"Ballistic pressure wave" [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : "Ballistic pressure wave"


cowboy1964
10-04-2010, 05:27
So Wikipedia has these performance charts for each caliber that sample various rounds. It's kind of interesting to compare and contrast them. One thing caught my eye: the "BPW" value for Federal Classic 125gr .357 Magnum is almost twice that of anything else @ 1487 psi, including other .357 Magnum loads! The TSC (temporary stretch cavity) is also massive at 79.8 cubic inches.

Apparently BPW is related to penetration. More penetration = lower BPW. Still, I don't get how that load can be so high.

On a different note, the temporary stretch cavity for .45 ACP is quite a bit smaller than other calibers, even 9mm. Can that be accurate?

English
10-04-2010, 06:55
Could you be more specific about the whereabouts of this information in Wikipedia?

The figures for the .357 Magnum are almost certainly an error.

English

JRI
10-04-2010, 09:58
Could you be more specific about the whereabouts of this information in Wikipedia?

The figures for the .357 Magnum are almost certainly an error.

English

Hi English

Here's the link,scroll down about 1/2 way and you will see the chart,at least for the 357 Mag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.357_Magnum



Jeff

thegriz18
10-04-2010, 10:01
Ibtl..

Glolt20-91
10-06-2010, 17:35
BPW is non sequitur.

Bob :cowboy:

English
10-07-2010, 04:45
Bob,
A non sequitur is a conclusion that does not follow from the prior argument or evidence. Within this thread no such argument or evidence has been presented so the term cannot apply to this thread. In the wider context the BPW effect is a direct consequence of scientific evidence which no one has been able to falsify. The fact that you choose not to accept that evidence does not make it a non sequitur.

English

MSgt Dotson
10-07-2010, 09:18
Certainly, something showing up in Wikipedia does not make it factual either...

Berto
10-07-2010, 10:33
It's like Fuller Index.....

English
10-07-2010, 11:30
Certainly, something showing up in Wikipedia does not make it factual either...

That is probably true.

Glolt20-91
10-07-2010, 12:49
Bob,
A non sequitur is a conclusion that does not follow from the prior argument or evidence. Within this thread no such argument or evidence has been presented so the term cannot apply to this thread. In the wider context the BPW effect is a direct consequence of scientific evidence which no one has been able to falsify. The fact that you choose not to accept that evidence does not make it a non sequitur.

English

Again you don't understand the english language nor the fact that BPW has no merit and has never been proved.

79 cubic inches of temporary cavity stretch??? :rofl:

Explain (show us) the shear velocity formulas used to derive permanent/temporary cavities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.357_Magnum

For starters, there's a lot more to come, let's begin with your defense of this fallacy, including population sample data and scientific methods used;

AIT – Average incapacitation time, time from hit in the center of the chest until incapacitation for 170 lb male as determined from ballistic pressure wave model.

non sequitur

Bob :cowboy:

Erich1B
10-07-2010, 15:28
:popcorn: I love BPW theory debates.

BOGE
10-07-2010, 16:37
People, the same people have beat this horse before and the thread ended nastily.

Moderator, lock this thread please. :wavey:

481
10-07-2010, 17:10
People, the same people have beat this horse before and the thread ended nastily.

Moderator, lock this thread please. :wavey:

+1.

This thread and the "theory" was a loser from the start. The search function will give one a review of all the sillines they can stomach and then some.

uz2bUSMC
10-07-2010, 18:46
Still, I don't get how that load can be so high. -Because of fragmentation value for the equation.

On a different note, the temporary stretch cavity for .45 ACP is quite a bit smaller than other calibers, even 9mm. Can that be accurate?
-Yes, because of the rate of the transfer of energy.

.....

unit1069
10-07-2010, 19:04
There are many dozens of threads dealing with a subject, yet these same subjects regularly appear in new threads without strong objection. Those Glock Talk members who have "read it a million times" just pass over the new threads without participation.

I fail to understand why "ballistic pressure wave" creates such hostility. So it's a theory and not proven scientific fact. What would our world be like today had the same hostility to theories like, say, "the earth is round", prevented anyone from discussing it?

I certainly don't choose any of my carry ammo based upon BPW, but reading the give-and-take between those who favor the theory and those who disparage it doesn't bother me in the least. If I'm no longer interested in a thread I just quit reading it.

CanyonMan
10-08-2010, 07:18
unit1069;16107870 What would our world be like today had the same hostility to theories like, say, "the earth is round", prevented anyone from discussing it?


But unit, what is there to discuss ? I have photo's ! :supergrin:


http://i869.photobucket.com/albums/ab256/yrag5951/GT%20stuff/earth_cube.jpg



Have a good one bud.





CM

English
10-08-2010, 07:26
Again you don't understand the english language nor the fact that BPW has no merit and has never been proved.

79 cubic inches of temporary cavity stretch??? :rofl:

Explain (show us) the shear velocity formulas used to derive permanent/temporary cavities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.357_Magnum

For starters, there's a lot more to come, let's begin with your defense of this fallacy, including population sample data and scientific methods used;



non sequitur

Bob :cowboy:

I understand the English language very well but it is clear that you are not able to read what others actually write. To try to make this clear, this is not my thread and I expressed doubt about the size of the temporary cavity and asked where in Wikipedia the information came from. Then in a second post I complained about your strange use of "non sequitur". That has been the limit of my involvement in this thread so far apart from an agreement with MSgt Dotson that we can't trust what appears in Wikipedia.

With regard to your post quoted above, it is clear that you still have not gained any understanding of the nature of sientific proof. Let me repeat in case it eventually sinks in; it is not possible to prove a hypothesis or theory to be true but only to prove it to be false. In general it is opponents of a hypothesis who do the work to prove someone else's hypothesis or theory to be false and not its originator, who often has an emotional attachment to it. All an originator can do is the equivalent of saying, "Look at this interesting idea! These are the reasons and evidence which make me think it is probably true." He or she can never "prove" it to be true but you keep asking for proof! Even legal proof, a much more flimsy affair, is declared on the "ballance of the evidence" and "beyond all reasonable doubt."

If you want to attack the work of the Courtneys or numerous other workers in the BPW field you, and others of like mind, have had plenty of opportunity to do so. In all this time and mean minded ad hominem atacks in which various scientists have been accused of being charlatans and out to make a quick buck by means which are never specified, none of you have done anything to call into dispute the data set or the scientific method. Do, by all means, tell us what is wrong with the "population sample data and scientific methods used" and how that affects the scientific conclusions of the work. I have not seen this done so far and don't expect to see it now. I do expect to see more smears, ad hominem attacks and nonsensical demands for "proof".

You could even, "Explain (show us) the shear velocity formulas used to derive permanent/temporary cavities." if you wish but since the article talks of temporary cavities in balistic gelatin I would hope that they were measured rather than calculated and so your demonstration of your knowledge would be away from the point. Do give us enough information to understand the technical terms, symbols and concepts.

English

BOGE
10-08-2010, 10:38
There are many dozens of threads dealing with a subject, yet these same subjects regularly appear in new threads without strong objection....

I fail to understand why "ballistic pressure wave" creates such hostility...

The forums are surely a place to discuss thoughts & ideas. However, when topics such as this repeatedly delve into infantile & childish bantering, if not outright indignation, then it´s time to close the thread & fire a warning shot across some bows.

Dreamaster
10-08-2010, 11:00
If you want to attack the work of the Courtneys or numerous other workers in the BPW field you, and others of like mind, have had plenty of opportunity to do so. In all this time and mean minded ad hominem atacks in which various scientists have been accused of being charlatans and out to make a quick buck by means which are never specified, none of you have done anything to call into dispute the data set or the scientific method. Do, by all means, tell us what is wrong with the "population sample data and scientific methods used" and how that affects the scientific conclusions of the work. I have not seen this done so far and don't expect to see it now. I do expect to see more smears, ad hominem attacks and nonsensical demands for "proof".
English

English would it be fair to say that "field experience" can be used as counter-proof to the theory? And exactly which theory?

As someone with limited hunting experience, I have mostly my knowledge of accoustics, Physics, and logic to observe various effects of ammunition through... well... youtube.com videos, and also reading of the different articles about what "ammo works best" etc. Just letting everyone know where I'm at knowledge wise before I go shooting off my mouth.

