better effect than that which produces the smallest, with regard to cessation of target action.", would be akin to saying all 45 Auto loads are better than any 9mm Luger loads in terms of quickest to incapacitate a BG. Are you saying that? Do all .45 auto loads produce a larger hole than any 9mm Luger load? Are you saying that?

You said; "Beyond blood volume loss, expansion, and penetration, and tissue crushed, this is a science of grays. The "gello shooters" are not ignoring this, rather they are choosing not to try to measure that which cannot be quantified and sticking with what can." That said, what are they sticking with that can, be measured? Permanent wound volume.

As for what you think the Courtney's work tells you to do, you are dead wrong!!! The position the Courtney's actually take is that proper penetration depth must be met for any personal risk assessment one deems neccessary before the amount of BPW is taken into account. That is explicitly stated in their paper on the deer incapacitation study. I missed it and agree 100% with that statement.

This is a fraction of the reason why uz2bUSMC tells you you don't know what you're talking about because you clearly don't.

I have run the numbers for various common SD loads where I could get the pertinent apples to apples comparison data so we can see how different loads stack up against each other. The list is as follows -

The kinetic energy is listed after "KE", penetration depth is listed after "P" and is based on clothed gel for ALL rounds, expanded bullet diameter is listed after "E", wound volume is listed in cubic inches(ci) and is based on 12" penetration for ALL rounds unless a specific round couldn't manage 12" penetration, and in the last column in pounds per square inch(psi) is the peak ballistic pressure wave. Please note - for PBPW, for any round that fragmented to any extent, the PBPW is actually higher than what's shown. All PBPW numbers assume zero fragmentation. Very generally, for the PERCENTAGE a round fragments, that same percentage would be added to the PBPW in psi.

Most of the HST #s and Speer Gold Dot #s are based on averages from the ATK workshop results with various police departments. Those that aren't based on an average were tested only 1 time. Those workshop results can be viewed in their entirety here - http://www.le.atk.com/general/irl/woundballistics.aspx

Win 380auto T Series, 95gr, 1000fps, KE=211, P=7.95, E=.64, 2.6ci, 507psi

Speer 38special+P GD, 135gr, 860fps, KE=222, P=11.75, E=.59, 3.2ci, 361psi
Win 38spcl T Series+P, 130gr, 925fps, KE=247, P=12.00, E=.67, 4.2ci, 393psi

Win 9mm+P+ Ranger, 115gr, 1335fps, KE=455, P=8.50, E=.81, 4.4ci, 1023psi
DT 9mm+P Gold Dot, 115gr, 1415fps, KE=511, P=12.00, E=.70, 4.6ci, 813psi
DT 9mm+P Gold Dot, 124gr, 1310fps, KE=472, P=13.25, E=.70, 4.6ci, 684psi
Federal 9mm+P HST, 124gr, 1200fps, KE=396, P=12.50, E=.66, 4.1ci, 605psi
Federal 9mm HST,,,, 124gr, 1150fps, KE=364, P=13.90, E=.64, 3.9ci, 501psi
Win9mm+P T Series, 124gr, 1180fps, KE=383, P=13.90, E=.67, 4.2ci, 526psi
Win9mm +P Bonded, 124gr, 1180fps, KE=383, P=18.70, E=.54, 2.7ci, 392psi
Win9mm+P+TSeries, 127gr, 1250fps, KE=441, P=12.20, E=.68, 4.4ci, 691psi
DT 9mm+P Gold Dot, 147gr, 1125fps, KE=413, P=14.00, E=.66, 4.1ci, 563psi
Federal 9mm HST,,,, 147gr, 1000fps, KE=326, P=14.40, E=.66, 4.1ci, 433psi
Speer 9mm GD,,,,,,,, 147gr,, 990fps, KE=320, P=15.25, E=.58, 3.2ci, 401psi
Win 9mm T Series,,,, 147gr,, 990fps, KE=320, P=14.50, E=.66, 4.1ci, 422psi
Win 9mm Bonded,,,,, 147gr,, 995fps, KE=323, P=16.50, E=.59, 3.3ci, 374psi

DT 357SIG Gold Dot, 115gr, 1550fps, KE=613, P=12.12, E=.71, 4.8ci, 955psi
DT 357SIG Gold Dot, 125gr, 1450fps, KE=584, P=14.50, E=.66, 4.1ci, 770psi
Win357SIG T Series, 125gr, 1350fps, KE=506, P=12.10, E=.66, 4.1ci, 798psi
Win357SIG Bonded,, 125gr, 1350fps, KE=506, P=15.90, E=.57, 3.1ci, 608psi
DT 357SIG Gold Dot, 147gr, 1250fps, KE=510, P=14.75, E=.73, 5.0ci, 661psi

DT 357mag Gold Dot, 125gr, 1600fps, KE=710, P=12.75, E=.69, 4.5ci, 1063psi
Speer SB 357magGD, 125gr,,, 990fps, KE=294, P=14.50, E=.65, 4.0ci, 388psi
Win 357magSilvertip, 145gr, 1290fps,, KE=536, P=12.50, E=.59, 3.3ci, 819psi
DT 357mag Gold Dot, 158gr, 1400fps, KE=688, P=19.00, E=.56, 3.0ci, 692psi

DT 9X25 Gold Dot, 115gr, 1800fps, KE=827, P=10.00, E=.64, 3.2ci, 1579psi
DT 9X25 Gold Dot, 125gr, 1725fps, KE=826, P=15.00, E=.74, 5.2ci, 1051psi
DT 9X25 Gold Dot, 147gr, 1550fps, KE=784, P=17.50, E=.68, 4.4ci,, 856psi

DT 40S&W Nosler,,,, 135gr, 1375fps, KE=567, P=12.10, E=.72, 4.9ci, 894psi
DT 40S&W Gold Dot, 155gr, 1275fps, KE=559, P=13.00, E=.76, 5.4ci, 825psi
DT 40S&W Gold Dot, 165gr, 1200fps, KE=528, P=14.00, E=.70, 4.6ci, 721psi
Rem Golden Saber,,, 165gr, 1150fps, KE=485, P=14.00, E=.67, 4.2ci, 662psi
Federal 40S&W HST, 165gr, 1130fps, KE=468, P=14.00, E=.75, 5.3ci, 637psi
Win40S&W T Series, 165gr, 1140fps, KE=476, P=13.20, E=.70, 4.6ci, 690psi
Win 40S&W Bonded, 165gr, 1140fps, KE=476, P=19.00, E=.55, 2.9ci, 479psi
Speer 40S&W GD,,,, 180gr. 1025fps, KE=420, P=11.75, E=.72, 4.9ci, 683psi
DT 40S&W Gold Dot, 180gr, 1100fps, KE=484, P=14.75, E=.68, 4.4ci, 626psi
Federal 40S&W HST, 180gr, 1010fps, KE=408, P=13.40, E=.77, 5.6ci, 582psi
Rem JHP (not GS),,,, 180gr, 1015fps, KE=412, P=13.25, E=.69, 4.5ci, 594psi
Win40S&W T Series, 180gr,,, 990fps, KE=392, P=14.30, E=.70, 4.6ci, 524psi
Win 40S&W Bonded, 180gr,, 1070fps, KE=458, P=21.80, E=.51, 2.5ci, 402psi

DT 10mm Nosler,,,, 135gr, 1600fps, KE=767, P=11.00, E=.70, 4.2ci, 1332psi
DT 10mm Gold Dot, 155gr, 1475fps, KE=749, P=13.50, E=.88, 7.3ci, 1061psi
DT 10mm G. Saber, 165gr, 1425fps, KE=744, P=14.75, E=.82, 6.3ci, 964psi
DT 10mm Gold Dot, 165gr, 1400psi, KE=718, P=14.25, E=1.02, 9.8ci, 962psi
DT 10mm Gold Dot, 180gr, 1300fps, KE=675, P=15.25, E=.96, 8.7ci, 846psi
DT 10mm G. Saber, 180gr, 1330fps, KE=707, P=16.00, E=.85, 6.8ci, 844psi
DT 10mm Hor. XTP, 180gr, 1350fps, KE=728, P=17.25, E=.77, 5.6ci, 808psi
DT 10mm Hor. XTP, 200gr, 1250fps, KE=694, P=19.50, E=.72, 4.9ci, 680psi

Win 45GAP T Series, 230gr, 905fps, KE=418, P=12.70, E=.72, 4.9ci, 630psi

DT 45auto Gold Dot, 185gr, 1225fps, KE=616, P=12.75, E=.82, 6.3ci, 923psi
Rem45auto G Saber, 185gr, 1140fps, KE=534, P=14.25, E=.70, 4.6ci, 716psi
Win45auto Silvertip, 185gr, 1000fps, KE=411, P=13.25, E=.70, 4.6ci, 593psi
DT 45auto Gold Dot, 200gr, 1125fps, KE=562, P=14.25, E=.88, 7.3ci, 753psi
DT 45auto Gold Dot, 230gr, 1010fps, KE=521, P=15.25, E=.95, 8.5ci, 653psi
Federal45auto+P HST,230gr, 950fps, KE=461, P=14.60, E=.85, 6.8ci, 603psi
Federal 45auto HST, 230gr,, 890fps, KE=405, P=14.40, E=.86, 7.0ci, 537psi
Speer 45auto G Dot, 230gr,, 890fps, KE=405, P=13.50, E=.70, 4.6ci, 573psi
Rem45auto G Saber, 230gr,, 875fps, KE=391, P=14.00, E=.74, 5.2ci, 534psi
Win 45auto T Series, 230gr, 905fps, KE=418, P=12.70, E=.72, 4.9ci, 630psi
Win45auto+PTSeries, 230gr, 990fps, KE=500, P=15.20, E=.78, 5.7ci, 628psi
Win 45 auto Bonded, 230gr, 905fps, KE=418, P=15.80, E=.67, 4.2ci, 506psi

So what you consider to be a "poor decision", doesn't have to be.

You said; "However, there is nothing "iffy" about the fact that numerous people have been killed because they used ammunition that would not penetrate deep enough to kill their assailant." So what about the old 158gr 38 Special load that used to be popular among LE that they finally dubbed the "Widow Maker" for that exact reason EXCEPT that it did penetrate far enough? On the flip-side, you have the 9mm from the Miami shootout. There are always outliers.

What about where you say; "Therefor, while I think the 357SIG's extra energy on soft tissue is certainly a good thing (how could it not be?), I don't think that one should use 115gr Corbon's, or that one should state that the 357SIG is "far superior" to a 147gr 9mm that expands properly."??? A 115gr Corbon is likely to fragment upon striking a humerous, etc. and may not penetrate deep enough into the thoracic cavity. Further, I have not seen where the 357SIG is doing so much better than modern 147gr 9mm. Several departments use the 147gr loads and are quite happy with them. Same for the 357SIG.

In what way do you suggest the 357SIG's extra energy on soft tissue is certainly a good thing to the extent of suggesting is must be? Not to mention that everyone's definition of far superior probably varies by quite a bit. It is better to have more disruption than less. Why? Because I do think that TC matters. TC is basically "tissue displaced". When I punch someone, it doesn't create a permanent cavity of course, but when I fought full contact, I had good results from a properly placed punch, ESPECIALLY against people who were not motivated very highly. Ergo, if someone isn't very motivated, maybe it will make them feel a little sicker to their stomach? I don't know for sure, but why not? In the same stance, I can agree with you on BPW, that it is nice to have a bullet with a "high psi" rating as long as it does acceptably in other areas.

As for sticking up for 9mm, at least from the standpoint of you suggesting the 357SIG is not far superior to it, consider what SSA Urey Patrick of the Firearms Training Unit, FBI Academy, Quantico, VA, when asked; "Are you saying the 9mm is no good?" , replied;

"No, we are saying it is as good as the 38 Special, which has served us for a long time. It has severe limitations, which we are not willing to accept. It is woefully inadequate for shooting at people in cars, for example, and over half of our shootings involve vehicles. It is a marginally adequate wounding agent. We have had a number of 9mm shootings over the past couple of years, and if you define a good shooting as one in which the subject stops whatever he was doing when he gets shot, we have yet to have a good one, and we are hitting our adversaries multiple times. We have shot half a dozen dogs in the past year and have not killed one yet, although we have run up a significant veteranary bill. The 9mm with proper ammunition is not a bad round. It is just no where near as effective as the 10mm and 45 offerings and the disparity between it and the larger calibers has remained a constant throughout all the testing we have done over the past two years."

That statement is...how old? It is so old as to no-longer be valid. During their tests, yes, the 9mm was lacking. With several generations of ammunition being developed, this is no-longer quite the case. One can go to ATK's website and see it penetrating just as deeply, and expanding just as nicely, as the 357SIG. Which is to say, sometimes more, sometimes less, but it meets the 12" minimum through all 8 FBI tests.

Yet many of us have learned just how superior the 357SIG is according to those who have used both against humans and animals. Texas DPS alone has praised it.

Much of your comentary ranges from far reaching to plain absurd at best. Have you ever actually read Dr. Courtney's paper on the deer study?


Questions answered.

N/Apower
02-13-2010, 14:40
Why do you presume everyone with half a brain knows???

Would you think it wise for all FBI agents to carry 10mm Auto???

You do realize they have long guns too, right???

You do realize many agents limit themselves to the bare minimum required tactical practice and many of them wouldn't consider themselves shooters, right???
See this at the range often among LE.

You do realize the vast majority of FBI agents don't get the same training as Navy Seals, right???

You do realize a number of agencies in some departments have dumped 180gr 40S&W loads in favor of much faster and lighter 155gr 40S&W loads, right???
Overpenetration caused problems. I read an article on this just the other day. Seems one department dumped the 180's after killing someone on a shoot-through.

You do realize the ammo companies know they still have to come up with the lowest bid for ammo while simply meeting the FBI's basic list of requirements, right???
Yep, but when you consider that the heads of these divisions personally carry something like a 9mm instead of 357SIG, it makes you wonder. They know more about their ammo than you do.

You do realize not all federal agencies carry the same ammo, right? Does the Secret Service carrying 357SIGs know something the FBI doesn't, or do you presume the Secret Service to be stupid because the FBI already knows what's best???
The secret service carries the 53918 (reduced penetration) load while the FAMs carry the 54234 (TX DPS) load.

Can you explain why Winchester says there is a cult following to their 9mm 127gr +P+ load among LE???
No, especially when the BPW/psi numbers just posted for it in an above post are only roughly 2/3 that of the 115gr offering. Should indicate that the 115gr load is VASTLY superior and should be the one with the cult following, right?

You do realize many LE depts have ammo choosen for them by some bean counter who has an office window with a view that could care less what ammo they shoot, right???
I keep hearing this, and yet I look around me and see my local PD using Gold Dots, the Sherriffs using Ranger T, and TX DPS 20 miles away from me issuing 357SIG/P-series guns. Where's that penny-penching mentality? I woulda thunk they would all have promotional Glocks using 9mm WWB.

You do realize there are LE depts carrying Federal EFMJ, right??? (That's a VERY POOR carry choice if you didn't know!)
Sadly.


I could go on, but I'm quite sure you're lost already.



Good Shooting,
Craig

In red.

KenB22
02-13-2010, 15:05
Why do you presume everyone with half a brain knows???

That's certainly what you and your friends think. Everyone who disagrees with you and your buddies is called stupid or ignorant or some variation thereof. Everyone who agrees with you is called smart. Want me to cite the post numbers of everyone who has been insulted because they don't agree with the theory?

glock20c10mm
02-13-2010, 19:11
Brain-bleeds show up on imaging. How ELSE is there going to be TBI from a remote GSW, if not from a brain-bleed caused by a "pressure spike"?
Because brain injury does not necessarily mean brain damage.
Again...so? I don't want to cause a grade 1 concussion. I want to cause incapacitation. Hell, being shot period is likely to cause "brief confusion", so I guess as long as Mr. Courtney can prove GSW's cause confusion, we can't DISPROVE that it didn't cause a grade 1, now can we? Sounds almost like religion to me. You can't show me your savior, but I can't NOT show you your savior either.
At this point for some I suppose there is truth in what you say about proving and disproving. Until someone does a more definitive study (like Dr. Courtney's but with a larger data set) for all to see who haven't seen it on their own I guess some people will be in the dark so to speak. A more definitive study also demonstrating more levels of BPW.
Once again, the religious type dogma of "you can't prove it's NOT real".
You mean except for Dr. Courtney's study?
You also have zero-evidence that there isn't a tea-pot circling the earth so fast and so far away that we cannot spot it that is controlling everything that happens with magic-waves.
Again, small data set or not, we do still have Dr. Courtney's study with lots of supporting evidence. More details and refined details would be nice, but we do have reasonably solid data to start out with.
That's right. More proof is needed. Why? because the effect claimed is so variable as to be attributable to many other things.
Not so much when animals are used for the testing which they have been so far.
Perhapse I did, but it was IMPLIED that this was so, otherwise why waste your time with the theory?
No it wasn't implied, or if it was I missed it. I don't know of anyone around here that supports the BPW theory in the sense they expect results 100% of the time.
Do all .45 auto loads produce a larger hole than any 9mm Luger load? Are you saying that?
No.
Permanent wound volume.
Permanent wound volume, blood volume loss, expansion, penetration, and crushed tissue are all a science of grays. Not on whether or not they probably will happen, but to what extent, shooting to shooting.
On the flip-side, you have the 9mm from the Miami shootout. There are always outliers.
True but beside the point. I was point out a round that does penetrate far enough but was still generally labeled as a failure.
A 115gr Corbon is likely to fragment upon striking a humerous, etc. and may not penetrate deep enough into the thoracic cavity. Further, I have not seen where the 357SIG is doing so much better than modern 147gr 9mm. Several departments use the 147gr loads and are quite happy with them. Same for the 357SIG.
Right, most LE have left the various 115gr loads for heavier counterparts. Maybe it's just because you haven't been around here in caliber corner long enough yet, but there's been plenty discussed by LE and hunters on the 357SIG being clearly superior overall in terms of incapacitation over 9mm.
Because I do think that TC matters. TC is basically "tissue displaced". When I punch someone, it doesn't create a permanent cavity of course, but when I fought full contact, I had good results from a properly placed punch, ESPECIALLY against people who were not motivated very highly. Ergo, if someone isn't very motivated, maybe it will make them feel a little sicker to their stomach? I don't know for sure, but why not? In the same stance, I can agree with you on BPW, that it is nice to have a bullet with a "high psi" rating as long as it does acceptably in other areas.
Interesting way of looking at it. (That was meant in a positive way.)
That statement is...how old? It is so old as to no-longer be valid. During their tests, yes, the 9mm was lacking. With several generations of ammunition being developed, this is no-longer quite the case. One can go to ATK's website and see it penetrating just as deeply, and expanding just as nicely, as the 357SIG. Which is to say, sometimes more, sometimes less, but it meets the 12" minimum through all 8 FBI tests.
The data was young enough that the bullets in question were Hydra-Shoks.

uz2bUSMC
02-13-2010, 19:13
OK Batman. Whatever you say. You have your Pulitzer prize winning story now: The FBI is letting innocent agents die because they are too cheap and uncaring to buy the ammunition that you and everyone with half a brain knows is clearly superior in stopping BG's. I say go for it. I'll set up the meeting with Dan Rather. You can be famous and save lives at the same time. Isn't that what a Batman does??


Riiiight, the FBI is the only ones who qualify as law enforcemnt. I see, so all the times you mentioned government agencies or law enforcement... you actually meant FBI. I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was supposed to read your mind. Maybe instead of spellchecking your post you should take time, instead, to make sure they make sense.

Little hint there are other agencies besides the FBI that belong to the government. There are other agencies that put down bad guys besides the FBI... is any of this starting to click, Robin?

Now read your posts below ( a few times), then your quote above so you can better understand your own nonsense.


No. I think my point is clear. Nobody in law enforcement, nobody who makes handguns and none of the ammo companies care one whit about ballistic pressure waves. None of them consider BPW at all. It's a non-issue to them. Only people talking about BPW are people on bulletin boards trying to convince others how smart they are and that BPW exists. When people who have to put down bad guys pay attention to this stuff, I will too.

Did you know that the military puts down bad guys? Do you know what is loaded in their 9mm's? It ball ammo. If the military cared more about their troops than mission accomplishment their would be less restrictive ROE's. You know anything about that, Ken?

glock20c10mm
02-13-2010, 19:27
Overpenetration caused problems. I read an article on this just the other day. Seems one department dumped the 180's after killing someone on a shoot-through.
Not with all of them. Where most Border Patrol Agents work out here is in the middle of nowhere. Either way, over penetration is a myth and the majority of LE that carry 40S&W still carry 180gr.
Yep, but when you consider that the heads of these divisions personally carry something like a 9mm instead of 357SIG, it makes you wonder. They know more about their ammo than you do.
I don't believe we can assume to know what the heads of 99.999% of all divisions carry. Beside that, there are some that carry 45. At the end of the day I don't believe most heads of the division have any clue why they should carry any ammo over other ammo.
The secret service carries the 53918 (reduced penetration) load while the FAMs carry the 54234 (TX DPS) load.
I don't know ammo by those numbers. Who manufactures it?
No, especially when the BPW/psi numbers just posted for it in an above post are only roughly 2/3 that of the 115gr offering. Should indicate that the 115gr load is VASTLY superior and should be the one with the cult following, right?
Not if the 115s can't be relied upon for proper penetration depth.
I keep hearing this, and yet I look around me and see my local PD using Gold Dots, the Sherriffs using Ranger T, and TX DPS 20 miles away from me issuing 357SIG/P-series guns. Where's that penny-penching mentality? I woulda thunk they would all have promotional Glocks using 9mm WWB.
Who knows what specific guidelines they were given in choosing ammo. Maybe it had to be the cheapest premium ammo. Maybe they really are getting what they should for their risk assessments. I'm not aware that Ranger T is all the expensive anyway, if at all. It's the Ranger Bonded loads that cost the big bucks by comparison. Either way they aren't representative for the 1000s of LE depts across the nation.

Notice your coments are beyond the point I was making to KenB22 though. Otherwise, thoughtful comentary none-the-less.

Mrs_Esterhouse
02-13-2010, 19:27
Did you know that the military puts down bad guys? Do you know what is loaded in their 9mm's? It ball ammo. If the military cared more about their troops than mission accomplishment their would be less restrictive ROE's. You know anything about that, Ken?
Just a quick point for clarification. The US military only uses ball ammo because the Geneva convention bans hollow point ammunition. Unless we withdraw from that treaty, we will be shooting ball ammo for decades to come.

uz2bUSMC
02-13-2010, 19:45
Just a quick point for clarification. The US military only uses ball ammo because the Geneva convention bans hollow point ammunition. Unless we withdraw from that treaty, we will be shooting ball ammo for decades to come.

The point is that other things dictate the choices made.

And it's the HAGUE convention, not Geneva.

glock20c10mm
02-13-2010, 19:47
Hey Bones13 :wavey: I didn't forget about you, just took time to get back to you. Better late than never. :supergrin:
Dunno what Fackler thinks about it but I suspect that his main complaint would be that the best that could be done, even with good data, is prove the existence of an unreliable phenomenon.
Unreliable doesn't always mean unexpected most of the time.
FWIW Courtney does talk directly about TBI being the mechanism on the first page:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.3053.pdf
True.
My perspective is that even every thought you have can be traced to a particular physiologic event - a specific set of neurons firing in a specific pattern. There has to be a physiologic explanation to take it beyond just saying "I shoot him & he fall down go boom". What exactly do we mean by incapacitation? Seemingly specific words have a way of meaning less than we think. What does it mean to say a neuron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron) fires (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_potential)? It gets complicated very quickly.
The only way I can see it to mean is that a BG or animal was forced for some reason to give up their attack.
All good questions, but specifics are what drives the science. It was asserted earlier in this thread that there is no difference between the type of damage that occurs when sheep butt heads and when BPW causes TBI, which is just silly.
I can see where it could have been taken that way, but what was meant is explained in Dr. Courtney's write up of the deer study. And what you said wasn't it.
Dunno if I'd completely accept the assertion that there's NO difference but I get what you're saying.
That's honest enough and fair enough for me.
The military and LE aren't usually researchers. Sometimes research conducted by military or LE agencies is biased, too. If your boss wants the results to be X, the results have a way of being X, especially if you want a promotion.
Very true! But my point was based on the ammo they carry rating very low in terms of peak BPW.
The literature talks about psychological versus physiological factors causing incapacitation. Does a larger BPW simply means it hurts more? Or that it gives the victim a greater sense of "having been shot"?

I used to have a link (which of course now I can't find) to an article about how hollywood cliches have informed peoples expectation about what happens when someone is shot. People fall down because they think they're supposed to.
I'm with ya on all that.

glock20c10mm
02-13-2010, 20:00
That's certainly what you and your friends think.
Not at all.
Everyone who disagrees with you and your buddies is called stupid or ignorant or some variation thereof.
Not always. Usually we give you benefit of the doubt at first. Then, if you don't listen to reason (not our opinoin but reason toward what has nothing to do with out opinion) you get called stupid or ignorant or some variation thereof. Remember, just because you spell well doesn't mean you're smart in what you're talking about.
Everyone who agrees with you is called smart.
Not always. Remember the guy uz2bUSMC likes when he posts some posts and not others. Some we think are smart sometimes and stupid, dumb, or some variation thereof others.
Want me to cite the post numbers of everyone who has been insulted because they don't agree with the theory?
It's not about whether or not you agree with "the theory". It's whether you can debate your side intelligently or not. You can't. Sorry. Believe me, I wish it could be different. You my friend should be asking questions about what you clearly don't understand and we've been gracious enough to point out to you so that you can make an intelligent argument against "us". As it stands, it's clear you don't have enough info to know if you should go along with the theory or not.

And then to argue someones grammer. :faint: I know a guy who can't spell worth anything, but he'll beat my ass in a game of chess everytime! :fist:



Good Shooting,
Craig :cheers:

N/Apower
02-13-2010, 20:33
Not with all of them. Where most Border Patrol Agents work out here is in the middle of nowhere. Either way, over penetration is a myth and the majority of LE that carry 40S&W still carry 180gr.

Border Patrol has consistantly gone with the light/fast and had good results with it. They are the one agency I would cite as an example of consistant positive results with the light/fast stuff. However, I do belive they have switched to something heavier now.

I don't believe we can assume to know what the heads of 99.999% of all divisions carry. Beside that, there are some that carry 45. At the end of the day I don't believe most heads of the division have any clue why they should carry any ammo over other ammo.

Correct, but I can tell you that Hal Price of ATK carries 9mm because he views the 357SIG as a negligible improvement. I can tell you that Evan Marshall also carries calibers other than 357SIG. What does Courtney carry? That I would like to know.

I don't know ammo by those numbers. Who manufactures it?

Those are product numbers corresponding to the two loads offered by Speer/ATK in 357SIG using Gold Dot projectiles.

Not if the 115s can't be relied upon for proper penetration depth.

9BPLE has been shown to penetrate to, or VERY near to 12" in gel. I would wager it's psi is as high/higher than 127+P+.

Who knows what specific guidelines they were given in choosing ammo. Maybe it had to be the cheapest premium ammo. Maybe they really are getting what they should for their risk assessments. I'm not aware that Ranger T is all the expensive anyway, if at all. It's the Ranger Bonded loads that cost the big bucks by comparison. Either way they aren't representative for the 1000s of LE depts across the nation.

Notice your coments are beyond the point I was making to KenB22 though. Otherwise, thoughtful comentary none-the-less.


True enough, and I was not responding on behalf of KenB22, but with thoughts of my own.

uz2bUSMC
02-13-2010, 20:38
Correct, but I can tell you that Hal Price of ATK carries 9mm because he views the 357SIG as a negligible improvement. I can tell you that Evan Marshall also carries calibers other than 357SIG. What does Courtney carry? That I would like to know.


Pretty sure .357 sig (as he has posted on here), also pretty sure he handles it well too (as I was told). I think his wife digs the .357sig aswell.

uz2bUSMC
02-13-2010, 20:41
N/Apower,

I read half of that link you posted the other night (so far), and I am going to finish it soon (work is keeping me busy this weekend). I have not seen that before, it is interesting, thanks for sharing it.

N/Apower
02-13-2010, 20:42
Because brain injury does not necessarily mean brain damage.

At this point for some I suppose there is truth in what you say about proving and disproving. Until someone does a more definitive study (like Dr. Courtney's but with a larger data set) for all to see who haven't seen it on their own I guess some people will be in the dark so to speak. A more definitive study also demonstrating more levels of BPW.

You mean except for Dr. Courtney's study?

Again, small data set or not, we do still have Dr. Courtney's study with lots of supporting evidence. More details and refined details would be nice, but we do have reasonably solid data to start out with.

Not so much when animals are used for the testing which they have been so far.

No it wasn't implied, or if it was I missed it. I don't know of anyone around here that supports the BPW theory in the sense they expect results 100% of the time.

No.

Permanent wound volume, blood volume loss, expansion, penetration, and crushed tissue are all a science of grays. Not on whether or not they probably will happen, but to what extent, shooting to shooting.

True but beside the point. I was point out a round that does penetrate far enough but was still generally labeled as a failure.

Right, most LE have left the various 115gr loads for heavier counterparts. Maybe it's just because you haven't been around here in caliber corner long enough yet, but there's been plenty discussed by LE and hunters on the 357SIG being clearly superior overall in terms of incapacitation over 9mm.

Interesting way of looking at it. (That was meant in a positive way.)

The data was young enough that the bullets in question were Hydra-Shoks.


The hydra-shock being what the data came from explains the dismal performance.

Look at all the police departments using the RA9T load and the success they have had with it. In fact, let me quote Dr. Roberts on that one. here is a post from him on another forum with regards to the 147gr 9mm loading (which has absolutely horrid "psi" numbers, btw).

"San Diego PD switched to the 9mm 147 gr JHP when their lighter weight, higher velocity 9mm 115 gr JHP bullets had several failures to penetrate deeply enough to create damage to vital organs in the torso and cause rapid incapacitation. The largest independently verified study of bullet penetration and expansion characteristics in living human tissue has shown the 9mm 147 gr JHP to offer acceptable performance in law enforcement lethal force confrontations. A senior criminalist with the San Diego P.D., Mr. Eugene J. Wolberg, has analyzed their 9 mm 147 gr JHP performance in 10% ordnance gelatin and compared the laboratory results with the actual terminal effects produced in human tissue in nearly 150 officer involved shootings with the San Diego Police Department. When I last spoke with Mr. Wolberg in May of 2000, the majority of their bullets had penetrated 13 to 15 inches and expanded between 0.60 to 0.62 inches in both human tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin. This appears to be ideal performance from a 9mm. Other large California agencies using the 9mm 147 gr JHP, such as Los Angeles PD, Los Angeles SO, San Jose PD, Santa Clara PD, Santa Clara SO, San Mateo SO, and San Francisco PD have had similar results. These and other California agencies successfully using the 9mm 147 gr JHP have thousands of officers with hundreds of officer involved shootings. Perhaps the documented success of the 9mm 147 gr JHP in California is a result of differing laws of physics on the West Coast than in other areas. Unfortunately, that conjecture does not stand up to scrutiny as the extensive Royal Canadian Mounted Police studies determined that the 9mm 147 gr JHP was the most effective load for the caliber. In addition, during the ammunition trials for the M11 pistol (military Sig P228) done at Navy Weapons Center Crane Indiana, the Federal 147gr JHP (9MS) was selected as the issue load for the M11, beating a variety of other 9mm JHP loads, including both standard pressure and +P pressure 115 gr and 124 gr JHP’s. This same load was also procured by Crane for use by Tier One military units authorized to issue JHP ammunition with their 9 mm weapons, such as the Sig P226 and MP-5N."-Dr. Roberts

N/Apower
02-13-2010, 20:43
The point is that other things dictate the choices made.

And it's the HAGUE convention, not Geneva.

and we never signed it either.

N/Apower
02-13-2010, 20:46
N/Apower,

I read half of that link you posted the other night (so far), and I am going to finish it soon (work is keeping me busy this weekend). I have not seen that before, it is interesting, thanks for sharing it.

Any time. It is definitely old, and you can't gain specific info such as load-data, etc. but it is VERY well documented and shows phenomina rather well. I saw nothing in it that would lead me to belive that at velocities in the 'teens that we will see a whole lot of damage from any shock-waves. However, you may discover something in it that I did not. I find it hard to belive that that study would neglect to reveal brain-bleeds if they existed, though. It was pretty thorough, and from a time when knowledge and not political correctness and animal rights and all that was the goal of science.

uz2bUSMC
02-13-2010, 20:47
The hydra-shock being what the data came from explains the dismal performance.

Look at all the police departments using the RA9T load and the success they have had with it. In fact, let me quote Dr. Roberts on that one. here is a post from him on another forum with regards to the 147gr 9mm loading (which has absolutely horrid "psi" numbers, btw).

"San Diego PD switched to the 9mm 147 gr JHP when their lighter weight, higher velocity 9mm 115 gr JHP bullets had several failures to penetrate deeply enough to create damage to vital organs in the torso and cause rapid incapacitation. The largest independently verified study of bullet penetration and expansion characteristics in living human tissue has shown the 9mm 147 gr JHP to offer acceptable performance in law enforcement lethal force confrontations. A senior criminalist with the San Diego P.D., Mr. Eugene J. Wolberg, has analyzed their 9 mm 147 gr JHP performance in 10% ordnance gelatin and compared the laboratory results with the actual terminal effects produced in human tissue in nearly 150 officer involved shootings with the San Diego Police Department. When I last spoke with Mr. Wolberg in May of 2000, the majority of their bullets had penetrated 13 to 15 inches and expanded between 0.60 to 0.62 inches in both human tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin. This appears to be ideal performance from a 9mm. Other large California agencies using the 9mm 147 gr JHP, such as Los Angeles PD, Los Angeles SO, San Jose PD, Santa Clara PD, Santa Clara SO, San Mateo SO, and San Francisco PD have had similar results. These and other California agencies successfully using the 9mm 147 gr JHP have thousands of officers with hundreds of officer involved shootings. Perhaps the documented success of the 9mm 147 gr JHP in California is a result of differing laws of physics on the West Coast than in other areas. Unfortunately, that conjecture does not stand up to scrutiny as the extensive Royal Canadian Mounted Police studies determined that the 9mm 147 gr JHP was the most effective load for the caliber. In addition, during the ammunition trials for the M11 pistol (military Sig P228) done at Navy Weapons Center Crane Indiana, the Federal 147gr JHP (9MS) was selected as the issue load for the M11, beating a variety of other 9mm JHP loads, including both standard pressure and +P pressure 115 gr and 124 gr JHP’s. This same load was also procured by Crane for use by Tier One military units authorized to issue JHP ammunition with their 9 mm weapons, such as the Sig P226 and MP-5N."-Dr. Roberts

I'll send you a PM about this in the next day or two, if you don't mind. I have a bit of info you may or may not believe with this study, and I'd like to share...