A Ballistic Pressure Wave is FACT... I have no doubts there... one viewing of a video where some guys shot a 30-06 at a block of gel, only to see the gel not only explode, but the damn table broke in half! Secondary cavities are a direct result of waves of force traveling outward from the point of impact caused by the sudden change in velocity and transfer of motion into the object.

The theory in question though, is whether or not there is a BPW "EFFECT" right? This "effect" theory, being that sudden impact of a BPW in an animal/human body can travel through the bloodstream with enough force to traumatize the central nervous system and produce immediate incapacitation.

What's interesting to me, is anecdotal evidence that I have seen actually supports this theory somewhat, but does not prove it by any stretch. I mean, most of us agree that a 10mm loaded hot with a good hollow point tends to one shot stop better than a 9mm that gets the same penetration depth, but why? Doesn't this theory partially explain the difference?

However, guys like Canyonman DO vehemently deny this theory's credence.
Unlike English (hope you don't take offense bro) I tend to listen carefully to what he has to say about it. Why? Because he's killed tons of critters with all kinds of different weapons and load outs and he knows what works. Typically he will say "penetration and shot placement is key" (I think LOL).

But surely, Canyonman, have you ever noticed that higher velocity rounds that expand tend to do more damage and kill quicker? Have you had situations where an animal dropped right there with a non-optimal shot?

What bakes English's noodle is that people verbally attack him and the other proponents of the theory by simply "saying they're crazy" instead of offering up the reasons, scientifically (but for me anecdotal evidence is valuable as was my point with Canyonman) and most of times they don't offer up anecdotal evidence.

As adults we shouldn't lower ourselves to childlike behavior when debating a theory. And if you really want an insult, you guys act like girls by resorting to emotion instead of fact.

uz2bUSMC
10-08-2010, 12:07
The forums are surely a place to discuss thoughts & ideas. However, when topics such as this repeatedly delve into infantile & childish bantering, if not outright indignation, then it´s time to close the thread & fire a warning shot across some bows.

Or the people who do not like them can just stay out of them. This takes the least amount of work when dealing with a thread topic you do not like. If you see BPW, don't click on it, it's not that hard.

uz2bUSMC
10-08-2010, 12:14
Dreamaster,

I like the way you seemingly think. It seems that you would be one that has the ability to debate a topic and acknowledge each sides point of view. If that is the case, good on you.

English
10-08-2010, 12:32
English would it be fair to say that "field experience" can be used as counter-proof to the theory? And exactly which theory?

As someone with limited hunting experience, I have mostly my knowledge of accoustics, Physics, and logic to observe various effects of ammunition through... well... youtube.com videos, and also reading of the different articles about what "ammo works best" etc. Just letting everyone know where I'm at knowledge wise before I go shooting off my mouth.

A Ballistic Pressure Wave is FACT... I have no doubts there... one viewing of a video where some guys shot a 30-06 at a block of gel, only to see the gel not only explode, but the damn table broke in half! Secondary cavities are a direct result of waves of force traveling outward from the point of impact caused by the sudden change in velocity and transfer of motion into the object.

The theory in question though, is whether or not there is a BPW "EFFECT" right? This "effect" theory, being that sudden impact of a BPW in an animal/human body can travel through the bloodstream with enough force to traumatize the central nervous system and produce immediate incapacitation.

What's interesting to me, is anecdotal evidence that I have seen actually supports this theory somewhat, but does not prove it by any stretch. I mean, most of us agree that a 10mm loaded hot with a good hollow point tends to one shot stop better than a 9mm that gets the same penetration depth, but why? Doesn't this theory partially explain the difference?

However, guys like Canyonman DO vehemently deny this theory's credence.
Unlike English (hope you don't take offense bro) I tend to listen carefully to what he has to say about it. Why? Because he's killed tons of critters with all kinds of different weapons and load outs and he knows what works. Typically he will say "penetration and shot placement is key" (I think LOL).

But surely, Canyonman, have you ever noticed that higher velocity rounds that expand tend to do more damage and kill quicker? Have you had situations where an animal dropped right there with a non-optimal shot?

What bakes English's noodle is that people verbally attack him and the other proponents of the theory by simply "saying they're crazy" instead of offering up the reasons, scientifically (but for me anecdotal evidence is valuable as was my point with Canyonman) and most of times they don't offer up anecdotal evidence.

As adults we shouldn't lower ourselves to childlike behavior when debating a theory. And if you really want an insult, you guys act like girls by resorting to emotion instead of fact.

Dreamaster,
If I was religious I could say, "Bless you!" It is so nice to see a reasoned post.

This is a field of knowledge that carries a huge weight of historical baggage. First, is there a BPW effect and if so what is it and when does it occur. The thing that interested parties on GT know most about is the work of two married Doctors, Michael and Amy Courtney, who did experiments by shooting deer of approximately human size under cleverly controlled conditions. They were shot with muzzle loading rifles with pistol bullets at controlled velocities that matched the impact of particular pistols used at reasonably close range. They were baited to precise side on positions at a known distance before they were shot. Rifles were used so that the shots could be placed accurately to avoid other causes of rapid collapse. That is, the shots were placed to avoid the heart or CNS and the animals were autopsied to make sure of this. They defined rapid collapse as collapse withiin 5 seconds. They did not seek to determine the means by which a BPW could produce rapid collapse but it is clear that only something affecting the CNS could produce such a result.

What the Courtneys showed was that their was a clear relationship between the peak pressure of the BPW and the probability of rapid collapse. As will be clear to you, the shorter the penetration, the higher the peak pressure, but the Courtneys limited themselves to bullets and loadings with at least 12" of penetration. Their findings showed that below a peak pressure threshold around 460 psi there was virtually no probability of rapid collapse from a BPW effect. Above that, the probability of rapid collapse rose rapidly and the rate of rise then slowed with increasing peak pressure to a long final tail that tends to be asymptotic to the 100% probability line.

No one seems to have been able to falsify this evidence and it shows that only the very best 115 and 124/5 gn 9mms get into this zone. The 357SIGs are well inside and the lighter grain 10mms better still. .45ACP span the whole range from ball that is outside the range to 185gn +P hollow points that are up in the 10mm range.

Like you I am happy to look at anecdotal evidence. Elmer Keith was one of the first to remark on the poor performance of the .45ACP ball ammunition for hunting. Equally, many LEOs reported one shot stops where the BG collapsed rapidly although he was not hit in a place that should have produced such a rapid stop. The collection of data by Marshall and Sanow was not statistically clean enough to draw the conclusions they drew but it is hard to believe that all those LEOs were lying or were suffering from some kind of mass delusional state or were suffering from time distortion while the BG took his own good time to die but did not shoot back while doing so. All of these claims were made by the Fackler group. This is another part of the historical baggage since many of that group are still with us along with more recent adherents.

Then we come to another kind of anecdotal evidence from some hunters who believe in heavy for caliber bullets, the reliability of ball and hard cast semi wadcutters. There is good reason for using heavy for caliber bullets on large animals where penetration to heart or brain is the fastest way to kill and bleeding out is almost equally desireable on animals that are not going to bite back. As I pointed out earlier, these bullets do not produce high BPW peak pressures and so the phenomenon will not be observed by people who are convinced of the merits of that type of bullet. It is worth noting that the reputation of the 357 Magnum with LEOs for rapid stops is essentially based on the 125gn bullets which produce high peak pressures. It is also worth noting conflicting anecdotal reports from hunters using the .357 Magnum. Some think it poor and others think it very good. perhaps this is a matter of which bullt type they are using - whether they are believers in deep penetration or very fast light weight hollow points. It is worth commenting that both have their place but a given hunter will tend to stick to one or the other.

I don't at all take offence that you mention Canyon Man. I think he supports my case. I think he has killed lots of animals, almost always with heavy for caliber bullets. He has probably survived a good number of gunfights. I even think he is probably as cool an operator and as accurate a shot as the impression he gives. I also think he is so rigid minded that he would not recognise a rapid collapse as anything more than his good shooting. If he shoots so well that all his shots are heart or head shots, how would he know?

More recent supporting evidence has come from the Czech Republic. Autopsy examination of people killed with gunshots remote from the brain showed a consistent type of damage to the lower brain.