N/Apower
02-13-2010, 20:48
I'll send you a PM about this in the next day or two, if you don't mind. I have a bit of info you may or may not believe with this study, and I'd like to share...

Feel free. There is "always more to any story", imho.

uz2bUSMC
02-13-2010, 20:58
Any time. It is definitely old, and you can't gain specific info such as load-data, etc. but it is VERY well documented and shows phenomina rather well. I saw nothing in it that would lead me to belive that at velocities in the 'teens that we will see a whole lot of damage from any shock-waves. However, you may discover something in it that I did not. I find it hard to belive that that study would neglect to reveal brain-bleeds if they existed, though. It was pretty thorough, and from a time when knowledge and not political correctness and animal rights and all that was the goal of science.

In the first half of that study they are basically examining permanent/temp cavitation, not TBI coorelation. Also, you have to remember they were using steel balls... bullet construction can change cavitation by rapidly "dumping" energy. The "steel bearing" idea was pretty cool for consistency sake... note how the internal disruption relocated the heart on one specimen... interesting! More later when I finish reading it.

glock20c10mm
02-13-2010, 21:39
Border Patrol has consistantly gone with the light/fast and had good results with it. They are the one agency I would cite as an example of consistant positive results with the light/fast stuff. However, I do belive they have switched to something heavier now.
I wasn't aware BP was known for light/fast. I haven't heard about the switch, not that I would have. Seems to me though there's something about some federal agencies piggy backing on each other for ammo purchases. Don't know if there's any truth to it. Along those lines though, they very well may shoot 180gr/165gr/155gr depending on what's on hand at the time. Again, don't really know.
Correct, but I can tell you that Hal Price of ATK carries 9mm because he views the 357SIG as a negligible improvement. I can tell you that Evan Marshall also carries calibers other than 357SIG. What does Courtney carry? That I would like to know.
But where is his view derived from? Who the heck knows but him and maybe his closest friends. Could be all based on ballistic gel testing which won't tell him anything in reguard to incapacitation. BTW, does he load up with Gold Dots or HSTs?

uz2bUSMC was correct. Dr. Courtney does carry 357 SIG. Besides relating to his BPW research he also specifically mentioned how it did so much more visual peripheral damage beyond the permanent crush cavity compared to other subsonic loads. He had also mentioned that Amy Courtney said she wanted a carry load that did that. Whether she actually ever started carrying 357SIG or not I'm not positive, but I think she did.
Those are product numbers corresponding to the two loads offered by Speer/ATK in 357SIG using Gold Dot projectiles.
Thank you.

The reduced penetration part doesn't make sense though unless they use 125gr bulets of different construction in each.

53918 that you say is the reduced penetration load used by Secret Service is rated by Speer for 1350fps from a 4" barrel.

54234 that you say TX DPS uses is rated by Speer for 1375fps from a 4" barrel.

That's like less than 20 ft-lbs difference if the two loads launch at those exact velocities. Sounds like a bunch of smoke-in-mirrors along with pulling the wool over someones eyes IMO. Either way I'm not buying into the reduced penetration part, nor did it appear Speer is selling them that way based on their website. 1350fps is the standard for 125gr from a 4" barrel for 357SIG. I wonder if TX DPS asked for all Speer could get out of it and still sell it while being able to sleep soundly at night with a clear conscience. Who knows, but the Secret Service certainly appears to using a more/less full power load.
9BPLE has been shown to penetrate to, or VERY near to 12" in gel. I would wager it's psi is as high/higher than 127+P+.
Yea, so do 115gr Gold Dots. Still doesn't mean they meet all barrier requirements they want them to. I've seen varying results with Winchester's Ranger T series 115gr 9mm +P+ load in penetration depth of calibrated ballistic gel. Don't know why. Some show 8" penetration depth while others show more like 11".

Here's some numbers I figured up for someone else a while back including what to expect based on various amounts of possible fragmetation -

I found the FBI's clothed gel testing of all the 115gr 9mm rounds.

There were only two discrepencies. 1st, with the Federal load, the FBI got a velocity of 1237fps as opposed to the 1280fps. I'll show you the numbers at both velocities.

2nd, and I know you're not asking for it, but for Speers own Gold Dot load (115gr), the FBI showed a penetration depth of 22" in clothed gel with almost no expansion @ 1259fps. I don't know if the GD was improved since the testing was done by the FBI, but I'm much more in favor with Double Taps results with the same 115gr GD which, depending on velocity is 10" to 12.12". I'm figuring it at 12".


Results of FBI data at various levels of fragmentation:

Double Tap 9X25Dillon GD 115gr @ 1800fps, P = 10" (considered frag nasty)
0%frag= 1579psi, 75%frag= 2763psi, 90%frag= 3000psi

Double Tap 357SIG GD 115gr @ 1550fps, P = 12.12"
0%frag= 955psi, 50%frag= 1433psi, 75%frag= 1671psi

Winchester Ranger 115gr +P+ @ 1320fps, P = 10.25"
0%frag= 830psi, 50%frag= 1245psi, 75%frag= 1453psi

Cor-Bon 115gr +P @ 1317fps, P = 10.25"
0%frag= 826psi, 50%frag= 1239psi, 75%frag= 1446psi

Double Tap 115gr +P GD @ 1415fps, P = 12"
0%frag= 813psi, 25% frag= 1016psi, 50%frag= 1220psi

Federal 115gr +P??? @ 1237fps, P = 10.5"
0%frag= 732psi, 50%frag= 1098psi, 75%frag= 1281psi

Federal 115gr +P+??? Using the #s you gave me.
0%frag= 701psi, 50%frag= 1051psi, 75%frag= 1227psi

Remington 115gr +P+ @ 1221fps, P = 11"
0%frag= 662psi, 50%frag= 993psi, 75%frag= 1159psi

Speer 115gr GD @ 1259fps, P = 12"
0%frag= 645psi, 25%frag= 806psi, 50%frag= 968psi

The two in blue are just for fun, geez that 9X25 is wicked with a Gold Dot!!! In red are the numbers you supplied me with for Federal's load. (numbers from the person who PMed me for the info) The Federal load in black is based on the FBI's data. All are based on clothed gel.

As you can see, I listed them in order of highest to lowest psi. Assuming other factors haven't changed since the FBI tested the loads (don't know when they did) that should pretty much be where it's at.

Just to share, my favorite 10mm load (DT 155gr GD), in terms of BPW is basically equal to the DT 357SIG 115gr load, but gets another 1.5" penetration and expands similar to a 45cal HST.:rock:
True enough, and I was not responding on behalf of KenB22, but with thoughts of my own.
:thumbsup:

glock20c10mm
02-13-2010, 22:14
The hydra-shock being what the data came from explains the dismal performance.
Simply from the standpoint it was notorious for clogging through clothing and then acting like FMJ, or is there more to it in what you're saying?
Look at all the police departments using the RA9T load and the success they have had with it. In fact, let me quote Dr. Roberts on that one. here is a post from him on another forum with regards to the 147gr 9mm loading (which has absolutely horrid "psi" numbers, btw).
Notice also it was never compared to another load in another caliber, nor was anything mentioned in the way of quickness of incapacitation. I would question the average number of hits in proper shot location it took to incapacitate the average BG in the 100s of shootings that took place, of the BGs that didn't choose to stop fighting because they were hit once or twice.
"San Diego PD switched to the 9mm 147 gr JHP when their lighter weight, higher velocity 9mm 115 gr JHP bullets had several failures to penetrate deeply enough to create damage to vital organs in the torso and cause rapid incapacitation.
But did they incapacitate better on average when they did penetrate deep enough? And what percentage of the time didn't they penetrate deep enough that all the crying was about in the first place? We'll never know. IOW who's to say there ever was a good reason for switching? I'm sure it wasn't like all the 147gr loads produced anything close to many one shot stops if the BG wasn't interested in stopping, right? Don't think anyone would disagree with me there.
The largest independently verified study of bullet penetration and expansion characteristics in living human tissue has shown the 9mm 147 gr JHP to offer acceptable performance in law enforcement lethal force confrontations.
And just what the heck is their definition of acceptable performance? Obviously I'm not asking you personally, just saying.
A senior criminalist with the San Diego P.D., Mr. Eugene J. Wolberg, has analyzed their 9 mm 147 gr JHP performance in 10% ordnance gelatin and compared the laboratory results with the actual terminal effects produced in human tissue in nearly 150 officer involved shootings with the San Diego Police Department. When I last spoke with Mr. Wolberg in May of 2000, the majority of their bullets had penetrated 13 to 15 inches and expanded between 0.60 to 0.62 inches in both human tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin. This appears to be ideal performance from a 9mm.
Wow! Must have all been shots from an angle to the BG since the average human torso is only 9.5" deep. That said, how did they figure the rounds all penetrated those magical extra 3" - 5"? Besides that I have an extremely hard time believing ever single bullet expanded!!!
Other large California agencies using the 9mm 147 gr JHP, such as Los Angeles PD, Los Angeles SO, San Jose PD, Santa Clara PD, Santa Clara SO, San Mateo SO, and San Francisco PD have had similar results. These and other California agencies successfully using the 9mm 147 gr JHP have thousands of officers with hundreds of officer involved shootings. Perhaps the documented success of the 9mm 147 gr JHP in California is a result of differing laws of physics on the West Coast than in other areas.
What??? What does successfully using mean??? And what's with the unexplained West Coast failures??? Aside from that I still stand by what I said in the paragraph above this one.
Unfortunately, that conjecture does not stand up to scrutiny as the extensive Royal Canadian Mounted Police studies determined that the 9mm 147 gr JHP was the most effective load for the caliber.
Most effective in what way for what risk assessments??? What studies did they do that determined what? See what I'm getting at here? We're to assume good info, which it may be, but if my risk assessments are different than their's..................is it in my best interest to choose the same load they hold in such supposedly high reguard?
In addition, during the ammunition trials for the M11 pistol (military Sig P228) done at Navy Weapons Center Crane Indiana, the Federal 147gr JHP (9MS) was selected as the issue load for the M11, beating a variety of other 9mm JHP loads, including both standard pressure and +P pressure 115 gr and 124 gr JHP’s.
AGAIN, from what I've already said, who says it's best for me? And what did they use for criteria to decide it was best for them? And what other options did they have outside of 9mm? Any? Guess we'll never know, and it's a bunch of info with too many holes in it to decide whether or not it's right for me or not. Of course I already know it isn't. :supergrin:
This same load was also procured by Crane for use by Tier One military units authorized to issue JHP ammunition with their 9 mm weapons, such as the Sig P226 and MP-5N."-Dr. Roberts
Why? Guess we'll never know. I suspect Crane simply jumped in on the giant contract for cheap decent ammo. Not to mention they generally don't rely on there sidearms anyway.

No offense to you N/Apower, but I can pick up a gun rag if I want info that trivial with way to much undisclosed info for me to decide if it means anything good for me or not.

N/Apower
02-13-2010, 23:09
I wasn't aware BP was known for light/fast. I haven't heard about the switch, not that I would have. Seems to me though there's something about some federal agencies piggy backing on each other for ammo purchases. Don't know if there's any truth to it. Along those lines though, they very well may shoot 180gr/165gr/155gr depending on what's on hand at the time. Again, don't really know.

But where is his view derived from? Who the heck knows but him and maybe his closest friends. Could be all based on ballistic gel testing which won't tell him anything in reguard to incapacitation. BTW, does he load up with Gold Dots or HSTs?

He is the head of their LE division. You are right though, only he knows EXACTLY why. 124gr +P GDHP.

uz2bUSMC was correct. Dr. Courtney does carry 357 SIG. Besides relating to his BPW research he also specifically mentioned how it did so much more visual peripheral damage beyond the permanent crush cavity compared to other subsonic loads. He had also mentioned that Amy Courtney said she wanted a carry load that did that. Whether she actually ever started carrying 357SIG or not I'm not positive, but I think she did.

Thank you.

The reduced penetration part doesn't make sense though unless they use 125gr bulets of different construction in each.

They do. It yeilds roughly 1.5" penetration less, according to ATK.

53918 that you say is the reduced penetration load used by Secret Service is rated by Speer for 1350fps from a 4" barrel.

54234 that you say TX DPS uses is rated by Speer for 1375fps from a 4" barrel.

Correct, the 53918 uses a different projectile and .2g less powder.

That's like less than 20 ft-lbs difference if the two loads launch at those exact velocities. Sounds like a bunch of smoke-in-mirrors along with pulling the wool over someones eyes IMO. Either way I'm not buying into the reduced penetration part, nor did it appear Speer is selling them that way based on their website. 1350fps is the standard for 125gr from a 4" barrel for 357SIG. I wonder if TX DPS asked for all Speer could get out of it and still sell it while being able to sleep soundly at night with a clear conscience. Who knows, but the Secret Service certainly appears to using a more/less full power load.

Believe what you want.
My information (confirmed by Hal Price) is below in my message.

Yea, so do 115gr Gold Dots. Still doesn't mean they meet all barrier requirements they want them to. I've seen varying results with Winchester's Ranger T series 115gr 9mm +P+ load in penetration depth of calibrated ballistic gel. Don't know why. Some show 8" penetration depth while others show more like 11".

Here's some numbers I figured up for someone else a while back including what to expect based on various amounts of possible fragmetation -

I found the FBI's clothed gel testing of all the 115gr 9mm rounds.

There were only two discrepencies. 1st, with the Federal load, the FBI got a velocity of 1237fps as opposed to the 1280fps. I'll show you the numbers at both velocities.

2nd, and I know you're not asking for it, but for Speers own Gold Dot load (115gr), the FBI showed a penetration depth of 22" in clothed gel with almost no expansion @ 1259fps. I don't know if the GD was improved since the testing was done by the FBI, but I'm much more in favor with Double Taps results with the same 115gr GD which, depending on velocity is 10" to 12.12". I'm figuring it at 12".
ATK tweaks their ammo a lot/often from what I understand, but I do not know either. Federal's HST got tweaked often too. It was total junk when it first came out. Now it is quite reliable.


Results of FBI data at various levels of fragmentation:

Double Tap 9X25Dillon GD 115gr @ 1800fps, P = 10" (considered frag nasty)
0%frag= 1579psi, 75%frag= 2763psi, 90%frag= 3000psi

Double Tap 357SIG GD 115gr @ 1550fps, P = 12.12"
0%frag= 955psi, 50%frag= 1433psi, 75%frag= 1671psi

Winchester Ranger 115gr +P+ @ 1320fps, P = 10.25"
0%frag= 830psi, 50%frag= 1245psi, 75%frag= 1453psi

Cor-Bon 115gr +P @ 1317fps, P = 10.25"
0%frag= 826psi, 50%frag= 1239psi, 75%frag= 1446psi

Double Tap 115gr +P GD @ 1415fps, P = 12"
0%frag= 813psi, 25% frag= 1016psi, 50%frag= 1220psi

Federal 115gr +P??? @ 1237fps, P = 10.5"
0%frag= 732psi, 50%frag= 1098psi, 75%frag= 1281psi

Federal 115gr +P+??? Using the #s you gave me.
0%frag= 701psi, 50%frag= 1051psi, 75%frag= 1227psi

Remington 115gr +P+ @ 1221fps, P = 11"
0%frag= 662psi, 50%frag= 993psi, 75%frag= 1159psi

Speer 115gr GD @ 1259fps, P = 12"
0%frag= 645psi, 25%frag= 806psi, 50%frag= 968psi

The two in blue are just for fun, geez that 9X25 is wicked with a Gold Dot!!! In red are the numbers you supplied me with for Federal's load. (numbers from the person who PMed me for the info) The Federal load in black is based on the FBI's data. All are based on clothed gel.

As you can see, I listed them in order of highest to lowest psi. Assuming other factors haven't changed since the FBI tested the loads (don't know when they did) that should pretty much be where it's at.

Just to share, my favorite 10mm load (DT 155gr GD), in terms of BPW is basically equal to the DT 357SIG 115gr load, but gets another 1.5" penetration and expands similar to a 45cal HST.:rock:

:thumbsup:


AFTE JOURNAL

Volume 33, Number 4, Fall 2001

From the Virginia Institute of Forensic Science and Medicine

Speer 357 SIG Cartridge Improvements
A Technical Report

Amy A. Zahradka, VIFSM Fellow '02 and Ann L. Davis, Virginia Division of Forensic Science
Richmond, Virginia

ABSTRACT
A local police department found that their stock of 357 SIG ammunition was not all the same, even though it had been purchased under identical specifications. This article identifies a new cartridge headstamp and examines the variations available in Speer 357 SIG Gold Dot 125 grain hollow point ammunition.