You ask whether there is really an effect that can produce brain trauma via pressure wave trajnsmitted through blood vessels? The most compelling evidence we have for rapid collapse caused by high peak pressure BPW cause by bullet trauma remote from the CNS is the work of the Courtneys. They measured its probability relative to the peak pressure level. This did not elucidate the mecanism of pressure transport and did not try to. The Czech work shows the kind of damage to the brain which we could expect to produce collapse. Work on sodiers who have suffered blast and bullet injuries show frequent brain damage symptoms. Work on pigs and dogs fitted with pressure transducers show how well and how far a BPW can travel from the site of a bullet track. All of this fits into a consistent structure and the people working in that field claim that there is no longer any dispute about it within their field.

We might think that they woud say that because that is where their pay cheques come from and so it might be but this is not a field with enormous funding from governments and charities like man made global warming. It is just a small area of interest to some organisations that need to use firearms. In my opinion we have been fortunate that Dr. Courtney has provided us with so much information and that it is directly relevant to defensive shooters. In contrast, most of the other relevant work in this field around the world is of very little interest outside the field and we would be very unlikely to know of any of it apart from Dr. Courtney. Obviously, I find it very hard to see any sensible way in which this information could be fake or other than what it purports to be.

I was not, by the way, very impressed with the Wikipedia piece. Wikipedia deserves better!

English

Dreamaster
10-08-2010, 12:35
Dreamaster,

I like the way you seemingly think. It seems that you would be one that has the ability to debate a topic and acknowledge each sides point of view. If that is the case, good on you.

:cool:

It's such an interesting theory... so much so, I almost wish I had the money and the "lack" of heart enough to purchase about 150 large hogs and try and reproduce the "deer" and something like the Strasbourg test myself... only this time take pictures of the event, maybe a few videos as "proof"... and really it'd be great to have a system of reading their blood pressure and heart rate throughout the event too. 25 hogs for each caliber, 5 kills per bullet type.

It's such a heartless act though... purposefully missing vitals and CNS... with handgun rounds... damn. :(

Dreamaster
10-08-2010, 12:52
"I don't at all take offence that you mention Canyon Man. I think he supports my case. I think he has killed lots of animals, almost always with heavy for caliber bullets. He has probably survived a good number of gunfights. I even think he is probably as cool an operator and as accurate a shot as the impression he gives. I also think he is so rigid minded that he would not recognise a rapid collapse as anything more than his good shooting. If he shoots so well that all his shots are heart or head shots, how would he know?"

That was my favorite paragraph. You actually make a few points here that are worth restating in different terms:

1) BPW Effect is not the "only" way to incapacitate, and you have never claimed it is
2) Hunters like Canyon Man take down their prey "the right way" as often as possible anyway and can easily attribute rapid take downs to "good penetration and hitting vitals" as to anything else.

I haven't seen Borris in a long time on here but he and Canyon Man have similar theories, Borris told me there were some critters that a 115 +p hollowpoint just didn't get the job done because it didn't go deep enough.

But like an article I just read stated "If deers ever stood on their hind legs at 7 yards, a 125 grain .357 is probably all you'd need."

The only "danger" to the theory English is this... if it coerces people to buy/use more handgun than they can handle, it might be more dangerous than good. I love my 10mm Glock 20, but everytime I get done with it and feel really confident, I pick up my wife's G19 and OMFG... I can suddenly unload 15 rounds on target SO FAST compared to my G20.

So believer or not, get what you can handle.

BOGE
10-08-2010, 12:54
Or the people who do not like them can just stay out of them. This takes the least amount of work when dealing with a thread topic you do not like. If you see BPW, don't click on it, it's not that hard.

Because dummies attract more dummies like flies. We`ve had this problem in the recent past whereas we had some seasoned LEO`s who shared a vast knoweledge of real world shootings and were a plethora of info. They no longer post here due to all the uncensored BS. I know of two and believe me their knowledge is far more valuable than theories & fantasies about shooting livestock. :upeyes:

uz2bUSMC
10-08-2010, 13:27
Because dummies attract more dummies like flies. We`ve had this problem in the recent past whereas we had some seasoned LEO`s who shared a vast knoweledge of real world shootings and were a plethora of info. They no longer post here due to all the uncensored BS. I know of two and believe me their knowledge is far more valuable than theories & fantasies about shooting livestock. :upeyes:

And see, this is the kind of stuff that irritates me. Now Bogue, hang with me here for a sec.

I'm not taking anything away from the LEO's that have had their time in the trenches, but just because you shoot people doesn't mean your the SME at terminal ballistics. They merely get the gunfight portion. Then they will get different portions of information (maybe) from other sources... a coroner perhaps. All of these things create their "perception" of the specifics at play. All the pieces of the puzzle have to be on hand to get the full picture. Shooting someone doesn't give you all the pieces.

Just like a few years ago, Doc GKR was blathering on about how many people he had on the table or whatever and I asked him how many of those cases did he see the fight itself. He wouldn't answer. Why? Probably because he believes his piece of the puzzle is the most important and tells all but it doesn't - same as the LEO who have their piece to the puzzle.

Of course these individuals tend to get aggravated when you don't by into what they believe because it was a tragic/traumatic event for them but that's too bad. I'm glad they made it through the event but if they can't tell me all the specifics of the gunfight, i.e. bullet type, penetration, path of the bullet, incapacitation time etc then it's no good to me. I don't care how long they been winnin fights, I'm not comin to them for terminal ballistics. I will come to them to show me how to win a gunfight though.

This is where Dr. C comes in. He can give all of the pieces of the puzzle, for each case - at one time. Yes, it is deer... but I get to know what it was shot with, how long it remained standing, the path of the bullet blah, blah, blah.

Too many people on here only wish to pose their opinion as fact and never have it challenged, some people aren't afraid to challenge their wisdom and this hurts their feelings.

Dreamaster
10-08-2010, 13:29
Because dummies attract more dummies like flies. We`ve had this problem in the recent past whereas we had some seasoned LEO`s who shared a vast knoweledge of real world shootings and were a plethora of info. They no longer post here due to all the uncensored BS. I know of two and believe me their knowledge is far more valuable than theories & fantasies about shooting livestock. :upeyes:

Are you sure it's really because too many people posted "fantasies"? Or maybe because so much mud got slung around and they got tired of it?

Caliber Corner used to be my favorite forum, but it is a shadow of it's former glory, mainly due to a lot of what I saw as personal disrespect and attacks. :crying:

English
10-08-2010, 14:00
......
1) BPW Effect is not the "only" way to incapacitate, and you have never claimed it is
........
I haven't seen Borris in a long time on here but he and Canyon Man have similar theories, Borris told me there were some critters that a 115 +p hollowpoint just didn't get the job done because it didn't go deep enough.

But like an article I just read stated "If deers ever stood on their hind legs at 7 yards, a 125 grain .357 is probably all you'd need."

The only "danger" to the theory English is this... if it coerces people to buy/use more handgun than they can handle, it might be more dangerous than good. I love my 10mm Glock 20, but everytime I get done with it and feel really confident, I pick up my wife's G19 and OMFG... I can suddenly unload 15 rounds on target SO FAST compared to my G20.

So believer or not, get what you can handle.

It is not the only way to incapacitate but damage to the CNS is the only way to incapacitate rapidly. Direct damage to the CNS is almost always certain and immediate but is usually difficult to achieve and therefore has a poor probability of success as a strategy. Indirect damage to the CNS via a BPW effect has a larger probability of hitting the effective target but then only a probability of achieving the effect, depending on the round used and luck.

Jumping to the last point, since it is linked to the above, I have always said that people should shoot only what they can shoot with reasonable profficiency. Shooting what you can conceal can also reduce the power that can be handled and so in many cases only the lower range of the probability zone can be reached, if that. In those cases the individual has to use a different strategy. Just as we might choose to carry a .44 magnum in the woods but a .380 KelTec to a dinner party, it is all about compromise and one of the criteria is the ability of the individual.

There are plenty of creatures that 115 +P+ won't work for because they are too big for anything other than penetration or a lot more power. Although the BPW is a dynamic pressure wave which is directional forwards and to the side, pressure will still do what pressure does and with shallow penetration and high BPW much of the effect is wasted by bulging the hide or skin outwards and so failing to generate compression where it is needed to transmit far enough through the body. In the extreme, the pressure blows out a relativly shallow crater round the entry point. This creates a nasty wound but not rapid incapacitation. A pressure wave needs to be properly contained to produce a strong pressure pulse within blood vessels.