While working on a police shooting case, it came to our attention that the ammunition submitted as standard issue was different from the fired cartridge cases recovered at the scene. When the police department was questioned about the discrepancy, personnel discovered that their stock of ammunition was not all the same. Although Speer 357 SIG Gold Dot 125 grain hollow point ammunition was ordered, cartridges from box to box looked different and product numbers varied. After discussing the matter with a development engineer at Blount, it was found that up to four types might currently be available on distributorsÿ shelves.

Product Improvements
An unusual semi-automatic handgun cartridge, the 357 SIG has a bottleneck case and operates at a high chamber pressure, up to 5,000 psi greater than some 357 Magnum loadings. Speer introduced their version in 1996 and made improvements in 1999 as a response to feedback they received.

It seems that the nickel-plated primers were causing a problem for some Sigarms handguns. During obturation, the high chamber pressure forced the primer cup into the breech face firing pin aperture. As the pistol unlocked, dropping the barrel, pieces of the cup metal occasionally sheared off into the recess. These shavings restricted the firing pinÿs movement, subsequently causing misfires. Speer reduced the size of the flash hole and switched to a plain brass primer to eliminate this problem.

Changes to the bullet were also incorporated. The bullet was given a larger nose radius to improve feeding, and the profile was changed to allow for more clearance in the chamber. The jacket thickness was increased by 0.007" to optimize performance through a wider range of velocities.

The improved ammunition was initially released on March 1, 1999 and is distinguished with a sideways "s" (called a "Lazy s") on the headstamp.

Two Product Numbers
Product number discrepancy is another issue. Two part numbers, 54234 and 53918 (or 23918 for boxes of 20), are currently available. Before the change in 1999, the only difference between them was that 54234 was mouth sealed. During the upgrade, it was decided that both should be mouth sealed to prevent bullet movement in the bottleneck case. At the same time, two new hollow point cavities were designed. The hollow point for 54234 was designed to duplicate the expansion and penetration characteristics of the original style, while 53918 was designed to decrease penetration by one to two inches. In order to make recoil more manageable, the powder charge in 53918 was reduced by 0.2 grains, resulting in an average velocity drop of 25 feet per second.

Conclusion
With both products available in either of two possible configurations, a total of four versions of the Speer 357 SIG Gold Dot 125 grain hollow point cartridges may still be in circulation. Although one type may not appear drastically different from another, it is important to understand the variations available.

Acknowledgment
We would like to extend a special thanks to Engineer Steve Moore of Blount for his assistance and cooperation in researching this article.

References
1. Product specifications and correspondence from Steve Moore, Development Engineer for Blount Inc. (CCI/Speer Division)
2. Barnes, F.C. and McPherson, M.L. (ed.), Cartridges of the World, 8th Edition, Krause Publications, Northfield, IL, 1997


^See above for information on the 2 loads we discussed.

THplanes
02-14-2010, 00:59
However, you may discover something in it that I did not. I find it hard to belive that that study would neglect to reveal brain-bleeds if they existed, though. It was pretty thorough, and from a time when knowledge and not political correctness and animal rights and all that was the goal of science.


The paper makes no mention of looking for minor TBI or any bleeding in the brain, excepting head shots. This means they were not looking for it. If they were looking for it and found none they would have reported the findings. Scientists don't report only positive data from an experiment, they also report any negative data. I'm not taking sides in the debate about BPW and TPI, just pointing out the study does not mean what you think it does.

sigcalcatrant
02-14-2010, 01:36
NMGlocker's tag line:



Just so you know I disagree with that also. Hunter put a 45 slug though his head, indicating he was a real stable person. Also, having a son now in battle, I find it offensive. You should rather thank God for people like him that make the sacrifices that allow you to put such inane statements on your posts.Considering the copious amounts of drugs and alcohol that Hunter S. Thompson consumed constantly throughout his entire lifetime, the bullet probably just bounced around inside his near empty, except for a few calcified neurons, thick-boned skull. He wasn't even that good of writer BEFORE his number dead brain cells surpassed the number of alive-yet-dim ones, as NMGlocker's tag line shows.

Like I give a **** who likes me and who doesn't...

See above.
I don't give a **** what you agree or disagree with.:rofl: Nobody cares if you care, but thanks for letting us know.

sigcalcatrant
02-14-2010, 02:38
I figure someone who wanted to us to think he was knowledgeable...Your spelling may be OK, but your syntax leaves a lot to be desired.

sigcalcatrant
02-14-2010, 02:46
Are you saying that when I repeatedly mispronounce "corpsman" as "corpseman" it betrays an immature intellect and/or lack of knowledge?:rofl: PURE GENIUS!!! :animlol:

English
02-14-2010, 07:22
Personally, my issue is this:

Dr. Courtney's work suggests that a light, fast, violently fragmenting or expanding JHP is the way to go.

The Courtneys take the position that the more, faster, harder, etc. with kinetic energy transfer, the better--and I agree.

The problem arises when you step out into the real world.

You cannot have a 9mm/.45/357SIG, whatever, that violently fragments/expands and still penetrates 12" through a variety of barriers. It just doesn't work that way.

So what you have now, is a decision to make: Do you want to cause a TBI (assuming you can, which, every study shown shows that even if this IS possible, it is FAR from assured, even with high-powered rifles), or do you want to ensure 12" of penetration in your target?

I think we can all agree that if a bullet could violently expand and fragment and all that and still penetrate 12" after various barriers, that THAT is the round we would want. However, since we can't have that (yet, anyways), we are forced to choose.

C&C would champion the fragmenting or violently expanding bullet.

I would propose that this is a poor decision.

TBI is iffy, even if we accept that it is real. However, there is nothing "iffy" about the fact that numerous people have been killed because they used ammunition that would not penetrate deep enough to kill their assailant.

Officer Coates, FBI Miami shootout, a local cop in dallas using 55gr BST's trying to shoot a perp in a car, the list goes on and on and on.

Therefor, while I think the 357SIG's extra energy on soft tissue is certainly a good thing (how could it not be?), I don't think that one should use 115gr Corbon's, or that one should state that the 357SIG is "far superior" to a 147gr 9mm that expands properly.

Actually, I agree with all of that. I don't know if the fragmenting bullet idea is based on experimental data or the mathematics of retardation but I suspect a faulty application of mathematics. I feel very uneasy about using a bullet which undergoes random fragmentation and hence random penetration. The low level traumatic brain injury caused by a sufficiently high level of BPW is not only a probabilistic event, as are all pistol cartridge wounding mechanisms, but it can produce an incapacitation of variable duration. Since that duration can be quite short, in a life or death situation we need to have a second wounding mode which will produce more certain incapacitation before or shortly after any such brief incapacitation due to a BPW effect comes to an end.

This is not at all to say that even very brief rapid incapacitation is not valuable. Any period of time during which the BG is unable to shoot at you while you can continue to shoot at him is of great value. I just prefer a belt and braces approach if that is a meaningful phrase in American English. Perhaps it should be belt and suspenders!

*With regards to damage of microvascular structures due to remote injury, if the retinal structures, and other various delicate vessels in the body are not damaged, I do not feel that the brain is at much risk with regard to any immediate effect. Kindof like worrying about blowing up the transmission in a corvette when doing a burn-out on a set of spare tires. When I start hearing about blindness and occular hemmhoraging due to GSW's to other parts of the body, then I will give this phenomina more thought.

I don't think this follows at all with regard to the eye. The minor TBI evidence shown by the Czech autopsy analysis shows damage close to the entry of the major blood vessels serving the brain. Since this opening is very small it acts like a source of origin of a BPW. The pressure of such an event will then diminish approximately according to the inverse square of the distance from the source. By the time it gets to the eye, through another small opening, nit is unlikely to produce observable damage since damage to the intervening parts of the brain are not observable.

English

swede1945
02-14-2010, 09:31
Unlike paranormal claims, aspects of the published BPW theory are potentially falsifiable. In surviving patients, sensitive techniques exist for detecting mild TBI. Diffusion tensor imaging, functional tests, and biochemical tests are available for detecting mild traumatic brain injuries at levels lower than those that would lead to hemorrhaging or show up on CT scans. Moreover, in deceased patients/animal experiments, there are easily applicable histology techniques that also detect mild TBI at levels below easily visible hemorrhaging. A study could easily falsify the link between TBI and BPW by conducting the most sensitive available tests and failing to find TBI in cases where the theory predicts there should be TBI based on the BPW level and shot placement. However, the fact is, every study that has employed reasonably sensitive technique has found evidence of remote brain injury in cases where the theory predicts it. Studies have also documented remote wounding effects to other organs also attributed to BPW. In contrast, claims that TBI has not been found can never be backed up with facts showing that 1) researchers were looking for it with established techniques sufficiently sensitive to detect mild TBI and 2) in the case under discussion, a BPW was applied that is predicted to result in TBI.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Likewise, the link between BPW and rapid incapacitation is potentially falsifiable. One simply needs to conduct an incapacitation study comparing two loads with comparable crushed tissue, but significantly different pressure waves. The Fackler model predicts that given comparable shot placement and adequate penetration, average incapacitation will depend only on crushed tissue volume. Dr. Fackler originated the idea that one could disprove the proposed link between incapacitation and pressure wave effects by simply shooting deer with two different handgun loads that created comparable volumes of crushed tissue, but different amounts of energy transfer. Of course, when the experiment was actually performed, the data supported rather than falsified the link between BPW and incapacitation. Furthermore, every published data set that contains a quantitative measure of incapacitation and allows BPW magnitude to be estimated shows a strong correlation between BPW magnitude and incapacitation. Studies recommending low BPW loads invariably report results of functional and gelatin testing (Crane) or penetration/expansion in autopsy measurements (Wolberg) rather than data that is an actual measure of rapid incapacitation. Most of these studies are also pre-date the availability of .357 Sig and .40 S&W wounding and incapacitation data.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Harvey’s studies in the 1940’s were important in that they recognized the ballistic pressure wave and quantified it with both electronic and optical techniques:
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
It is not generally recognized that when a high velocity missile strikes the body and moves through soft tissues, pressures develop which are measured in thousands of atmospheres. Actually, three different types of pressure change appear: (1) shock wave pressures or sharp, high pressure pulses, formed when the missile hits the body surface; (2) very high pressure regions immediately in front and to each side of the moving missile; (3) relatively stow, low pressure changes connected with the behavior of the large explosive temporary cavity, formed behind the missile. Such pressure changes appear to be responsible for what is known to hunters as hydraulic shock--a hydraulic transmission of energy which is believed to cause instant death of animals hit by high velocity bullets (Powell (1)). The magnitude and time relations of these pressures have recently been recorded by the Princeton Biology Group, using tourmaline piezoelectric crystalgauges (Harvey et a/. (2)). The part they play in wounding has also been analyzed (Harvey eta/. (3)).<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

The shock wave, which originates when the missile strikes the skin, moves through the body with high velocity. Since the propagation of shock waves through body tissues has not been previously investigated, we have obtained data pertaining to them by a relatively simple method of study, not requiring the complicated electronic amplifiers necessary for the tourmaline crystal recording. This method involves photographing the shadow of the wave by a high intensity microsecond spark such as is used for study of shock waves generated by bullets moving through air.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

However, the Harvey studies made no attempt to look for microscopic neurological damage.<o:p></o:p>

N/Apower
02-14-2010, 11:00
Actually, I agree with all of that. I don't know if the fragmenting bullet idea is based on experimental data or the mathematics of retardation but I suspect a faulty application of mathematics. I feel very uneasy about using a bullet which undergoes random fragmentation and hence random penetration. The low level traumatic brain injury caused by a sufficiently high level of BPW is not only a probabilistic event, as are all pistol cartridge wounding mechanisms, but it can produce an incapacitation of variable duration. Since that duration can be quite short, in a life or death situation we need to have a second wounding mode which will produce more certain incapacitation before or shortly after any such brief incapacitation due to a BPW effect comes to an end.

This is not at all to say that even very brief rapid incapacitation is not valuable. Any period of time during which the BG is unable to shoot at you while you can continue to shoot at him is of great value. I just prefer a belt and braces approach if that is a meaningful phrase in American English. Perhaps it should be belt and suspenders!

I don't think this follows at all with regard to the eye. The minor TBI evidence shown by the Czech autopsy analysis shows damage close to the entry of the major blood vessels serving the brain. Since this opening is very small it acts like a source of origin of a BPW. The pressure of such an event will then diminish approximately according to the inverse square of the distance from the source. By the time it gets to the eye, through another small opening, nit is unlikely to produce observable damage since damage to the intervening parts of the brain are not observable.

English


Fine...lets go...down.

Kidneys. Kidneys are very sensetive to blood-pressure, and are almost equidistant from the brain, using the chest. Nice straight-shot to the kidneys, anatomically, as far as blood-flow goes as well.

I would propose that any wave that damaged the brain would also damage the structures of the kidney, causing destruction of the glomeruli basemement membranes and resulting in protenuria and/or hematuria and a decrease in GFR.

My point is this: If we are asserting that brain-damage/injury/whatever car occur, then we are asserting that there is enough force that other sensetive structures would be damaged as well.

Maybe I can propose my own theory about BPW and kidney damage. At least THAT could be accurately measured as GFR could be measured, the animal shot, and GFR measured again. Same for substances in the urine.

*Maybe someone already has...if so...link?

What say you?

glock20c10mm
02-14-2010, 13:34
They do. It yeilds roughly 1.5" penetration less, according to ATK.

Correct, the 53918 uses a different projectile and .2g less powder.

Believe what you want.
My information (confirmed by Hal Price) is below in my message.

ATK tweaks their ammo a lot/often from what I understand, but I do not know either. Federal's HST got tweaked often too. It was total junk when it first came out. Now it is quite reliable.

^See above for information on the 2 loads we discussed.

TYVM for the info.

My best guess (for penetration depth in clothed gel) for BPW numbers for the two at 1.5" difference in penetration depth and 25 fps difference in velocity comes to -

Secret Service 357SIG load - 773 psi (figured 12.5" penetration depth)
Texas DPS 357SIG load - 716 psi (figured 14" penetration depth)

Of course neither assumes any fragmentation. If the SS load bullet, because of possibly slightly lighter construction, frags even 10%, then it's PBPW goes up to approx 850 psi.

Interesting.


Good Shooting,
Craig

glock20c10mm
02-14-2010, 13:46
The paper makes no mention of looking for minor TBI or any bleeding in the brain, excepting head shots. This means they were not looking for it. If they were looking for it and found none they would have reported the findings. Scientists don't report only positive data from an experiment, they also report any negative data. I'm not taking sides in the debate about BPW and TPI, just pointing out the study does not mean what you think it does.
:agree: I'm really having a hard time believing brain-bleeds will turn up very often if at all from BPW resulting from bullets entering the thoratic cavity from most common SD handgun loads. But I unequivocally believe handgun loads producing enough PBPW will aid in incapactating BGs and animals in less time, some of the time, than the average shot to the vitals (outside of direct CNS hits) without BPW effects taking effect at all.


Craig

glock20c10mm
02-14-2010, 14:02
Unlike paranormal claims, aspects of the published BPW theory are potentially falsifiable. In surviving patients, sensitive techniques exist for detecting mild TBI. Diffusion tensor imaging, functional tests, and biochemical tests are available for detecting mild traumatic brain injuries at levels lower than those that would lead to hemorrhaging or show up on CT scans. Moreover, in deceased patients/animal experiments, there are easily applicable histology techniques that also detect mild TBI at levels below easily visible hemorrhaging. A study could easily falsify the link between TBI and BPW by conducting the most sensitive available tests and failing to find TBI in cases where the theory predicts there should be TBI based on the BPW level and shot placement. However, the fact is, every study that has employed reasonably sensitive technique has found evidence of remote brain injury in cases where the theory predicts it. Studies have also documented remote wounding effects to other organs also attributed to BPW. In contrast, claims that TBI has not been found can never be backed up with facts showing that 1) researchers were looking for it with established techniques sufficiently sensitive to detect mild TBI and 2) in the case under discussion, a BPW was applied that is predicted to result in TBI.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Likewise, the link between BPW and rapid incapacitation is potentially falsifiable. One simply needs to conduct an incapacitation study comparing two loads with comparable crushed tissue, but significantly different pressure waves. The Fackler model predicts that given comparable shot placement and adequate penetration, average incapacitation will depend only on crushed tissue volume. Dr. Fackler originated the idea that one could disprove the proposed link between incapacitation and pressure wave effects by simply shooting deer with two different handgun loads that created comparable volumes of crushed tissue, but different amounts of energy transfer. Of course, when the experiment was actually performed, the data supported rather than falsified the link between BPW and incapacitation. Furthermore, every published data set that contains a quantitative measure of incapacitation and allows BPW magnitude to be estimated shows a strong correlation between BPW magnitude and incapacitation. Studies recommending low BPW loads invariably report results of functional and gelatin testing (Crane) or penetration/expansion in autopsy measurements (Wolberg) rather than data that is an actual measure of rapid incapacitation. Most of these studies are also pre-date the availability of .357 Sig and .40 S&W wounding and incapacitation data.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Harvey’s studies in the 1940’s were important in that they recognized the ballistic pressure wave and quantified it with both electronic and optical techniques:
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
It is not generally recognized that when a high velocity missile strikes the body and moves through soft tissues, pressures develop which are measured in thousands of atmospheres. Actually, three different types of pressure change appear: (1) shock wave pressures or sharp, high pressure pulses, formed when the missile hits the body surface; (2) very high pressure regions immediately in front and to each side of the moving missile; (3) relatively stow, low pressure changes connected with the behavior of the large explosive temporary cavity, formed behind the missile. Such pressure changes appear to be responsible for what is known to hunters as hydraulic shock--a hydraulic transmission of energy which is believed to cause instant death of animals hit by high velocity bullets (Powell (1)). The magnitude and time relations of these pressures have recently been recorded by the Princeton Biology Group, using tourmaline piezoelectric crystalgauges (Harvey et a/. (2)). The part they play in wounding has also been analyzed (Harvey eta/. (3)).<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

The shock wave, which originates when the missile strikes the skin, moves through the body with high velocity. Since the propagation of shock waves through body tissues has not been previously investigated, we have obtained data pertaining to them by a relatively simple method of study, not requiring the complicated electronic amplifiers necessary for the tourmaline crystal recording. This method involves photographing the shadow of the wave by a high intensity microsecond spark such as is used for study of shock waves generated by bullets moving through air.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

However, the Harvey studies made no attempt to look for microscopic neurological damage.<o:p></o:p>
Your posts are very informative.

Thank you for posting. I look forward to your future posts.


Good Shooting,
Craig

glock20c10mm
02-14-2010, 14:15
Fine...lets go...down.

Kidneys. Kidneys are very sensetive to blood-pressure, and are almost equidistant from the brain, using the chest. Nice straight-shot to the kidneys, anatomically, as far as blood-flow goes as well.

I would propose that any wave that damaged the brain would also damage the structures of the kidney, causing destruction of the glomeruli basemement membranes and resulting in protenuria and/or hematuria and a decrease in GFR.

My point is this: If we are asserting that brain-damage/injury/whatever car occur, then we are asserting that there is enough force that other sensetive structures would be damaged as well.

Maybe I can propose my own theory about BPW and kidney damage. At least THAT could be accurately measured as GFR could be measured, the animal shot, and GFR measured again. Same for substances in the urine.

*Maybe someone already has...if so...link?

What say you?
My beef with that is you're assuming BPW promotes bleeding in the brain. But like I assert, if it doesn't, at least not always, then you very well wouldn't find bleeding to the kidneys either. If I'm wrong in what you're thinking, what sort of damage would you think you might see to the kidneys?

Obviously I have to assume you aren't attibuting any possible damage to kidneys by BPW to aid in incapactation, just that you're correlating damage happening to the brain to also showing up in the kidneys in general.

But don't you feel it's possible for the brain to be scrambled for a few seconds without physical injury showing up that would last any longer than the brain may use to fix itself?

Like dizzyness for example. Some people stand up too quick or however it works and feel dizzy for a few moments. You probably know if that has anything to do with the brain or not. I don't. Either way I'ld see that as a temporarily incapactating effect. Maybe BPW can cause something along those lines, or similar but different. Heck if I know, just throwing it out there.

Either way, simple things can happen to make us feel disoriented that subside rather quickly on their own and leave no sign behind they ever happened. Maybe BPW effects sometimes happen the in similar type ways. Thoughts?

Just so no one freaks out here, I make no attempt at answering for English. I'm interested to see what he replies back also. Just wanted to throw my own thoughts out there too.


Craig

N/Apower
02-14-2010, 15:08
My beef with that is you're assuming BPW promotes bleeding in the brain. But like I assert, if it doesn't, at least not always, then you very well wouldn't find bleeding to the kidneys either. If I'm wrong in what you're thinking, what sort of damage would you think you might see to the kidneys?

Okay, a little bit of information on the kidneys is in order. I will make it very simple. The kidneys recieve a lot of blood (if I remember correctly from my med-surge lectures, roughly 25% of the body's blood volume goes through the kidneys on each "pass", don't hold me to that # though as it's been a year since I had that lecture). The functional unit in a kidney, is the nephron. Nephrons are, for lack of a better word, "filters" made up of glomeruli. Through osmotic gradient, they filter the blood, balancing electrolytes, removing waste products (excreted as urine), balancing pH, and managing blood-pressure (by removing fluides). If an "over-pressure" situation (like high blood-pressure, one of the leading causes of renal failure and other end-organ damage) occurs, these very delicate structures are damaged. The "filter", so to speak, or basement membrane of the glomeruli is ONE CELL thick. It is easily damaged. When this occurs, substances that should be kept in the body, are leaked into the urine. Kinda like taking a shotgun to a pool-filter. You're going to get bugs in the pool. A hallmark sign of damage to this membrane is proteinuria, or protein spilling into the urine. Protein (such as albumin) is a rather "large" particle. If there is protein in the urin, there is some end organ damage.

Obviously I have to assume you aren't attibuting any possible damage to kidneys by BPW to aid in incapactation, just that you're correlating damage happening to the brain to also showing up in the kidneys in general.

Of course not, you assumed correctly. Although surviving a GSW only to suffer ARF would suck, lol.

But don't you feel it's possible for the brain to be scrambled for a few seconds without physical injury showing up that would last any longer than the brain may use to fix itself?

Sure, basically, like getting a smack on the noggin? Okay.

Like dizzyness for example. Some people stand up too quick or however it works and feel dizzy for a few moments. This is called orthostatic hypotension You probably know if that has anything to do with the brain or not. I don't. If your blood-pressure is on the lower-side, and your baroreceptors aren't on the ball, when you jump up, blood has to be pumped to the brain under more pressure to get there. When there is a lack of this happening, you feel a bit dizzy until the pressure comes up. In layman's terms. This is why people on blood-pressure lowering meds are told to "dangle" their legs over the side of the bed, stand up slowly, etc. Either way I'ld see that as a temporarily incapactating effect. Maybe BPW can cause something along those lines, or similar but different. Heck if I know, just throwing it out there. Maybe it can cause an effect by "spiking" blood-pressure in the brain, maybe it can't. So much is going through a person's mind when they get shot that we don't know for sure. What we do know, is that there are many accounts of people being shot--even fatally--and not knowing it when it occured.

Either way, simple things can happen to make us feel disoriented that subside rather quickly on their own and leave no sign behind they ever happened. Maybe BPW effects sometimes happen the in similar type ways. Thoughts? It could. I won't argue, but then, this is highly subjective.

Just so no one freaks out here, I make no attempt at answering for English. I'm interested to see what he replies back also. Just wanted to throw my own thoughts out there too.


Craig


Just my .02

glock20c10mm
02-14-2010, 15:47
Just my .02
Thanks for the info.

I always did wonder how sitting up or standing up to quickly would/could cause dizzyness.


Craig

N/Apower
02-14-2010, 16:16
Thanks for the info.

I always did wonder how sitting up or standing up to quickly would/could cause dizzyness.


Craig


If you experience this it is probably/possibly because:

your bloodpressure is on the lower side (not a bad thing at all, unless you are below 90 systolic, at which point your kidneys are at risk of not perfusing properly).

for some reason your baroreceptors are responding slowly (genetic, medication, long periods of inactivity, etc.)

You have a fluid volumn defecit (bleeding, dehydration, etc.)

NMGlocker
02-14-2010, 17:10
http://www.winchester.com/PRODUCTS/LE/HANDGUN-AMMUNITION/Pages/default.aspx
Winchester Ranger T
.357sig 125gr. @ 1350fps
9mm+p 127gr. @ 1250fps

You guys are saying that 100fps and 2 less grains of bullet weight make ALL the difference.
Seriously?
That's less than a 10% velocity increase.
With a straight face you are going to tell me that the .357sig is an "unbelievable manstopper" yet the 9mm+P is just adequate?
Seriously?
That must mean the standard pressure 124gr. Gold Dot @ 1150fps is downright anemic?
http://www.speer-ammo.com/ballistics/ammo.aspx
:upeyes:

English
02-14-2010, 17:25
N/Apower,
That is an interesting suggestion about kidney damage and should be worth investigating but I don't think it is directly related to this discussion. It would show subtle levels of remote damage but that would not give us any relationship to the level of damage which would produce rapid incapacitation.

You are very concerned with blood vessel damage and it should be easy enough to determine typical distance from the center of maximum pressure that observable damage goes to with different bullets and velocities, but I don't think anyone is claiming such a connection as far away as the brain. The simple fact behind all of this is the experimental data set that shows a clear correlation between increasing peak pressure and probability of rapid incapacitation. The Courtney's work makes no claim beyond that. It does not presuppose the actual mechanism and does not even claim that it a hydraulic displacement effect. If we could detect kidney damage, I don't see how we could decide whether it was caused by a hydraulic effect or direct damage caused by the distortion of the kidneys as the wave passed through them.

Fundamental to this whole argument is the experimental data. It happened as described or it didn't and there are only two ways to attack it. One is by repeating the experiment independently of the Courtneys in the hope of showing a significant incongruity between the two sets of data; that is, after all, why scientists are required to give sufficient detail for their experiment to be repeated. The other is to design and do some other experiment which would show a lack of correlation between peak pressure of a ballistic pressure wave above 400psi and probability of rapid incapacitation. It is surely significant that no body has done any such thing.

I am a reasonably trusting individual of scientific experiments provided that the experiment does not require some unique skill, such as the infamous human cloning work, or unique access to some particular data, and provided that there is no other great barrier to someone else repeating the work. Given such circumstances, dishonest science will almost always be found out if it has enough significance to arouse interest. The Courtney's work fits these criteria and, as far as I was concerned, it explained major holes in the claims of earlier, widely accepted, work on terminal ballistics effectiveness which had been obvious to me for a very long time and for which no sound explanation had ever been given.

As we have seen with the climate science fiasco, peer revue is no safeguard for sound science. Strangely enough it institutionalises a primary logical fallacy - the appeal to authority. As I have said elsewhere, the peer revue process is a back covering convenience for the editors of learned journals and it can be very easy for a group with a particular consensus view point to hijack the system. As a side comment, this is analogous to what the socialists have managed to do over the last hundred years with regard to education, the philosophy of deprivation, the concept of fairness and so on and on.

Science stands on it own merits as defined by K.R. Popper. It is independent of personalities and scientists themselves. We cannot prove any scientific hypothesis or theory to be true in an abslute sense but we can test such hypotheses to an extent that allows us to treat them as most probably true. The more we can find independent avenues of evidence that lead to the same conclusion the more we are able to trust that conclusion. The more a hypothesis explains things that were not previously explained, the more we tend to trust the hypothesis. The Courtney work fits these criteria remarkably well. Its experimental method was ingenious and I find it hard to disbelieve its results.

English

English
02-14-2010, 18:03
http://www.winchester.com/PRODUCTS/LE/HANDGUN-AMMUNITION/Pages/default.aspx
Winchester Ranger T
.357sig 125gr. @ 1350fps
9mm+p 127gr. @ 1250fps

You guys are saying that 100fps and 2 less grains of bullet weight make ALL the difference.
Seriously?
That's less than a 10% velocity increase.
With a straight face you are going to tell me that the .357sig is an "unbelievable manstopper" yet the 9mm+P is just adequate?
Seriously?
That must mean the standard pressure 124gr. Gold Dot @ 1150fps is downright anemic?
http://www.speer-ammo.com/ballistics/ammo.aspx
:upeyes:

It isn't that the standard pressure 9mm is downright anemic. It is just that it is anemic relative to it peak BPW pressue. If you will look back at the data provided by glock20c10mm you will see that he provides a list relating peak pressure to probability of rapid incapacitation. If you will take the trouble to draw a graph through to points given you will see that the probability falls to zero somewhere around 380psi. That is why most standard pressure 9mms are anemic in this respect. They will kill perfectly well provided you don't mind waiting a little. What they are not good at is producing rapid incapacitation from chest shots.

If you will look further up the same post, you will find a 9mm +P with a remarkably high peak pressure. Unfortunately, it achieves this result at the cost of a penetration of only 8.5 inches. In physics, there is no free lunch.

In choosing your examples you select a +P 9mm but a standard pressure 357SIG and so immediately bias the data in the direction you want. If you look at comparable pressures the velocity difference is typically 150fps and not 100fps, but even with a 10% velocity difference the KE difference is 21%. That is enough to take the 357SIG reasonably into the working band of the BPW effect instead of hovering just below it, as do most 9mms, and still leave enough energy to penetrate reasonably well and produce a reasonably high peak pressure. With a more realistic 12% extra velocity the 357SIG has 25% more KE.

If you will look at the title of the thread you will see that it is followed by 3 question marks. I suspect its intention was to collect evidence rather than to state a fact. Since I know that the thread originator is actually a fan of the 10mm rather than the 357SIG, I feel reinforced in this view.

English

NMGlocker
02-14-2010, 19:10
I guess you were serious...

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

N/Apower
02-14-2010, 21:17
Courtney shot 10 deer and told us about it. He used "distance ran" to indicate time until incapacitation.

We can all appreciate that with regards to permanent tissue destruction, that a broad-head hunting arrow is superior to pretty much any handgun round, and does about as well as many non-fragmenting rifle-rounds, yet has a VERY poor BPW.

I took the liberty of a sample-size in excess of 200+ deer with my poll. While this information of course is subjective to the honesty and measuring ability of those who responded to my poll, there does emerge a GENERAL trend.

*The deer must have been hit with only 1 shot, the shot must have hit either the heart or both lungs, or a lung and the heart, or both lungs. The shot must not have physically hit the spine.

21% of the deer shot with broadheads dropped on the spot.
34% of the deer shot with handguns (as defined in my poll) dropped on the spot.
49% of deer shot with rifles (as defined in my poll) dropped on the spot.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=10&f=23&t=631497

Now, there is no way someone is going to convince me that a 1-1/4" broadhead destroys less tissue than a handgun. Even Fackler seems to agree:
"Anyone yet unconvinced of the fallacy in using kinetic energy alone to measure
wounding capacity might wish to consider the example of a modern broadhead
hunting arrow. It is used to kill all species of big game, yet its striking energy is only about 50 ft-lb (68 Joules)-- less than that of the .22 Short bullet. Energy is used efficiently by the sharp blade of the broadhead arrow. Cutting tissue is far more efficient than crushing it, and crushing it is far more efficient than tearing it apart by stretch (as in temporary cavitation)."
http://randywakeman.com/ballltd47.htm

Ergo, based on my poll, kinetic energy/TC does appear to matter.

On the flip-side, why did the deer hit with an arrow collapse in it's tracks? There is very little PBW, and the TC from an arrow is a joke. So why? There should be almost a 100% "run-off" rate. There isn't. The difference was only a bit over 30%. So we are saying that a BPW that is almost negligble, is only 30% less effective than a considerable PBW (I doubt people were shooting deer with 147gr 9mm's...). Assuming that PBW is responsible for 100% of this difference, which is a laughable assumption.

The data can go both ways here, but I feel that it supports TC having a meaningful impact on incapacitation. Maybe not as much as the Courtney-ites would like, and not as little as the Fackler-ites claim, but it does appear to matter, presuming the data I have provided is valid, and I cannot attest to it as I did not measure it, I only recorded what was reported.

uz2bUSMC
02-14-2010, 21:59
We can all appreciate that with regards to permanent tissue destruction, that a broad-head hunting arrow is superior to pretty much any handgun round, and does about as well as many non-fragmenting rifle-rounds, yet has a VERY poor BPW.


I don't see this happening.

There are alot more "deer shot" videos available than "people shot" videos and ALL the deer vs arrow I've ever seen = deer runs the hell off!

A broadhead may have "span" but it doesn't have "volume" in comparison to smokeless munitions.

uz2bUSMC
02-14-2010, 22:02
I guess you were serious...

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I had faith that you were an intellectual poster, all-be-it blunt.

It ends up being just "blunt", my bad.

N/Apower
02-14-2010, 23:18
I don't see this happening.

There are alot more "deer shot" videos available than "people shot" videos and ALL the deer vs arrow I've ever seen = deer runs the hell off!

A broadhead may have "span" but it doesn't have "volume" in comparison to smokeless munitions.

Oh well, now you have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB8Zg3SiQQw

He looks rather confused. BPW cause a TBI?

I would wager that had I said "This is a deer shot with 9BPLE" and you couldn't see the arrow sticking out of it, you would use this video as back-up for your BPW theory. Am I wrong? If I am, explain.

glock20c10mm
02-15-2010, 00:46
...dishonest science will almost always be found out if it has enough significance to arouse interest. The Courtney's work fits these criteria and, as far as I was concerned, it explained major holes in the claims of earlier, widely accepted, work on terminal ballistics effectiveness which had been obvious to me for a very long time and for which no sound explanation had ever been given.

English
:agree:

glock20c10mm
02-15-2010, 00:53
.357sig 125gr. @ 1350fps
9mm+p 127gr. @ 1250fps
So you cherry pick argueably the most powerful load of the whole 9mm line-up and it's somehow suppose to be relative to the average 9mm load?

Of everyone who carries 9mm, LE, civilian, or military, what % do you believe carry that load which is actually labeled by Winchester as +P+?