With regard to speed of fire I have only timed the difference over five rounds but I am only 0.1 to 0.2 seconds slower for 5 shots with the G20 than with the g19. The first shot is just as fast of course and I think that time cost is less than the value of the 10mm bullet.

I am glad you have talked yourself out of shooting all those hogs. The bunny huggers would have found you and exacted an awful revenge. The deer that did not collapse within a reasonable time were shot properly with a rifle and I doubt that they experienced much pain in the mean time.

English

CanyonMan
10-08-2010, 16:17
Deleted by:

CanyonMan

BOGE
10-08-2010, 17:04
...Too many people on here only wish to pose their opinion as fact and never have it challenged, some people aren't afraid to challenge their wisdom and this hurts their feelings.

I am all for sharing of opinions, experiences & ideas in an adult manner. I learn from many here as no one man does it all.

Unfortunately, many ``stopping power`` theories are just that and many wish to project a theory as fact without a shred of hard, concrete and repeatable data. That is, as far as repeatable can be proclaimed to be achieved in real world scenarios. The ONLY ``laboratory´´ we have is the street for CCW`s. Everything else is postulation until street ``cred`` is given to a particular round (if ever).

You are correct in that many here are ``delicate`` because it is far easier to repeat what one wishes to believe than to open one`s mind. By this I am not singling anyone out in particular as most of the regular posters here have some excellent experiences. Fred, Glolt & Canyon Man have all killed far more game than I will and when they speak of such I listen. I agree with them 100% on hunting related topics.

Rant off.

Glolt20-91
10-08-2010, 18:28
And see, this is the kind of stuff that irritates me. Now Bogue, hang with me here for a sec.

I'm not taking anything away from the LEO's that have had their time in the trenches, but just because you shoot people doesn't mean your the SME at terminal ballistics. They merely get the gunfight portion. Then they will get different portions of information (maybe) from other sources... a coroner perhaps. All of these things create their "perception" of the specifics at play. All the pieces of the puzzle have to be on hand to get the full picture. Shooting someone doesn't give you all the pieces.

Just like a few years ago, Doc GKR was blathering on about how many people he had on the table or whatever and I asked him how many of those cases did he see the fight itself. He wouldn't answer. Why? Probably because he believes his piece of the puzzle is the most important and tells all but it doesn't - same as the LEO who have their piece to the puzzle.

Of course these individuals tend to get aggravated when you don't by into what they believe because it was a tragic/traumatic event for them but that's too bad. I'm glad they made it through the event but if they can't tell me all the specifics of the gunfight, i.e. bullet type, penetration, path of the bullet, incapacitation time etc then it's no good to me. I don't care how long they been winnin fights, I'm not comin to them for terminal ballistics. I will come to them to show me how to win a gunfight though.

This is where Dr. C comes in. He can give all of the pieces of the puzzle, for each case - at one time. Yes, it is deer... but I get to know what it was shot with, how long it remained standing, the path of the bullet blah, blah, blah.

Too many people on here only wish to pose their opinion as fact and never have it challenged, some people aren't afraid to challenge their wisdom and this hurts their feelings.

Years ago when courtney was posting on the forum, both under his given name and psuedonym, I asked him very direct questions about his research and his research as it related to other research that didn't support BPW. I never received a straight answer, not once; talked in circles much like a politician.

I asked courtney other specific questions, including caliber and bullet type/weight, about specific shootings with near instant terminal results that were outside his BPW parameters. His replies were that the shootings were not as rapid/instant as I knew they were.

I've interviewed thousands and thousands of people over the years and with a certain degree of reliability; can separate those who are straight forward and telling the truth and those who are evasive and jacking me around.

I have a great degree of respect for Doc GKR, the work he has done and the time he took to post on GT. Unlike courtney, Doc has been gainfully employed over the years.

Those who have read/studied Duncan MacPherson's research published in his book (now in its second printing) Bullet Penetration Modeling the Dynamics and Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma

I challenge you and others to read MacPherson's research, compare it to courtney's research, then come back on GT and post your impressions. :thumbsup:

Bob :cowboy:

Glolt20-91
10-08-2010, 18:52
Some time back I quoted this trauma surgeon's research regarding wound trauma, response from English was that the surgeon was 'stupid' and that I was 'stupid';

A controversial subject is that of shock waves which are present and travel ahead of the bullet which last a few microseconds. It was once theorized that these shock waves could cause damage to the tissues; however, this has been refuted in recent studies. The temporary cavity is created by stretching forces in a vacuum in the wake of a bullet, and the volume of this cavity is proportional to the energy which is transferred, with a maximum diameter being measured at 10 to 40 times the bullet diameter. This temporary cavity will actually collapse and reform repeatedly with a diminishing amplitude until it settles down to what will be the permanent cavity. This entire process only lasts one to five milliseconds

This is the bibliography the trauma surgeon used for his research.

Bibliography:
Barach E. Tomlanovich M, Nowak R. Ballistics: A pathophysiologic examination of the wounding mechanisms of firearms: Part I. J Trauma 1986;26:225-235.

Barach E. Tomlanovich M, Nowak R. Ballistics: A pathophysiologic examination of the wounding mechanisms of firearms: Part II. J Trauma 1986;26:374-383.

Bartlett CS. Clinical update: Gunshot wound ballistics. Clin Orthop 2003;408:28-57.

Bartlett CS, Helfet DL, Hausman MR, Strauss E. Ballistics and gunshot wounds: Effects on musculoskeletal tissues. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2000;8:21-36.

Brennan JA, Meyers AD, Jafek BW. Penetrating neck trauma: A 5-year review of the literature, 1983 to 1988. Am J Otolaryngol 1990;11:191-197.

Dufresne GW. Wound ballistics: recognizing wound potential. Part 1: Characteristics of missles and weapons. Int J Trauma Nurs 1995;1:4-10.

Fackler ML. Ballistic injury. Ann Emerg Med 1986;15:1451-1455.

Fackler ML. Civilian gunshot wounds and ballistics: Dispelling the myths. Emerg Med Clin North Am 1998;16:17-28.

Fackler ML. Gunshot wound review. Ann Emerg Med 1996;28:194-203.

Fackler ML. Wound ballistics. A review of common misconceptions. JAMA 1988;259:2730-2736.

Fackler ML. Wound ballistics: The management of assault rifle injuries. Mil Med 1990;155:222-225.

Fackler ML, Dougherty PJ. Theodor Kocher and the Scientific Foundation of Wound Ballistics. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1991;172:153-160.

Gibbons AJ, Patton DW. Ballistic injuries of the face and mouth in war and civil conflict. Dent Update 2003;30:272-278.

Hollerman JJ, Fackler ML, Coldwell DM, Ben-Menachem Y. Gunshot wounds: 1. Bullets, ballistics, and mechanisms of injury. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990;155:685-690.

Holt GR, Kostohryz G Jr. Wound ballistics of gunshot injuries to the head and neck. Arch Otolaryngol 1983;109:313-318.

Johnson A. Principles of wound ballistics. Emerg Nurse 1999; 6:12-15.

Karger B, Kneubuehl BP. On the physics of momentum in ballastics: Can the human body be displaced and knocked down by a small arms projectile? Int J Legal Med 1996;109:147-149.

Ordog GJ, Wasserberger J, Balasubramanium S. Wound ballistics: Theory and practice. Ann Emerg Med 1984;13:1113-1122.

Parks WH. Shotgun wound ballistics. J Trauma 1989;29:272.

Peters CE, Sebourn CL. Wound ballistics of unstable projectiles. Part II. Temporary cavity formation and tissue damage. J Trauma 1996;40:S16-S21.

Peters CE, Sebourn CL, Crowder HL. Wound ballistics of unstable projectiles. Part I: Projectile yaw growth and retardation. J Trauma 1996;40:S10-S15.

Plattner T, Kneubuehl B, thali M, Zollinger U. Gunshot residue patterns on skin in angled contact and near contact gunshot wounds. Forensic Sci Int 2003;138:68-74.

Ryan JM, Cooper GJ, Maynard RL. Wound ballistics: Contemporary and future research. J R Army Med Corps 1988;134:119-125.

Sebourn CL, Peters CE. Flight dynamics of spin-stabilized projectiles and the relationship to wound ballistics. J Trauma 1996;40:S22-S26.



Bob :cowboy:

uz2bUSMC
10-08-2010, 18:56
Funny how Duncan has said things that correlate to Courtneys in IWBA journals...

I am interested in DM's book. I don't care anything for GKR or his chronies, however and Courtney has been gainfully employed, aswell.

English
10-08-2010, 18:57
Canyonman,
I am truly fed up with you being so hard done by because you read what you think is said instead of what is said. Go and read again and you will see that Dreamaster was full of nothing but praise and respect for you.

As for me, you have been exceedingly rude to me over an extended period. My first significant experience of you was when I PMed you in a perfectly friendly way about something in a thread that had been closed. I had no knowledge of why you should have been antagonistic to me but you effectively told me to F off. Prior to that I had quite an admiration for you. Don't complain about me being rude to you. You started it. All I have done is respond to your rudeness and determined misunderstanding of what I have said.

In this instance I mentioned you only because Dreamaster had given you as an example of someone, along with Boris who I don't know, as someone whose experience was to be respected and that he had to weigh that in the ballance relative to any belief that the BPW effect might be real since you were so strongly against it. What he was saying was that you had so much experience hunting that if the BPW effect was real you should have observed it. What you need to understand is that you are quite wel known around here and so it is to be expected that people will use you as an example.

What I then said was that I accepted your shooting, hunting and fighting abilities for what you represented them to be. Please note, I was saying I thought you were honest and capable in this respect. Is that an attack on you? I was not for a moment suggesting that your fighting and what I believe is killing of people was done in anything other than the line of duty. Let me add that I don't think you boast about these things and that they are things that just come into your posts.

The only thing I said against you is that you are rigid minded. The first time I have seen anything that did not seem rigid minded from you is part of the post above where you say,
"....and I hate violence at this point. I am sick of it. I hate fighting at this point. I have done enough harm in the past. I hate this not cool way I am responding to you at this point.

Because I had to change my entire life and heart and soul and mind,...."
Here you show the flexibility to change your beliefs and outlook for what I assume are valid reasons.

I would expect you to be proud of being rigid minded if only it were called something like being a man of strong opinions. I have strong opinions too and the difference is that I am prepared to change those opinions when the evidence for them changes. This is a matter of principle based on the philosophy of knowledge and not of weakness but most people think that changing your mind is a sign of weakness. Clearly you have made one major change of opinion. Perhaps you should think about the underlying process of that. Some evidence showed you that you that some of your ideas or principles were wrong and you re-thought your attitude to a major part of your life. Good for you. It is a tough thing to do.

I also said that I believe you use heavy for caliber bullets and .45ACP ball and so were unlikely to have experince of BPW effects and that since you were a good shot any animal, or man, that dropped right there you would think was the result of an accurate shot to the "vitals". In other words you would never be in a position to comment of the BPW effect. is any of that untrue and does any of that attack you or your honesty? Now the funny thing here is that the other famous person around here, your friend Bob, is a great fan of the .38 Super which he loads hot and fast. He gets some dramatic results shooting animals with it that sound like BPW effect to me but he is as anti as you are. You see, simple experience is very limited. Unless you set up experiments properly you don't find out very much. If you do an experiment like the Courtney's you can find out a lot. You have to have a good idea of what you ar looking for and set up conditions that eliminate other possibilities.

Let me bring up another part of your post. You threaten me with what you would do if I were to make "smart mouth" remarks about your wife as you think I did with your friend Bob. Once again I have to defend a totally unjustified slur on my character by you. Never mind the unspecified threat. What on earth makes you think I would say anything about your wife regardless of what I might, or might not think about you? Bob completely misunderstood what I said and although I immediately replied and explained you choose to believe my words to have the same meaning that Bob reacted to. So let me explain again. Bob, as he frequently does, asks me for "proof" of something when he fails to understand the meaning of proof, or to do some clever trick which has no bearing on the issue. In that case he asked me a question for which he demanded a yes or no answer. It was a question to which either answer would put me in a bad light and I tried to get him to see that by saying I would only answer it if he answered the classic question, "Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer me yes or no!" Now the fact that I called it a "classic question" was a very strong clue that I did not actually think he beat his wife and that it was not a question that I was really asking him. If you look at the two answers you can see that "yes" means he used to beat his wife and "no" means that he is still doing so. Both possibilities are admissions of guilt. Why would anyone choose to answer such a question? If you Google this question you will probably find it attributed to Winston Churchill. he used it but I don't know if he invented it. I have known it for a very long time and assumed, clearly wrongly, that most people also knew it. I did not know that Bob was married and If I had I would not have said anything about his wife or his relationship with her. My argument is with what Bob thinks and not with his personal life.

Let me try to finish off. You call me slippery and devious and other things. I remember a longish post not very long ago when you spent the whole post runing me down and calling me names and you finished off by wishing me all the best and saying you really meant that. Along the way you said that I needed to seek help for my problems. Maybe you can manage to double think like that but to me it is devious or slippery and not at all honest. I am rather simpler. By the way, I think you have taken part in most of the BPW threads rather than just one.

I like to argue about "things" as a means of gaining understanding. I have learned a lot that way. I am less interested in arguing to "win" the argument. We all go through life with all sorts of false ideas and loosing an argument is often very valuable because it lets you discard a false idea and become a little less stupid. I am interested in arguments about ideas but what I get for much of the time is unsupported opinions and personal attacks from people whose opinions do not match my arguments. If I am attacked I will defend myself and keep on defending myself. I regard it as a necessary waste of my time because the things I have to offer here in return for the oportunity to learn more are an ability to make reasoned arguments from facts. To have those arguments listened to I have to maintain my reputation. If you or Bob claims that I am sysing things against your wives or saying that you are wife beaters, I will defend myself and explain your misunderstanding. If Bob demands "proof" for something that can never be proved, I will explain the theory of knowledge yet again in the hope that some might understand and to defend myself against an unfounded attack.

Try to read this thread again. Read your response to it and try to see that it was entirely unjustified. Read what I have said and see that it is not attacking you in anywhere near the way you think. Try to be open minded and think about what is actually said instead of jumping to the worst conclusions.

English

uz2bUSMC
10-08-2010, 19:05
CM,

Hey, brotha'. I just re-read English's post in reference to you and it looked to me to be a compliment.:dunno: It looked this way the first time I read it and it still does (to me). Are you sure you didn't misread? I can't say what Eng has said to you in the past but I've always found him to be a pretty good dude and I can't see what he did wrong in this thread. You don't have to point it out, obviously, since you are not obligated to explain yourself to me or anyone but I kinda feel like you jumped the gun on this one.

CanyonMan
10-08-2010, 19:19
"I don't at all take offence that you mention Canyon Man. I think he supports my case. I think he has killed lots of animals, almost always with heavy for caliber bullets. He has probably survived a good number of gunfights. I even think he is probably as cool an operator and as accurate a shot as the impression he gives. I also think he is so rigid minded that he would not recognise a rapid collapse as anything more than his good shooting. If he shoots so well that all his shots are heart or head shots, how would he know?"

That was my favorite paragraph. You actually make a few points here that are worth restating in different terms:

1) BPW Effect is not the "only" way to incapacitate, and you have never claimed it is
2) Hunters like Canyon Man take down their prey "the right way" as often as possible anyway and can easily attribute rapid take downs to "good penetration and hitting vitals" as to anything else.

I haven't seen Borris in a long time on here but he and Canyon Man have similar theories, Borris told me there were some critters that a 115 +p hollowpoint just didn't get the job done because it didn't go deep enough.

But like an article I just read stated "If deers ever stood on their hind legs at 7 yards, a 125 grain .357 is probably all you'd need."

The only "danger" to the theory English is this... if it coerces people to buy/use more handgun than they can handle, it might be more dangerous than good. I love my 10mm Glock 20, but everytime I get done with it and feel really confident, I pick up my wife's G19 and OMFG... I can suddenly unload 15 rounds on target SO FAST compared to my G20.

So believer or not, get what you can handle.




First off:


I also think he is so rigid minded that he would not recognise a rapid collapse as anything more than his good shooting. If he shoots so well that all his shots are heart or head shots, how would he know?"