I had hopes you'ld come up with a meaningful arguement. Thanks for letting me down.

glock20c10mm
02-15-2010, 01:31
21% of the deer shot with broadheads dropped on the spot.
34% of the deer shot with handguns (as defined in my poll) dropped on the spot.
49% of deer shot with rifles (as defined in my poll) dropped on the spot.
I don't get it. I go to your poll that is currently showing a total of 260 total votes. And so far it only shows that 5% of deer collapsed/expired where hit! How on earth are you coming up with 21%??? Besides that the 5% number doens't really mean much from the standpoint it only account for 1 out of up to who knows how many deer they've shot with broadheads in their lifetime thus far.

Then you list handguns where only 3.5% dropped on the spot and could have been shot with anything from a 5.7FN through the .454 as defined by your poll. For our purposes that is of zero significance besides that it still only accounts for a single deer taken by a someone who may have shot many more with who knows what round or load within a specific cartridge.

And the same sort of minimal to no significance follows with rifle rounds. Here your chart shows 28.1% of deer collapsed on the spot and could have been shot with any rifle round from a 22 Hornet from a 10" barreled TC to a 26" barreled 460 Weatherby Magnum. Heck, by the definition in your poll, someone could have used a 36" barreled 50 BMG.

While I appreciate your enthusiasm toward gathering data, clearly the data you've collected tells us practically nothing in any way shape or form to the definition of significance. Surely you know this? What I really can't figure out is that you didn't use the actual results for deer collapsing on the spot in any catagory.

You've really lost me on that one.


Craig :shocked:

glock20c10mm
02-15-2010, 01:37
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB8Zg3SiQQw
Is it just my computer with poor video showing capability, or is it impossible to see where the arrow entered the deer? And yeah, I did see what appeared to be an arrow sticking out of the deer after it fell, but at least for me it was still impossible to tell what angle the arrow went throught he deer at.

N/Apower
02-15-2010, 01:41
Is it just my computer with poor video showing capability, or is it impossible to see where the arrow entered the deer? And yeah, I did see what appeared to be an arrow sticking out of the deer after it fell, but at least for me it was still impossible to tell what angle the arrow went throught he deer at.

Trailside camera, and poor quality, but it looks to have hit the deer broadside through the heart/lung area. Again, I won't swear to that as the film quality is poor. It proved the point though.

N/Apower
02-15-2010, 01:50
I don't get it. I go to your poll that is currently showing a total of 260 total votes. And so far it only shows that 5% of deer collapsed/expired where hit! How on earth are you coming up with 21%??? It's pretty simple. You divide the number of deer that collapsed instantly when hit with a bow by the total number of deer hit with a bow. This will give the percentage of times that the deer dropped instantly when shot with a bow. Try it. Besides that the 5% number doens't really mean much from the standpoint it only account for 1 out of up to who knows how many deer they've shot with broadheads in their lifetime thus far. But 5 deer with each caliber is a definitive study for Mr. Courtney. :upeyes:

Your argument is "what if they just put up their best/worst/last kill?" Well what if? Are you saying bow-hunters are more prone to talk about failure than rifle-hunters? No, I would say that they are about equal, as a whole. Ergo while the data may be skewed, it is skewed across the board. Noone is claiming that this is a percentage that a deer will collapse when hit with a certain projectile. The goal of the poll is to look at relationships between the 3. You can see that there is indeed a trend between the three, and that is expanded upon below.




Then you list handguns where only 3.5% dropped on the spot and could have been shot with anything from a 5.7FN through the .454 as defined by your poll. For our purposes that is of zero significance besides that it still only accounts for a single deer taken by a someone who may have shot many more with who knows what round or load within a specific cartridge. Very true, but the 5.7-.454 (pick the .44 as an average if it makes you feel better) have less BPW than an average rifle used for deer--say a .270 using a Nosler BT-- don't they? It's about a general trend based on TC and Kinetic energy transfer, not about specific calibers.

And the same sort of minimal to no significance follows with rifle rounds. Here your chart shows 28.1% of deer collapsed on the spot and could have been shot with any rifle round from a 22 Hornet from a 10" barreled TC to a 26" barreled 460 Weatherby Magnum. Heck, by the definition in your poll, someone could have used a 36" barreled 50 BMG.
Again, it's about trends. If you look at the data, a trend emerges. It's not about calibers or ammo brands.

While I appreciate your enthusiasm toward gathering data, clearly the data you've collected tells us practically nothing in any way shape or form to the definition of significance. Surely you know this? What I really can't figure out is that you didn't use the actual results for deer collapsing on the spot in any catagory.

Say huh? I gave you the percentages of deer that collapsed on the spot calculated independant of sample-size and a DIRECT trend emerged, almost linear. To put it in perspective, the bow was 61% as effective as the handgun, and the handgun was 69% as effectve as the rifle. This data has a very significant trend. Yes, it would have been better to see it caliber by caliber, but the sample-size would not be large enough, so we have to assume that the outliers are corrected for by the mean. Is it a study? No. It's an internet poll. It does provide a rough look at things though.


You've really lost me on that one.


Craig :shocked:

I don't see how I lost you except that you don't understand how I calculated percentages without biasing for sample-size. I outlined that proceedure for you above so you can check the numbers (I can't help if 1 or 2 more people answered, so it might be 1-2% off or something by now). Take the raw data out of the poll, calculate to negate sample-size disparity between the groups, and there you go. Easy as pi.

uz2bUSMC
02-15-2010, 06:21
Trailside camera, and poor quality, but it looks to have hit the deer broadside through the heart/lung area. Again, I won't swear to that as the film quality is poor. It proved the point though.

Honestly though, the buck did as you said... he looked confused. That is why I wouldn't use that as a BPW backup. And I'm not trying to just argue out of it. Don't know what to say really, that's just a wierd example, man. It looks like he just freaked the hell out and was in instant shock. I mean, he went down and all but...:dunno:.

I'll look for some more vids like that later since I'm off today. Never seen, whatever that was, with a bow before.

uz2bUSMC
02-15-2010, 06:25
Eh, you guys can have all that math crap. When you guys are done with all the crasy talk with numbers and such, I'll jump back in as if I were following right along. :whistling:

English
02-15-2010, 08:32
.....

We can all appreciate that with regards to permanent tissue destruction, that a broad-head hunting arrow is superior to pretty much any handgun round, and does about as well as many non-fragmenting rifle-rounds, yet has a VERY poor BPW.

I took the liberty of a sample-size in excess of 200+ deer with my poll. While this information of course is subjective to the honesty and measuring ability of those who responded to my poll, there does emerge a GENERAL trend.

*The deer must have been hit with only 1 shot, the shot must have hit either the heart or both lungs, or a lung and the heart, or both lungs. The shot must not have physically hit the spine.

21% of the deer shot with broadheads dropped on the spot.
34% of the deer shot with handguns (as defined in my poll) dropped on the spot.
49% of deer shot with rifles (as defined in my poll) dropped on the spot.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=10&f=23&t=631497

Now, there is no way someone is going to convince me that a 1-1/4" broadhead destroys less tissue than a handgun......

Ergo, based on my poll, kinetic energy/TC does appear to matter.

On the flip-side, why did the deer hit with an arrow collapse in it's tracks? There is very little PBW, and the TC from an arrow is a joke. So why? There should be almost a 100% "run-off" rate. There isn't. The difference was only a bit over 30%. So we are saying that a BPW that is almost negligble, is only 30% less effective than a considerable PBW (I doubt people were shooting deer with 147gr 9mm's...). Assuming that PBW is responsible for 100% of this difference, which is a laughable assumption.

The data can go both ways here, but I feel that it supports TC having a meaningful impact on incapacitation. Maybe not as much as the Courtney-ites would like, and not as little as the Fackler-ites claim, but it does appear to matter, presuming the data I have provided is valid, and I cannot attest to it as I did not measure it, I only recorded what was reported.

There is no doubt that the energy efficiency of a broad-head is far ahead of a bullet but your experiment, if it can be called that because you were unable to control it, has several flaws.

The first flaw is the same one that invalidated the Marshall and Sanow data set. The responders are self selected and are more likely to respond if they have an interesting experience than if they have an uninteresting experience. In both cases this seems to be a well meaning attempt to gain information on a recalictrant topic.

You specify that "The deer must have been hit with only 1 shot, the shot must have hit either the heart or both lungs, or a lung and the heart, or both lungs. The shot must not have physically hit the spine." The Courtney experimants took car that the deer were not hit in the heart and so there is a major difference here. In the Courtney experiments, none of the deer collapsed because of a rapid drop of blood presure to the brain.

You say, "Now, there is no way someone is going to convince me that a 1-1/4" broadhead destroys less tissue than a handgun." and that is not actually relevant to the argument and neither is my quibble, but I will make it anyway. The broad head actually destroys very little tissue since it makes a fine, energy efficient, cut that produces a lot of functional damage but destroys very few cells. The whole idea of comparing bullets to broad-heads on the basis of energy expended is simply silly and Fackler demonstrates the same silliness. Bullets and broad-heads use totally different modes of injury.

But back to the main program! You say, correctly (sorry Craig!):

21% of the deer shot with broadheads dropped on the spot.
34% of the deer shot with handguns (as defined in my poll) dropped on the spot.

Here we have several problems. The first is that according to many reports from people who have been shot or stabbed, a large proportion, perhaps a majority, do not realise that they have been shot of stabbed. That is, they feel a minor thump but feel no pain at the time. After an interval of some 20 minutes gun shot wounds are, of course, extremely painful and can remain so for months but at the time, pain cannot be relied upon as an indicator of serious injury. If you have read the report from the Strasborg tests, which might or might not have actually happened, there is a telling report on the test of a .380ACP. The goat that was shot twitched a little as though surprised and then continued feeding within 2 seconds. After the 30 seconds alowed by the protocol, if I remember the time correctly, the goat was put down humanely but showed no sign of distress throughout. This is a small detail that, amongst others, makes me suspect that the tests were conducted.

As a consequence, many deer that are shot with a broad-head will not realise that they have been shot and will not be frightened and so will not run away. As such they are quite likely to stand where they are shot and then collapse. What your data set lacks, and cannot be expected to have, is the time to collapse. Incidentally, the Courtneys did not use distance run as a measure of time to collapse. They had a timer sensor close to the deer that started a timer with the sound of bullet impact and the time was then stopped manually from the hide at the point of collapse.

The video you reference is informative but not informative enough. The deer makes two distinctive movements before it collapses. I believe the first was a, "What just bumped into me? I thought I was alone here!" and the second was, "What was that odd noise or movement?" I say this because the first movement seemed related to itself and the second seemed to be focused on a fixed point at some distance. The rapid collapse then fits the result of a heart shot and abrupt drop of blood pressure before a flight response has been generated. This is supposition of course but what is clear relative to traumatic brain injury collapse is that the deer is clearly alert and reactive to stimuli until it collapses in complete contrast to a boxer who has just been punched to the head enough to daze him rather than knock him out.

The situation with a deer which has just been shot at with a pistol is that it will immediately run from the bang whether it has been hit or not. If it drops right there it is because its control system has been switched off and so the difference between 21% and 34% is actually not as simple as it seems.

The next problem is one of cartridge and bullet selection for hunting. Hunters who are hunting for meat are very reluctant to use bullets which damage too much meat and so their criteria are not the same as those slecting a round for self defence. They are much more likely to choose a round which will shoot through and through. They also have a tradition of using heavy for caliber hard cast bullets. Both result in very poor BPW levels. Your data set has no control of these factors and makes no attempt to control for them by sleection criteria. I am almost surprised that as many as 34% dropped on the spot from a single handgun bullet.

All in all, I fear we can draw very little in the way of sound conclusions from your poll. As the statisticians say, "Talk to us before you do your experiment. Not afterwards!" Probably more important than that is your acceptance of the wide spread belief that getting shot hurts enough to produce an immediate flight or fight reaction.

English

Brucev
02-15-2010, 08:42
The video of the deer hit with an arrow is certainly not very clear. But from what I see, the buck appears to be reacting to the hit in the same way I've seen bucks and does react when shot with a slow heavy bullet in the heart/lung area. I have watched them fall down and try but fail to rise up. Perhaps in this case the arrow pierced the heart or cut one or more arteries which would immediately lead to a dramatic loss of blood pressure. Perhaps the arrow pierced one or both lungs. Either or both together would account for the confused reaction of the buck as well as its inability to stand up. JMHO. Sincerely. Brucev.

NMGlocker
02-15-2010, 10:14
Just thing how AWESOMELY DEVASTATING "Extreme --Shock" .357sig ammo must be

The reason I'm not debatng you in a serious manner?
Because the entire premise of your argument is so vapid and devoid of substance as to be ridiculous.
Same reason I don't argue with 9/11 "Truthers", Scientologists or Obama voters.
Mocking pseudo-intellectualism was amusing for a few posts but now that the weather has cleared I'll be at the range, enjoy your little "debate".

N/Apower
02-15-2010, 10:38
Honestly though, the buck did as you said... he looked confused. That is why I wouldn't use that as a BPW backup. And I'm not trying to just argue out of it. Don't know what to say really, that's just a wierd example, man. It looks like he just freaked the hell out and was in instant shock. I mean, he went down and all but...:dunno:.

I'll look for some more vids like that later since I'm off today. Never seen, whatever that was, with a bow before.


My point exactly. If a bow can cause what I view as the same result you are describing a "TBI" to be, in this context (The deer was scared as it obviously tried to flee, yet when he got set down, he didn't even try to run again. He didn't try to crouch down or hide or something. He just sat there not knowing what to do. Confused is the only way to describe it as the deer ceased all efforts to flee, yet we know it didn't wish to remain in the area either. Kindof like a violent attacker stopping their attack.), then there are more factors at work here, and BPW's effectiveness cannot be measured at this present time. Ergo, it's all supposition.

N/Apower
02-15-2010, 10:41
There is no doubt that the energy efficiency of a broad-head is far ahead of a bullet but your experiment, if it can be called that because you were unable to control it, has several flaws.

The first flaw is the same one that invalidated the Marshall and Sanow data set. The responders are self selected and are more likely to respond if they have an interesting experience than if they have an uninteresting experience. In both cases this seems to be a well meaning attempt to gain information on a recalictrant topic.

You specify that "The deer must have been hit with only 1 shot, the shot must have hit either the heart or both lungs, or a lung and the heart, or both lungs. The shot must not have physically hit the spine." The Courtney experimants took car that the deer were not hit in the heart and so there is a major difference here. In the Courtney experiments, none of the deer collapsed because of a rapid drop of blood presure to the brain.

You say, "Now, there is no way someone is going to convince me that a 1-1/4" broadhead destroys less tissue than a handgun." and that is not actually relevant to the argument and neither is my quibble, but I will make it anyway. The broad head actually destroys very little tissue since it makes a fine, energy efficient, cut that produces a lot of functional damage but destroys very few cells. The whole idea of comparing bullets to broad-heads on the basis of energy expended is simply silly and Fackler demonstrates the same silliness. Bullets and broad-heads use totally different modes of injury.

But back to the main program! You say, correctly (sorry Craig!):

21% of the deer shot with broadheads dropped on the spot.
34% of the deer shot with handguns (as defined in my poll) dropped on the spot.

Here we have several problems. The first is that according to many reports from people who have been shot or stabbed, a large proportion, perhaps a majority, do not realise that they have been shot of stabbed. That is, they feel a minor thump but feel no pain at the time. After an interval of some 20 minutes gun shot wounds are, of course, extremely painful and can remain so for months but at the time, pain cannot be relied upon as an indicator of serious injury. If you have read the report from the Strasborg tests, which might or might not have actually happened, there is a telling report on the test of a .380ACP. The goat that was shot twitched a little as though surprised and then continued feeding within 2 seconds. After the 30 seconds alowed by the protocol, if I remember the time correctly, the goat was put down humanely but showed no sign of distress throughout. This is a small detail that, amongst others, makes me suspect that the tests were conducted.

As a consequence, many deer that are shot with a broad-head will not realise that they have been shot and will not be frightened and so will not run away. As such they are quite likely to stand where they are shot and then collapse. What your data set lacks, and cannot be expected to have, is the time to collapse. Incidentally, the Courtneys did not use distance run as a measure of time to collapse. They had a timer sensor close to the deer that started a timer with the sound of bullet impact and the time was then stopped manually from the hide at the point of collapse.

The video you reference is informative but not informative enough. The deer makes two distinctive movements before it collapses. I believe the first was a, "What just bumped into me? I thought I was alone here!" and the second was, "What was that odd noise or movement?" I say this because the first movement seemed related to itself and the second seemed to be focused on a fixed point at some distance. The rapid collapse then fits the result of a heart shot and abrupt drop of blood pressure before a flight response has been generated. This is supposition of course but what is clear relative to traumatic brain injury collapse is that the deer is clearly alert and reactive to stimuli until it collapses in complete contrast to a boxer who has just been punched to the head enough to daze him rather than knock him out.

The situation with a deer which has just been shot at with a pistol is that it will immediately run from the bang whether it has been hit or not. If it drops right there it is because its control system has been switched off and so the difference between 21% and 34% is actually not as simple as it seems.