******I EDITED THIS LETTER FROM WHAT I SAID PREVIOUSLY AND WITH APPOLOGIES TO DREAM MASTER. I DO APPOLOGIZE AMIGO !


I think thank you.... I am to dumb to know quite what you mean here. I am told this is a compliment? I do not take head shots though on big game, EVER, and heart shots are heart shots. They can run 100yds with a blown heart (elk/deer/moose et) or they can drop right there. Not real sure your "rigid minded" menaing here. haha. If if was meant without offence given fine. If not, whatever??? Sorry amigo I ain't getting that part.


Next:

Hunters like Canyon Man take down their prey "the right way" as often as possible anyway and can easily attribute rapid take downs to "good penetration and hitting vitals" as to anything else.


Your right that I do take down game as much as humanly possible the right way, in that, "meaning good shoot placement and using the correct bullet/load /IMO for the task, and I do use bullets that give the best penetration IMO for the task".


A quick death on game is what any ethical hunter seeks. I use the equipment to do just that, if I do my part, and I try my best at it.

Not to join in all this BPW jazz, but to just say. I have shot many game animals even very large ones, with my Hard cast heavy for the caliber bullets both rifle and handgun. I have seen elk drop in their tracks from a single shot from a 45LC handgun with a 300gr bullet at 1150/1200fps shot through both shoulders.

I have seen deer and other game run away after GOOD hits with rapid expanding bullets, or bullets claimed to give great energy dump. So I have, as a former guide of 25 years, seen thousands of things that I cannot explain, and a very good deal of them I can explain, but if i do the latter, it will prolong the stupid senseless war here with some (not you) on this topic that is not any of my put in.....

I don't believe you'll find I've ever joined in one of the BPW threads. Maybe once, i truly do not recall. Don't know how I got threw in the pot here....


Be safe. ;)

Again... My sincere appologies for running my mouth to YOU, and misunderstanding.. I thank you for any praise you gave me, but it is not deserved on me at all ;)



CM

Kegs
10-08-2010, 19:24
...and FTW:

10 MM. :cool:

English
10-08-2010, 19:55
Some time back I quoted this trauma surgeon's research regarding wound trauma, response from English was that the surgeon was 'stupid' and that I was 'stupid';
A controversial subject is that of shock waves which are present and travel ahead of the bullet which last a few microseconds. It was once theorized that these shock waves could cause damage to the tissues; however, this has been refuted in recent studies. The temporary cavity is created by stretching forces in a vacuum in the wake of a bullet, and the volume of this cavity is proportional to the energy which is transferred, with a maximum diameter being measured at 10 to 40 times the bullet diameter. This temporary cavity will actually collapse and reform repeatedly with a diminishing amplitude until it settles down to what will be the permanent cavity. This entire process only lasts one to five milliseconds

Here we go again. I don't remember using the word stupid but it is appropriate for the surgeon's lack of understanding of physics. In my experience surgeons generally have a poor understaning of physics. I am sure he is reasonably, even highly intelligent in most ways but with regard to simple physics he is stupid. Let us try to anayse what he is saying as much as we can make any sense of it at all.

"...shock waves which are present and travel ahead of the bullet which last a few microseconds." Does he mean here that the bullet movement lasts only few microseconds or does he mean that the shock waves have a more transient existence than the movement of the bullet? We can't tell! Is he talking of the equivalent of sound waves or of the dynamic pressure wave phenomenon we now know of as a balistic pressure wave? We can't tell because he does not define it! He says that it used to be thought that these undefined shockwaves could cause damage but that has now been refuted.

The only refutation I know of was by another surgeon with a very poor understanding of physics. He, one Dr Fackler, claimed that the lithotriptor used to break up kidney stones produced higher pressures but did not damage tissue. The problem with this is that the lithotriptor produces high pressures at very low amplitude. That is, there is very little movement which is typical of sound waves. The balistic pressure wave produces very large amplitudes which stretch and compress the tissue. The lithotriptor produces distances between high pressure and the next low pressur which are less than the size of a cell. The BPW squashes cells so flat that they rupture.

He goes on to say, "The temporary cavity is created by stretching forces in a vacuum in the wake of a bullet...." What ever can he mean by this? What he seems to be saying is that the vacuum creates stretching forces. It is hard to understand his English in any other way. It sounds as though the stretching forces pull the tissue out away from the bullet's path to create the cavity. What nonsense! If this was the seed of your strange ideas about vacuums Bob, I can see how it happened. What is the reality? The tissue is thrown forwards along the bullet's path and outwards by the directed pressure of the dynamic pressure wave we call the BPW. This compression and the inertia of the tissue accellerated outwards creates the temporary cavity and since it has only a caliber size hole connecting it to the outside air it usually contains quite a good vacuum. Unfortunately the vacuum is just a creation of the speed at which the temorary cavity comes into existience. The forces it exerts are miniscule in comparisson to the forces which created the cavity. and its only significance is that it contributes to the speed with which the cavity collapses as outside air pressure is not counteracted by inside air pressure.

Air pressure is about 15psi. Even ball 9mm produces about 350psi or more.

Just this small section is completely damning. The man has no visual imagination for physical processes and no practical understanding of physics. He is making a public statement about something he has not understood. That is a stupid thing to do. It takes some level of stupidity to do it and it does not matter how many authorities he quotes if he does not understand enough to know that he does not understand what they are saying or that what they are saying is a repetition of the stupidity of others.

English

CanyonMan
10-08-2010, 20:27
english,

I'll answer all I feel i care to below in your post, and I'll use blue letters !


Canyonman,
I am truly fed up with you I could care less being so hard done by because you read what you think is said instead of what is said. Go and read again and you will see that Dreamaster was full of nothing but praise and respect for you. I did re-read what dream master wrote, and I took his name off the post i wrote to you, and to HIM I appologize.


As for me, you have been exceedingly rude to me over an extended period. That is a lie from H*** My first significant experience of you was when I PMed you in a perfectly friendly way about something in a thread that had been closed. I had no knowledge of why you should have been antagonistic to me but you effectively told me to F off.[/B] Man you are a liar. I'll say it plain. I have NEVER treated anyone here that way. Never. Again, this is your lousy attemp to gain attension for yourself and make others (me) look bad..... Prior to that I had quite an admiration for you. Don't complain about me being rude to you. I ain't complaining. Just sick of ya, You started it. No wise guy, you brought me in so all this would happen. I was not a part of this thread. To bad some here cannot see the slippery way you word things, but I have had you do this to me publickly on other forums and discredit me.... All I have done is respond to your rudeness and determined misunderstanding of what I have said. Right.


In this instance I mentioned you only because Dreamaster had given you as an example of someone, along with Boris who I don't know, as someone whose experience was to be respected and that he had to weigh that in the ballance relative to any belief that the BPW effect might be real since you were so strongly against it. WHOA.... Where in the log books of GT will you find me saying I am for or against this BPW theory one way or another. I could care less ? Strongly against it? that is a sack of garbage. I don't voice any opinions one way or another on it. I hate these topics. another pile of your lies. What he was saying was that you had so much experience hunting that if the BPW effect was real you should have observed it. What you need to understand is that you are quite wel known around here and so it is to be expected that people will use you as an example. Well, as I sign off GT, none of what I say here will matter anyway, but folks here he goes into his nice guy mode now trying to be gentle and give compliments, hey wwas what you said about Bobs wife on one of your post a compliment as well, and you bringing doubt on me on the other forum that i am really what i say i am....BS Man you are as decietful as heck ace....


What I then said was that I accepted your shooting, hunting and fighting abilities for what you represented them to be. Please note, I was saying I thought you were honest and capable in this respect. Is that an attack on you? I was not for a moment suggesting that your fighting and what I believe is killing of people was done in anything other than the line of duty. Let me add that I don't think you boast about these things and that they are things that just come into your posts. You didn't believe much of anything on the other forum and made that clear to all dude...

The only thing I said against you is that you are rigid minded. The first time I have seen anything that did not seem rigid minded from you is part of the post above where you say,
"....and I hate violence at this point. I am sick of it. I hate fighting at this point. I have done enough harm in the past. I hate this not cool way I am responding to you at this point.

Because I had to change my entire life and heart and soul and mind,...."
Here you show the flexibility to change your beliefs and outlook for what I assume are valid reasons.

I would expect you to be proud of being rigid minded if only it were called something like being a man of strong opinions. I did not take it that way.... I have strong opinions too and the difference is that I am prepared to change those opinions when the evidence for them changes. What evidence. You've never gave any ! When you are presented with FACTS, you call the poster STUPID, as you did BOB, and the scientist that ran the test and wrote the book, all this is mentioned in this thread... Read bobs post above where he quotes ya...

This is a matter of principle based on the philosophy of knowledge and not of weakness but most people think that changing your mind is a sign of weakness. Clearly you have made one major change of opinion. Perhaps you should think about the underlying process of that. Some evidence showed you that you that some of your ideas or principles were wrong and you re-thought your attitude to a major part of your life. Good for you. It is a tough thing to do. I have NO dang clue as to what you are talking about. I do NOT have ANY idea as to what I have not listened to, accepted, or won't change my mind about.... This is part of your M.O. complete gibberish to make you look good. It is ALL about Y-O-U !

I also said that I believe you use heavy for caliber bullets and .45ACP ball and so were unlikely to have experince of BPW effects and that since you were a good shot any animal, or man, that dropped right there you would think was the result of an accurate shot to the "vitals". In other words you would never be in a position to comment of the BPW effect. This is ridiculous to say the very least... is any of that untrue and does any of that attack you or your honesty? Using ball ammo and heavy for caliber ammo does not mean I have never done other wise and do not know a thing or two about BPW.

Now the funny thing here is that the other famous person around here, your friend Bob, (yes bob is my friend whom you called stupid and made God aweful remarks about his wife) and now you even start your sentence here in a slurring way, I just hope folks can really see through your slippery ways man... is a great fan of the .38 Super which he loads hot and fast. He gets some dramatic results shooting animals with it that sound like BPW effect to me but he is as anti as you are. Your a piece of work man, again, find, dig up, print, paste show, prove to these folks your trying to decieve where I said Iam anti BPW..... You see, simple experience is very limited. Unless you set up experiments properly you don't find out very much. If you do an experiment like the Courtney's you can find out a lot. You have to have a good idea of what you ar looking for and set up conditions that eliminate other possibilities.

Your correct. My 50 years of experience don't count for nothing.....


Let me bring up another part of your post. You threaten me It was not a threat, man you should not read things into what folks say english, wow man do you not know better. I said "and do not bad mouth my wife or, well.... In other words, I will be on the air here on GT and allow everyone to see, (they should already) what a jerk you are. There was NO threat of harm to you person implied... ( I will admit though, if we were in person and you insulted my wife as you did bob's I would kick you butt).

with what you would do if I were to make "smart mouth" remarks about your wife as you think I did with your friend Bob. Once again I have to defend a totally unjustified slur on my character by you. Sure you do, man you can do NO wrong. It is all about Y-O-U ! Never mind the unspecified threat.

What on earth makes you think I would say anything about your wife regardless of what I might, or might not think about you? You did to bob ! Bob completely misunderstood what I said and although I immediately replied and explained you choose to believe my words to have the same meaning that Bob reacted to. Heck yeah, again, it's ALL OUR FAULT ! The blameless one, YOU has to be clean so he can continue to work his deception !

So let me explain again. Bob, as he frequently does, asks me for "proof" of something when he fails to understand the meaning of proof, or to do some clever trick which has no bearing on the issue. In that case he asked me a question for which he demanded a yes or no answer. It was a question to which either answer would put me in a bad light and I tried to get him to see that by saying I would only answer it if he answered the classic question, "Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer me yes or no!" Now the fact that I called it a "classic question" was a very strong clue that I did not actually think he beat his wife and that it was not a question that I was really asking him. It was tasteless and uncalled for. If it was an analogy, as you claim, you could have sure found a more polite one, but once again, it is all about Y-O-U.

If you look at the two answers you can see that "yes" means he used to beat his wife and "no" means that he is still doing so. Both possibilities are admissions of guilt. Why would anyone choose to answer such a question? If you Google this question you will probably find it attributed to Winston Churchill. he used it but I don't know if he invented it. I have known it for a very long time and assumed, clearly wrongly, that most people also knew it. I did not know that Bob was married and If I had I would not have said anything about his wife or his relationship with her. My argument is with what Bob thinks and not with his personal life. If you did'nt know if he was married or not you should shut your mouth....


Let me try to finish off. You call me slippery and devious and other things. I remember a longish post not very long ago when you spent the whole post runing me down and calling me names and you finished off by wishing me all the best and saying you really meant that. Along the way you said that I needed to seek help for my problems. Maybe you can manage to double think like that but to me it is devious or slippery and not at all honest. I am rather simpler. By the way, I think you have taken part in most of the BPW threads rather than just one.

I will probably regret saying this, as I hope you will not also slur the name of Jesus Christ. But Jesus called the hypocrites and the pharisees a brood of vipers, white washed tombs filled with dead mens bones, and liars. BUT, he still in his heart, and later with his lips, wished their soul well (meaning they would come to him) I spoke the truth. I am doing it now. And I still wish you well. I wish evil on no man, nor is there a soul on earth I hate. I hate what some do, and I may say the truth about waht they are, but I also, can take example from someone with far more love tha I and say I do hope thing will work out for you, and I do wish you well. This DOES NOT negate the truth of what wa spoken, but extends the heart that the person will fair well in the long run.


I like to argue about "things" as a means of gaining understanding. I do not ! I have learned a lot that way. I am less interested in arguing to "win" the argument. We all go through life with all sorts of false ideas and loosing an argument is often very valuable because it lets you discard a false idea and become a little less stupid. I am interested in arguments about ideas but what I get for much of the time is unsupported opinions and personal attacks from people whose opinions do not match my arguments. I have not argued talked to you or debated BPW... I do not know what you are talking about as usual......

If I am attacked I will defend myself and keep on defending myself. I regard it as a necessary waste of my time because the things I have to offer here in return for the oportunity to learn more are an ability to make reasoned arguments from facts. You have been challenged to give facts by Bob... You have not give ONE, or any reasonable answer what so ever to the nmans questions. You just call him stupid. To have those arguments listened to I have to maintain my reputation. Howdy mama. all about Y-O-U ! Reputation to maintain. well hoss i tell ya, a man that ain't trying to make a reputaion for himself ain't got a thing to worry about in this world ! If folks do not like me after this letter, I may feel bad, but I ain't worried about it cause I am not in love with myself. Folks on here who know me, and like me, (i am willing to bet) will still do so after the dust clears. I got notta against a soul on here. Just do not wishs to ever hear from you again pard.

If you or Bob claims that I am sysing things against your wives or saying that you are wife beaters, I will defend myself and explain your misunderstanding. If Bob demands "proof" for something that can never be proved, I will explain the theory of knowledge yet again in the hope that some might understand and to defend myself against an unfounded attack. Cool

Try to read this thread again. Read your response to it and try to see that it was entirely unjustified. Read what I have said and see that it is not attacking you in anywhere near the way you think. Try to be open minded and think about what is actually said instead of jumping to the worst conclusions. English


The last thing on earth I care or want to do is read this thread again. I have read it enough ! No I do not want to 'open my mind to you english, I got enough problems already..."

I do close by appologizing once again, to GT, to Dreamaster whom I did misunderstand. Forgive me amigo !

And I appologize for , well, just all the stupid frustration and nonsense that is MY part. I take full responcibility for all I have said and done dumb !


Very sincerely amigo's I appologize for gettin caught up in this mess, but meant what I said to english here above...




Stay safe guys....





CanyonMan

Glolt20-91
10-09-2010, 00:37
English
Now the funny thing here is that the other famous person around here, your friend Bob, is a great fan of the .38 Super which he loads hot and fast. He gets some dramatic results shooting animals with it that sound like BPW effect to me but he is as anti as you are.


Wow English, yes I have had some very impressive stops on adrenaline charged vermin with the .38Super/1911. However, your assumption of "sound like BPW effect to me" is an incorrect assumption . . . you don't know the facts of the stops.

Long ago I learned, and this was part of our training, to take head shots if the opportunity availed itself.

Those "dramatic" results with the Super were all head shots at close distances, one handed, point shooting.

So I'm anti-BPW??? Perhaps I've done my own research, including interviewing MDs and OIS et al and am not so focused as you are to assume everything is BPW related.

Bob :cowboy:

Glolt20-91
10-09-2010, 01:38
Here we go again. I don't remember using the word stupid but it is appropriate for the surgeon's lack of understanding of physics. In my experience surgeons generally have a poor understaning of physics. I am sure he is reasonably, even highly intelligent in most ways but with regard to simple physics he is stupid. Let us try to anayse what he is saying as much as we can make any sense of it at all.