The next problem is one of cartridge and bullet selection for hunting. Hunters who are hunting for meat are very reluctant to use bullets which damage too much meat and so their criteria are not the same as those slecting a round for self defence. They are much more likely to choose a round which will shoot through and through. They also have a tradition of using heavy for caliber hard cast bullets. Both result in very poor BPW levels. Your data set has no control of these factors and makes no attempt to control for them by sleection criteria. I am almost surprised that as many as 34% dropped on the spot from a single handgun bullet.

All in all, I fear we can draw very little in the way of sound conclusions from your poll. As the statisticians say, "Talk to us before you do your experiment. Not afterwards!" Probably more important than that is your acceptance of the wide spread belief that getting shot hurts enough to produce an immediate flight or fight reaction.

English

My "experiement" (poll) obviously has many holes. I would not try to pass it off as anything but "something fun" that was compiled. However, you cannot argue that there is a visible trend. That's all I was going for--is there a trend, or not? There was, according to my poll, which I agree with you is VERY subjective. Still, the error is one of accuracy and not consistancy. So while the frequency of results is subjective, the relative frequency is less so (but I agree, still subjective).

uz2bUSMC
02-15-2010, 10:41
but now that the weather has cleared I'll be at the range, enjoy your little "debate".

We will, don't shoot your eye out, kid.

uz2bUSMC
02-15-2010, 10:47
My point exactly. If a bow can cause what I view as the same result you are describing a "TBI" to be, in this context (The deer was scared as it obviously tried to flee, yet when he got set down, he didn't even try to run again. He didn't try to crouch down or hide or something. He just sat there not knowing what to do. Confused is the only way to describe it), then there are more factors at work here, and BPW's effectiveness cannot be measured at this present time. Ergo, it's all supposition.

Then our difference will be in the eye of the beholder because I don't view incapacitation to look the same as that (video). I view it to look more like "dazed" and confused, not confused and "assessing". More like your analogy of your fights, well aimed punches have more of a desired effect. The "blank" stare is where it's at, a loss of situational understanding. That deer was just confused.

I really just think that video is a bad example for anyone's case.

N/Apower
02-15-2010, 10:50
Then our difference will be in the eye of the beholder because I don't view incapacitation to look the same as that (video). I view it to look more like "dazed" and confused, not confused and "assessing". More like your analogy of your fights, well aimed punches have more of a desired effect. The "blank" stare is where it's at, a loss of situational understanding. That deer was just confused.

I really just think that video is a bad example for anyone's case.

Video quality is poor.

The deer "changed it's channel". That's what I looked at.

uz2bUSMC
02-15-2010, 10:53
My "experiement" (poll) obviously has many holes. I would not try to pass it off as anything but "something fun" that was compiled. However, you cannot argue that there is a visible trend. That's all I was going for--is there a trend, or not? There was, according to my poll, which I agree with you is VERY subjective. Still, the error is one of accuracy and not consistancy. So while the frequency of results is subjective, the relative frequency is less so (but I agree, still subjective).

The problem I see with your poll is the subjective viewpoints of the "boholder", again. I've listened to too many redneck stories recounting outlandish events to believe just anyones oppinions in a poll. I've known too many people that have killed in combat that don't really know what they saw... to be able to except random deers hunters oppinions one click away on a poll.

uz2bUSMC
02-15-2010, 10:54
The deer "changed it's channel". That's what I looked at.

It did, but not the right way in my oppinion, if you get what I mean?

N/Apower
02-15-2010, 13:13
The problem I see with your poll is the subjective viewpoints of the "boholder", again. I've listened to too many redneck stories recounting outlandish events to believe just anyones oppinions in a poll. I've known too many people that have killed in combat that don't really know what they saw... to be able to except random deers hunters oppinions one click away on a poll.

I agree that the opinions are subject to question, but they are equally so, yet the results are not equal. Not only are they not equal,but they trend.

glock20c10mm
02-15-2010, 17:28
I don't see how I lost you except that you don't understand how I calculated percentages without biasing for sample-size. I outlined that proceedure for you above so you can check the numbers (I can't help if 1 or 2 more people answered, so it might be 1-2% off or something by now). Take the raw data out of the poll, calculate to negate sample-size disparity between the groups, and there you go. Easy as pi.
Correct, I misinterpeted what you were showing for percentages. But still, as you admitted to an extent, the data leaves much to be desired. Nice shot in the dark though. Maybe you can refine your polling to get more telling results.

glock20c10mm
02-15-2010, 17:42
The biggest knock against the video is that you simply can't see the path the arrow took through the deer. Without knowing that everything is nothing but a wild assed guess from any and all aspects. If it wasn't for the current 56K dial up I have for internet access I search the heck out of videos to try to find something better. I have seen hundreds of deer shot on video with broadheads and not a single one collapsed. They all ran off to some extent. And +90% of those shots were what most would consider right on the money so to speak. Maybe someone can find a better video of something similar where shot placement/path can be clearly seen?

uz2bUSMC
02-15-2010, 18:34
The biggest knock against the video is that you simply can't see the path the arrow took through the deer. Without knowing that everything is nothing but a wild assed guess from any and all aspects. If it wasn't for the current 56K dial up I have for internet access I search the heck out of videos to try to find something better. I have seen hundreds of deer shot on video with broadheads and not a single one collapsed. They all ran off to some extent. And +90% of those shots were what most would consider right on the money so to speak. Maybe someone can find a better video of something similar where shot placement/path can be clearly seen?

That's my thing, that's absolutely the first time I have EVER seen that. They all haul ass.:dunno:

PghJim
02-15-2010, 21:04
http://www.winchester.com/PRODUCTS/LE/HANDGUN-AMMUNITION/Pages/default.aspx
Winchester Ranger T
.357sig 125gr. @ 1350fps
9mm+p 127gr. @ 1250fps

You guys are saying that 100fps and 2 less grains of bullet weight make ALL the difference.
Seriously?
That's less than a 10% velocity increase.
With a straight face you are going to tell me that the .357sig is an "unbelievable manstopper" yet the 9mm+P is just adequate?
Seriously?
That must mean the standard pressure 124gr. Gold Dot @ 1150fps is downright anemic?
http://www.speer-ammo.com/ballistics/ammo.aspx
:upeyes:


In your WW Ranger T comparison I think you mean the 9mm 127 gr +p+ (RA9TA Is a +p+). Which by the way leaves my G19 at just over 1200 fps. Then you are comparing it to the most anemic 357 sig. Within its pressure envelope the 357 sig can easily top 1425 fps, which is what I carry. So you are 175 fps above the 9mm operating above its design limit into +p+ designation. +p+ means it really is not defined as to cartridge pressure level. Looking at the higher velocity 124gr 9mm. Standard pressure is 1150fps, +p is 1200 fps and +p+ is 1250 fps (127gr). I really doubt those velocities can be reached out of a 4" barrel, but we will take it.

There is only 100 fps increase from 9mm to 9mm +p+. Does that make a big difference. Most would say yes. Going from the highest 9mm, 1250fps to a properly pressured 357 sig takes you 175 fps higher. Those of us who have shot 357 sigs for over 10 years do not like the trend to slow the bullet down. I am sure the 357 Ranger T is a good round, better than a 9mm. However, I generally carry a Corbon 125 JHP 357 sig which leaves my G32 at 1430fps. Although I do not have a ammo lab I have shot the WW127gr 9mm +p+ and the Cobon 125 gr 357sig through four layers of denim and gallon water jugs. There is a noticible and significant difference in energy transfer. The penetration is a little greater for the Ranger T, but the Corbon expands more.

This is not to criticize the Ranger T 127 +p+. My wife carries it in her G19. She just feels more comfortable with the milder round.

NMGlocker
02-15-2010, 22:03
It's a handgun round, not Thors hammer.
:rofl:

NMGlocker
02-15-2010, 22:13
Standard pressure is 1150fps, +p is 1200 fps and +p+ is 1250 fps

Although I do not have a ammo lab
I did not know that pressure ratings were in "feet per second", I always though it was "pounds per square inch".

SAAMI pressure ratings for the 9mm are 35000 PSI for standard and 38500 for +P, there is no spec for +P+.

You don't own an ammo lab?
From your post, I could have sworn you were some kind of ballistics/physics expert.
:upeyes:

N/Apower
02-15-2010, 22:19
I did not know that pressure ratings were in "feet per second", I always though it was "pounds per square inch".

SAAMI pressure ratings for the 9mm are 35000 PSI for standard and 38500 for +P, there is no spec for +P+.

You don't own an ammo lab?
From your post, I could have sworn you were some kind of ballistics/physics expert.
:upeyes:

Traditionally, pressure measurements, with regard to internal ballistics/small arms, are in CUP or Copper Units of Pressure.

That being said, while pressure affects velocity, it is not always directly proportionate.

uz2bUSMC
02-15-2010, 22:21
It's a handgun round, not Thors hammer.
:rofl:

Ahh, another one with poor understanding. Why bother, bro.:upeyes:

NMGlocker
02-16-2010, 14:59
Oh, I understand it perfectly.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King.

glock20c10mm
02-16-2010, 17:43
It's a handgun round, not Thors hammer.
:rofl:
Are you aware of the additional visible wound damage done in human/animal flesh with a 125gr 357SIG bullet @ 1350fps - 1450fps compared to a 147gr 9mm load at 800fps - 900fps? It's shocking. No pun intended.

NMGlocker
02-16-2010, 18:55
Additional visible wound damage?
WTF is that and what does it have to do with lethality?
12ga. #7 birdshot makes an awesomely gruesome "visible wound" when compared to 12ga. #00 Buckshot, but I don't see anyone but the village idiot claiming it's a better man stopper.
It all comes down to poking a hole in human flesh, and whether you believe it or not all service caliber handguns do about the same (mediocre) job of poking said holes.
There is no magic bullet/caliber, deal with it and train accordingly.

N/Apower
02-16-2010, 19:21
Are you aware of the additional visible wound damage done in human/animal flesh with a 125gr 357SIG bullet @ 1350fps - 1450fps compared to a 147gr 9mm load at 800fps - 900fps? It's shocking. No pun intended.

According to ME's, I have heard it doesn't matter, visibly. Tissue is elastic, and 1400fps is going to look identical to 800fps, provided the slug is the same size and there is no fragmentation.

PghJim
02-16-2010, 19:36
It all comes down to poking a hole in human flesh, and whether you believe it or not all service caliber handguns do about the same (mediocre) job of poking said holes.
There is no magic bullet/caliber, deal with it and train accordingly.


What are you doing in Caliber Corner? If they are all the same for you, I would think you would find more interesting reading elsewhere.

PghJim
02-16-2010, 19:39
According to ME's, I have heard it doesn't matter, visibly. Tissue is elastic, and 1400fps is going to look identical to 800fps, provided the slug is the same size and there is no fragmentation.


So I would guess a large diameter arrow with a field tip would be just as effective. Although you maybe just speaking about visibly and not effectiveness.

PghJim
02-16-2010, 19:50
I did not know that pressure ratings were in "feet per second", I always though it was "pounds per square inch".

SAAMI pressure ratings for the 9mm are 35000 PSI for standard and 38500 for +P, there is no spec for +P+.

You don't own an ammo lab?
From your post, I could have sworn you were some kind of ballistics/physics expert.
:upeyes:

I just assumed since I was using your bullet example that you would make the giant leap. Probably not possible for a one eyed man. I will type it real slow this time and not leave out any words - a standard pressure 124 gr 9mm cartridge bullet can go 1150 fps. It is strange how you did not comment on the actual reply, but would prefer to snipe.

N/Apower
02-16-2010, 19:56
So I would guess a large diameter arrow with a field tip would be just as effective. Although you maybe just speaking about visibly and not effectiveness.

Elephants have been killed with a bow and arrow before. I have not heard of an elephant being harvested with a 9mm.

Just a worthless tid-bit ^

I was referring to what was stated about visible damage. Would an arrow be just as effective? Only if it destroyed more vessels/structures. I will take the pistol though. Hard to carry a bow around all day.

The reason I say this is because I have yet to see evidence that anything but the amount of tissue destroyed/blood lost matters with regards to incapacitation when the psychological factor is not at work. I spent some time on Lightfighter reading the accounts of all the guys who have shot dogs, etc. (usually pits during drug raids) and the .40 180gr and the 357SIG both seemed to do about the same. No dogs "dropped on the spot", all were reported to have ran a short distance and died.

Further, I read some information about the 125gr .357 Magnum. At least one of the agencies that replaced it with the .40 have reported better results across the board with the .40.

When on agency that used the .357 magnum in it's hay day did so well, they looking into the circumstances. They saw that most of the spectacular results from the .357 occured at close range, and at night. If you have ever fired a .357 using a hot 125gr load, you know how that looks at night. They postulated that the glorious effectiveness came from the psychological effect of seeing that massive ball of fire/concussion and realising one had been hit by the projectile it launched.

I can indeed see this causing a psychological stop more than a 147gr 9mm would. By comparison, the bang/flash is a joke.

N/Apower
02-16-2010, 19:57
I just assumed since I was using your bullet example that you would make the giant leap. Probably not possible for a one eyed man. I will type it real slow this time and not leave out any words - a standard pressure 124 gr 9mm cartridge bullet can go 1150 fps. It is strange how you did not comment on the actual reply, but would prefer to snipe.


I have observed that character assassination plays a large role in technical discussions on Glock Talk. Lots of people have left this forum because of it, however, I enjoy reading the views of others, throwing in my .02, and have some thick skin and a little time to burn for the moment, so I enjoy it.

PghJim
02-16-2010, 20:21
I just have a hard time believing that velocity has no meaning in stopping effectiveness and that a 124 gr standard velocity 9mm would have the same ability to incapacitate as a 1425 fps 124 gr bullet if they expaned to the same diameter and penetrated the same. Heck, I am putting away my G32 and getting out my Kel-Tec 3AT 380 acp.

N/Apower
02-16-2010, 20:31
I just have a hard time believing that velocity has no meaning in stopping effectiveness and that a 124 gr standard velocity 9mm would have the same ability to incapacitate as a 1425 fps 124 gr bullet if they expaned to the same diameter and penetrated the same. Heck, I am putting away my G32 and getting out my Kel-Tec 3AT 380 acp.


I found this interesting: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=47371

glock20c10mm
02-16-2010, 20:56
Additional visible wound damage?
WTF is that and what does it have to do with lethality?

WTF is that = more bloodshot meat futher out from the permanent crush cavity, and if bone is encountered, bone fragments found in tissue further from the permanent crush cavity.

Who cares what it has to do with lethality? Lethality hasn't even been discussed.

glock20c10mm
02-16-2010, 20:57
According to ME's, I have heard it doesn't matter, visibly. Tissue is elastic, and 1400fps is going to look identical to 800fps, provided the slug is the same size and there is no fragmentation.
What are ME's?

My first guess is muzzle energies. But I'm not sure that's your meaning.

N/Apower
02-16-2010, 20:59
What are ME's?

My first guess is muzzle energies. But I'm not sure that's your meaning.

Medical Examiners. Like the guy that everyone here gave so much flack when he told them what he saw in the real world when it didn't jive with what they THOUGHT happened. What was his SN "Lookin4U" ?

glock20c10mm
02-16-2010, 21:10
I found this interesting: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=47371
I can see that thread being looked at positively for different reasons. Were you making a specific point by posting it?

Otherwise, DocGKR does make the case that 9mm FMJ is more effective than 380 FMJ IF anything more than flesh was encountered like bone or an intermediate barrier.

And of course he goes on to add that 9mm JHP is leaps and bounds better than 380 JHP.

And that he'ld never willingly carry 380 in any form over 9mm in any form.


The most interesting thing I took from it (which I agree with) is where DocGKR says; 9 mm M882 ball has one of the worst reputations for effectiveness of any 9 mm ammo.

The reason I bring that up is because we have a good handful of GTers who insist on carrying 9mm ball/FMJ.


Again, what was it you specifically found interesting?

PghJim
02-16-2010, 21:15
What effect does a large temporary stretch cavity have as compared to a small temporary stretch if the bullets expanded and penetrated the same? 357 sigs and 10mm have been known to break the wooden frames that hold gelatin blocks. Most blocks now are free standing.

N/Apower
02-16-2010, 21:19
I can see that thread being looked at positively for different reasons. Were you making a specific point by posting it?

Otherwise, DocGKR does make the case that 9mm FMJ is more effective than 380 FMJ IF anything more than flesh was encountered like bone or an intermediate barrier.

And of course he goes on to add that 9mm JHP is leaps and bounds better than 380 JHP.

And that he'ld never willingly carry 380 in any form over 9mm in any form.


The most interesting thing I took from it (which I agree with) is where DocGKR says; 9 mm M882 ball has one of the worst reputations for effectiveness of any 9 mm ammo.

The reason I bring that up is because we have a good handful of GTers who insist on carrying 9mm ball/FMJ.


Again, what was it you specifically found interesting?

The wound from the .380 would be visibly identical to the wound from the 9mm, even though several hundred fps difference exist between the two. I found it relevant. Obviously a JHP has more redarding forces against it, and thus exerts more force on the medium it is passing through, BUT, if we carry the lesson over, the 357SIG should not show any difference in wounding (visibly at least) with the 124gr standard-pressure, or even 147gr 9mm, being as they expand and penetrate almost identically.

N/Apower
02-16-2010, 21:21
What effect does a large temporary stretch cavity have as compared to a small temporary stretch if the bullets expanded and penetrated the same? 357 sigs and 10mm have been known to break the wooden frames that hold gelatin blocks. Most blocks now are free standing.


I do find that interesting, however, there is something that people who view this do not take into consideration often times. The thoracic cavity is not homogenous like gelatin blocks are. There exists many "partitions", as it were, and lots of empty/dead space. Energy is not distributed nearly as efficiently through the thoracic cavity as it is through a gelatin block.

glock20c10mm
02-16-2010, 21:26
According to ME's, I have heard it doesn't matter, visibly. Tissue is elastic, and 1400fps is going to look identical to 800fps, provided the slug is the same size and there is no fragmentation.

Medical Examiners. Like the guy that everyone here gave so much flack when he told them what he saw in the real world when it didn't jive with what they THOUGHT happened. What was his SN "Lookin4U" ?

I've seen pics that say different, not to mention what the person who saw first hand had to say. Clearly a difference. Not to mention the testimony of others here on GT based on animals.

Don't know what the medical examiners think they claim to have seen, but I have yet to hear of a medical examiner who had any clue what handgun round a BG (or GG I guess) was shot with and only had a clue from recovered bullets where they could simply measure caliber size if they cared to. I say this based on what others have said who claim to be in a similar medical background profession as you.

Are these special MEs you refer to that are privy to more info than the average emergency room visits encountered?


Is there anyone out there that can verify what I'm saying about more visible wound damage in animals when using 357SIG over 9mm? Preferably when comparing 125gr 357SIG loads @ 1350fps - 1450fps to 147gr 9mm loads at 800fps - 900fps. I only put this in bold and larger type for the idea that maybe more will notice it than may have otherwise.

N/Apower
02-16-2010, 21:30
I've seen pics that say different, not to mention what the person who saw first hand had to say. Clearly a difference. Not to mention the testimony of others here on GT based on animals.

Don't know what the medical examiners think they claim to have seen, but I have yet to hear of a medical examiner who had any clue what handgun round a BG (or GG I guess) was shot with and only had a clue from recovered bullets where they could simply measure caliber size if they cared to. I say this based on what others have said who claim to be in a similar medical background profession as you.

Are these special MEs you refer to that are privy to more info than the average emergency room visits encountered?


Is there anyone out there that can verify what I'm saying about more visible wound damage in animals when using 357SIG over 9mm? Preferably when comparing 125gr 357SIG loads @ 1350fps - 1450fps to 147gr 9mm loads at 800fps - 900fps. I only put this in bold and larger type for the idea that maybe more will notice it than may have otherwise.

You need to compare apples to apples here. I believe the story we read about the 357SIG hitting the dog and blowing it's stuffin's out involved a frangible bullet (Corbon) that expanded violently. 147gr 9mm's are normally not frangible. So we need to compare apples to apples if we are to say "The velocity made a difference". Say, gold-dot to gold-dot, or hst to hst, or something of the like. I rummaged around the 'net looking for some pix, and will continue to rummage.

*Frangible, I don't mean like a Glaser, or Sinterfire, I mean as in, known for fragmenting. I just wanted to clear that up.

The ME I referred to were those referenced by Lookin4u in a past thread here. Huge thread, surely you remember it? Shouldn't be hard to find.

ETA: Here is what I found of interest:

FWIW, the 9mm XTP at about 1240 ft/sec, as well as the Winchester Ranger and 230-gr. Golden Sabers worked consistently well, but to my eyes none performed better than the other. If viewing only the javelina at the moment it was shot, I wouldn't have been able to say whether it had been shot with 9mm or 45 ammo!

The Texas whitetail deer I've shot with 9mm, 38 Super, .44 Special, .45 Colt and .45 ACP have been pretty uniform in their responses to being shot. A few were instantly incapacitated and never got to their feet; they kicked a bit and then were done. Most jumped, ran a few yards and then keeled over. This is what I've seen time and again with these calibers. I have not used the big magnums considered more appropriate for this type activity so I cannot accurately comment on them. The interesting thing to me is that these smallish 110-lb. animals reacted essentially the same way whether hit with a 124-gr. 9mm XTP at 1240 ft/sec or a handloaded 255-gr. CSWC @ 900 ft/sec from the .45 Colt revolver! Those shot with 230-gr. Golden Sabers handloaded to about 950 ft/sec reacted most similarly to the ones shot with my 38 Super's 147-gr. Golden Saber at just under 1200 ft/sec!
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/9mm%20vs%2045.htm

Read the whole article, it's pretty interesting, I think, and the man has obviously "been there, done that" with regards to shooting lots of animals with zippy .355's and slow .45's.

What I personally drew from it:

We know the 9mm and the .45 do NOT create identical permanent wound-cavities. The .45 creates a larger one. Yet the 9mm performed just the same as the .45. Why? Velocity? TC made up for the smaller permanent cavity? I won't even pretend to know. However, these experiences also seem to discount BPW having any effect, at least that this author saw. If a lightweight animal being hit with a zippy round reacted the same as a lightweight animal being hit with a 900fps hard cast bullet, I would say BPW was not at play here.

Included is a picture of a wound from a .45 and from a 127 +P+. Sadly, they are close-ups and you can't tell much.

Again, from the article: Yet, on animals from the size of Texas whitetail deer to javelina, I have seen the high-velocity 9mm JHP in +P trim demonstrate better than expected "stopping" and "killing power." This includes both 115-gr. +P loads from Corbon as well as the Federal +P+ 115-gr. law enforcement loads. Yet neither penetrates the mandated 12" minimum in ballistic gelatin. The Corbon frequently hits around 1400 ft/sec from my Hi Powers with the Federal version about 50 to 60 ft/sec behind. Either of these two 9mm rounds get around 10" penetration in gelatin, falling shy of the FBI's original penetration requirements. At the same time, in the animals I've shot with these loads, damage has been more than expected

I don't think this means they did BETTER than the .45, but that they did as well (reading the whole article), and he could not account for it. However, I would hazard a guess that the damage he referred to these rounds causing was a factor of fragmentation and not necessarily velocity. Ergo, chalk it up to bullet design instead of velocity (I guess you could argue that velocity caused fragmentation, but then, one could just argue in favor of using Glasers or something, not something I would do.). As he said later in the article, a 185gr Corbon did the same thing.

IN THE END

It seems that regardless of the mechanism used, 9mm, .45, .40, and .357 SIG all do about the same darn thing when you use the right ammo. You pays your moneys, you makes your choice, and you do your damndest to defend it on some random internet forum.

sigcalcatrant
02-16-2010, 21:31
According to ME's, I have heard it doesn't matter, visibly. Tissue is elastic, and 1400fps is going to look identical to 800fps, provided the slug is the same size and there is no fragmentation.TOTALLY wrong. If you were to examine the wound the 1400 fps round makes compared to the 800 fps one in feral hogs of similar size, you would understand...HUGE difference.

glock20c10mm
02-16-2010, 21:33
You need to compare apples to apples here. I believe the story we read about the 357SIG hitting the dog and blowing it's stuffin's out involved a frangible bullet (Corbon) that expanded violently. 147gr 9mm's are normally not frangible. So we need to compare apples to apples if we are to say "The velocity made a difference". Say, gold-dot to gold-dot, or hst to hst, or something of the like. I rummaged around the 'net looking for some pix, and will continue to rummage.

*Frangible, I don't mean like a Glaser, or Sinterfire, I mean as in, known for fragmenting. I just wanted to clear that up.
I'm not refering to anyone comparing a frangible (or any bullet that even frags much all if any) bullet for either load. XTPs were included in what I've seen/been told of.

glock20c10mm
02-16-2010, 21:35
TOTALLY wrong. If you were to examine the wound the 1400 fps round makes compared to the 800 fps one in feral hogs of similar size, you would understand...HUGE difference.
Thank you kind sir! Anyone else?

glock20c10mm
02-16-2010, 21:38
I do find that interesting, however, there is something that people who view this do not take into consideration often times. The thoracic cavity is not homogenous like gelatin blocks are. There exists many "partitions", as it were, and lots of empty/dead space. Energy is not distributed nearly as efficiently through the thoracic cavity as it is through a gelatin block.
You're correct about the gelatin blocks. Aside from that I forgot to mention that the added damage I've seen in pics with 357SIG over 9mm was in deer and in goats. Plus I've been told about it in feral dogs and coyotes.

N/Apower
02-16-2010, 22:04
You're correct about the gelatin blocks. Aside from that I forgot to mention that the added damage I've seen in pics with 357SIG over 9mm was in deer and in goats. Plus I've been told about it in feral dogs and coyotes.

Was it a non-fragmenting bullet of similar construction used in both cases?

N/Apower
02-16-2010, 22:06
TOTALLY wrong. If you were to examine the wound the 1400 fps round makes compared to the 800 fps one in feral hogs of similar size, you would understand...HUGE difference.

The wound I linked you to from a 127gr +P+ 9mm looks identical to the wound from a 230gr Golden Sabre. A deer was involved. That is about 900fps vs. 1300fps, or thereabouts.

glock20c10mm
02-16-2010, 22:47
Was it a non-fragmenting bullet of similar construction used in both cases?
.Yes.

glock20c10mm
02-16-2010, 22:48
The wound I linked you to from a 127gr +P+ 9mm looks identical to the wound from a 230gr Golden Sabre. A deer was involved. That is about 900fps vs. 1300fps, or thereabouts.
Link?

N/Apower
02-16-2010, 22:50
Link?

taken from post #478
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/9mm%20vs%2045.htm (http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/9mm%20vs%2045.htm)

Did I catch you...skimming?

PghJim
02-16-2010, 23:17
Yes but it says the wounds look alike and the 45 pic was taken at a closer range. For me, if a .355 can make the same size wound as a 45, then velocity must to have something to do with it. I also do not know if looking at a wound tells the whole story of the effectiveness. If I thought that a 9mm could make the same wound as a 45, I would be carrying my light G19 instead of the heavier XD or 1911.

N/Apower
02-16-2010, 23:21
Yes but it says the wounds look alike and the 45 pic was taken at a closer range. For me, if a .355 can make the same size wound as a 45, then velocity must to have something to do with it. I also do not know if looking at a wound tells the whole story of the effectiveness. If I thought that a 9mm could make the same wound as a 45, I would be carrying my light G19 instead of the heavier XD or 1911.

I alluded to this as well. I agree with you that "something is up" if a .55" projectile is making the same wound as a .75" projectile. (expanded, rough estimate).

Also, the author claimed he could not tell whether a 9mm or a .45 was used on the deer or javelina, based on their reaction and the outcome.

However, he also says things that sound quite contrary to any BPW causing any TBI's.

glock20c10mm
02-17-2010, 01:39
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/9mm%20vs%2045.htm

Read the whole article, it's pretty interesting, I think, and the man has obviously "been there, done that" with regards to shooting lots of animals with zippy .355's and slow .45's.

What I personally drew from it:

We know the 9mm and the .45 do NOT create identical permanent wound-cavities. The .45 creates a larger one. Yet the 9mm performed just the same as the .45. Why? Velocity? TC made up for the smaller permanent cavity? I won't even pretend to know. However, these experiences also seem to discount BPW having any effect, at least that this author saw. If a lightweight animal being hit with a zippy round reacted the same as a lightweight animal being hit with a 900fps hard cast bullet, I would say BPW was not at play here.

Included is a picture of a wound from a .45 and from a 127 +P+. Sadly, they are close-ups and you can't tell much.

Again, from the article:

I don't think this means they did BETTER than the .45, but that they did as well (reading the whole article), and he could not account for it. However, I would hazard a guess that the damage he referred to these rounds causing was a factor of fragmentation and not necessarily velocity. Ergo, chalk it up to bullet design instead of velocity (I guess you could argue that velocity caused fragmentation, but then, one could just argue in favor of using Glasers or something, not something I would do.). As he said later in the article, a 185gr Corbon did the same thing.

IN THE END

It seems that regardless of the mechanism used, 9mm, .45, .40, and .357 SIG all do about the same darn thing when you use the right ammo. You pays your moneys, you makes your choice, and you do your damndest to defend it on some random internet forum.
I didn't skim it. I believe you added all this when you edited the post adding all this additional stuff after I had already quoted it when it had been a much smaller post. Hadn't gone back to look at it after I quoted it.

I read the link. It was interesting. I can't explain what the man says in reguard to the various loads all seeming to drop game equally well overall. Then again, there's no good reason it shouldn't have happened the way it did. I do assume he's generally telling the God's honest truth. What I can say is that I would't have expected any overall difference between 9 or 45.

A man from Mississippi was the one who told me of the feral dogs and coyotes he's shot. He had specifically claimed that he had used 9mm 127gr +P+ (among some other 9mm loads) and a 125gr 357SIG load (can't remember the specific load). He said the 357SIG load clearly dispatched the animals quicker on average than any 9mm load he had ever used. He assured me he had taken out dozens of animals before coming to that conclusion.

My theory is that it really takes ~1400fps and up with bullets that penetrate 10" - 13" in ballistic gel and expand well with a little bit to a moderate amount of fragmentation to begin to really start noticing the effects of BPW taking effect any kind of majority of the time. I have nothing to back that up. Can't prove it, and only have circumstancial evidence to support it.

That said, it's not that surprising to me that the guy in the link you provided didn't see a difference in incapcitation times between the 45 load and 9mm 127gr +P+ load. I think it would have been more telling to see results from a sample size a bit larger than 1 each. But we can't always have our cake and eat it too. Therefore, I digress.

glock20c10mm
02-17-2010, 01:47
However, he also says things that sound quite contrary to any BPW causing any TBI's.
Sure, but it also didn't sound as though his sample size was any greater than 1 with any individual load. Besides that for most loads he mentioned (even outside of 9 and 45), any effects by BPW would have ranged from surprising it happened to unlikely that it would happen.

PghJim
02-17-2010, 19:12
Aside from one jerk, this has been a very informative thread and I want to thank everyone for making me smarter.

Jim

N/Apower
02-17-2010, 21:30
Sure, but it also didn't sound as though his sample size was any greater than 1 with any individual load. Besides that for most loads he mentioned (even outside of 9 and 45), any effects by BPW would have ranged from surprising it happened to unlikely that it would happen.

Reading the article, it looks like he shot a LOT of pigs on that trip...

.45Super-Man
02-17-2010, 22:32
I think the real question comes down to.....

1. What advantages does the .357 offer over the .40S&W in the same platform.

2. In the same platform, is it worth sacrificing a few rounds of 9mm to gain a slight edge in stopping power by going to the 357?

3. Removing extended ranges and slightly better barrier penetration from the equation, what advantages, if any, are left?

4. What % of shootings where extended range and slightly better barrier penetration of the .357SIG a deciding factor?

5. For the "average" civilian, what advantage does the 357 offer, considering the actual dynamics of most self defense shootings?

N/Apower
02-17-2010, 23:14
I think the real question comes down to.....

1. What advantages does the .357 offer over the .40S&W in the same platform.
Better penetration of certain hard targets, such as metal air-compressors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7qU09eo1Bk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7qU09eo1Bk)

2. In the same platform, is it worth sacrificing a few rounds of 9mm to gain a slight edge in stopping power by going to the 357?
That is a personal question. It depends on the scenarios someone thinks they will encounter.

3. Removing extended ranges and slightly better barrier penetration from the equation, what advantages, if any, are left?
The 357SIG seems inherently more accurate. Based on testing done by Dr. Roberts, and others.

4. What % of shootings where extended range and slightly better barrier penetration of the .357SIG a deciding factor?
I am unsure, but I do recall an article a while back in a LE magazine about police engaugements at 40+ yards using their side-arms. Seems it does happen.

5. For the "average" civilian, what advantage does the 357 offer, considering the actual dynamics of most self defense shootings?
The "average" citizen will never have to shoot someone, and if they do, there is no "average" shooting.


You should carry what you feel most confident in.

bagballa
02-18-2010, 05:56
I'm no big fan of the sig, but seeing how a G32 becomes a G19 after a barrel swap. It would make sense to go ahead and grab a G32/23.

For civvies 9mm is more economical but LE is a different story, but even in that light I still would opt for 9mm. SHTF or not, I have a feeling 9mm will be the last cartridge ever fired.

For me it's either 9mm or 45, easier to find and cheaper. You'll notice how people with assault rifles feel secure with such a sissy handgun load.:supergrin:

M&P Shooter
02-18-2010, 06:00
This statement is true if you have trained with your weapon and are capable of putting rounds in COM or head. The best man stoppers are in the hands of those who train and can put rounds in the right spot.

easyg
02-18-2010, 08:32
You'll notice how people with assault rifles feel secure with such a sissy handgun load
Back when I was being paid to carry an assault rifle, I didn't feel so secure with a 9mm. :tongueout:

automan
02-18-2010, 10:21
I believe the 357SIG performance is about the same as the 38 Super Colt brought out in 1929 to help LE's penetrate auto bodies. History recycled.:wow:

N/Apower
02-18-2010, 10:27
I believe the 357SIG performance is about the same as the 38 Super Colt brought out in 1929 to help LE's penetrate auto bodies. History recycled.:wow:

Pretty much, and for almost the same reasons. However, we now have bonded-bullets, and reliable JHP's. This makes the 357SIG more than the 38 Super was back in its hay-day by quite a margin.