"...shock waves which are present and travel ahead of the bullet which last a few microseconds." Does he mean here that the bullet movement lasts only few microseconds or does he mean that the shock waves have a more transient existence than the movement of the bullet? We can't tell! Is he talking of the equivalent of sound waves or of the dynamic pressure wave phenomenon we now know of as a balistic pressure wave? We can't tell because he does not define it! He says that it used to be thought that these undefined shockwaves could cause damage but that has now been refuted.

The only refutation I know of was by another surgeon with a very poor understanding of physics. He, one Dr Fackler, claimed that the lithotriptor used to break up kidney stones produced higher pressures but did not damage tissue. The problem with this is that the lithotriptor produces high pressures at very low amplitude. That is, there is very little movement which is typical of sound waves. The balistic pressure wave produces very large amplitudes which stretch and compress the tissue. The lithotriptor produces distances between high pressure and the next low pressur which are less than the size of a cell. The BPW squashes cells so flat that they rupture.

He goes on to say, "The temporary cavity is created by stretching forces in a vacuum in the wake of a bullet...." What ever can he mean by this? What he seems to be saying is that the vacuum creates stretching forces. It is hard to understand his English in any other way. It sounds as though the stretching forces pull the tissue out away from the bullet's path to create the cavity. What nonsense! If this was the seed of your strange ideas about vacuums Bob, I can see how it happened. What is the reality? The tissue is thrown forwards along the bullet's path and outwards by the directed pressure of the dynamic pressure wave we call the BPW. This compression and the inertia of the tissue accellerated outwards creates the temporary cavity and since it has only a caliber size hole connecting it to the outside air it usually contains quite a good vacuum. Unfortunately the vacuum is just a creation of the speed at which the temorary cavity comes into existience. The forces it exerts are miniscule in comparisson to the forces which created the cavity. and its only significance is that it contributes to the speed with which the cavity collapses as outside air pressure is not counteracted by inside air pressure.

Air pressure is about 15psi. Even ball 9mm produces about 350psi or more.

Just this small section is completely damning. The man has no visual imagination for physical processes and no practical understanding of physics. He is making a public statement about something he has not understood. That is a stupid thing to do. It takes some level of stupidity to do it and it does not matter how many authorities he quotes if he does not understand enough to know that he does not understand what they are saying or that what they are saying is a repetition of the stupidity of others.

English

I guess we can all rest assured that the trauma surgeon and his colleagues are stupid about physics, based upon your experiences with surgeons; now we can also throw out his bibliography too. :rofl:

Okay, let's say we have a 125gr JHP that has an entrance wound velocity of 1400fps and exits at 700fps. There is a shear velocity between the permanent wound channel and temporary wound cavity, that can be calculated by the way.

We can also calculate the drag coefficient of the slowing bullet. Knowing this, even a trauma surgeon without knowledge of physics probably knows how long it takes for this bullet to pass through, say 12 inches . . . probably measured in micro-seconds, don't you think?

Since outer clothing contaminates the wound channel, the trauma surgeon knows what medicines to use to block infection. Maybe, just maybe, there's a venturi effect of air passing through the permanent wound channel that creates a negative pressure effect in soft tissue. I don't know, perhaps this is also the reason why clothing gets sucked into the wound channel rather than pushed.

Perhaps this stupid trauma surgeon understands more about the venturi effect than you do, after all, that's how our capillary blood system works and he probably has a working knowledge of how our blood system works.

Those of us who grew up during the muscle car era probably know a little bit about venturi and carburetor rates of air flow and fuel mixture, also using a vacuum gauge for setting timing; ya think???

Even Elmer Keith, who probably doesn't have your physics background, knew that "big holes let lots of air in and lots of blood out".

Wound Trauma

If a bullet passes through a major blood distribution organ or a large blood-processing organ, rapidity of physiological incapacitation will be dependent on the rate and volume of blood loss, as well as the offender's individual tolerance for blood loss.

Shawn Dodson


There is a lot of tissue build up in front of a flat expanding JHP, but we also need to consider the shear velocity between the permanent/temporary wound cavities and what follows after the bullet.

Bullet cavitation flow illustrated;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/bulletcavitation-flow.jpg

I think I'll stick with the stupid doc; his research makes sense and your negative opinions don't. :wavey:

I'll also stick with the Colt in .38 Super and G20 for a double carry combination; never know when I'll do a BPW experiment along with my buds;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/aztrekker/At%20the%20range/Rulesforagunfight.jpg

Bob :cowboy:

Blast
10-09-2010, 02:46
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTHo0K2Sc0g&feature=related

GammaDriver
10-09-2010, 03:45
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTHo0K2Sc0g&feature=related

That, right there, proves something to me.

Dreamaster
10-09-2010, 06:24
My apologies to English and Canyonman, I know that I was ultimately responsible for starting a "word war" and that was far, far from my intent (quite opposite actually) but I really feel bad.

/Dreamaster passes around ice cold beer.

I'll be the designated driver tonight.
/Dreamaster drinks a Dr. Pepper.

DocKWL
10-09-2010, 07:46
It is not the only way to incapacitate but damage to the CNS is the only way to incapacitate rapidly. Direct damage to the CNS is almost always certain and immediate but is usually difficult to achieve and therefore has a poor probability of success as a strategy. Indirect damage to the CNS via a BPW effect has a larger probability of hitting the effective target but then only a probability of achieving the effect, depending on the round used and luck.

Jumping to the last point, since it is linked to the above, I have always said that people should shoot only what they can shoot with reasonable profficiency. Shooting what you can conceal can also reduce the power that can be handled and so in many cases only the lower range of the probability zone can be reached, if that. In those cases the individual has to use a different strategy. Just as we might choose to carry a .44 magnum in the woods but a .380 KelTec to a dinner party, it is all about compromise and one of the criteria is the ability of the individual.

There are plenty of creatures that 115 +P+ won't work for because they are too big for anything other than penetration or a lot more power. Although the BPW is a dynamic pressure wave which is directional forwards and to the side, pressure will still do what pressure does and with shallow penetration and high BPW much of the effect is wasted by bulging the hide or skin outwards and so failing to generate compression where it is needed to transmit far enough through the body. In the extreme, the pressure blows out a relativly shallow crater round the entry point. This creates a nasty wound but not rapid incapacitation. A pressure wave needs to be properly contained to produce a strong pressure pulse within blood vessels.

With regard to speed of fire I have only timed the difference over five rounds but I am only 0.1 to 0.2 seconds slower for 5 shots with the G20 than with the g19. The first shot is just as fast of course and I think that time cost is less than the value of the 10mm bullet.

I am glad you have talked yourself out of shooting all those hogs. The bunny huggers would have found you and exacted an awful revenge. The deer that did not collapse within a reasonable time were shot properly with a rifle and I doubt that they experienced much pain in the mean time.

English

It is not the only way to incapacitate but damage to the CNS is the only way to incapacitate rapidly. Direct damage to the CNS is almost always certain and immediate but is usually difficult to achieve and therefore has a poor probability of success as a strategy. Indirect damage to the CNS via a BPW effect has a larger probability of hitting the effective target but then only a probability of achieving the effect, depending on the round used and luck.

If this is understood, what is the point of the theory?

DocKWL
10-09-2010, 07:47
That, right there, proves something to me.

Do tell. What is it you are seeing and what does it prove to you?

Erich1B
10-09-2010, 09:22
Do tell. What is it you are seeing and what does it prove to you?

All that proved to me was that a gelatin block is no match for a .308 :rofl:

CanyonMan
10-09-2010, 10:39
English,



Well, here goes............

There are better ways to handle things when they come up, and I choose the 'wrong way' with English. It is not my way. But last night I choose to let things bother me. The 'content of my conversation' to English should not have taken place here, but privately.


I should not allow myself to be a part of jousting matches whether I am right, or whether I am wrong. The 'only wrong here' is to have even opened my mouth in the first place.


English, for that, 'opening my mouth'. I appologize.




CanyonMan

Glolt20-91
10-09-2010, 11:15
If this is understood, what is the point of the theory?

Maybe entertainment value? :dunno::supergrin:

Bob :cowboy:

uz2bUSMC
10-09-2010, 12:38
If this is understood, what is the point of the theory?

All these years and you still cannot understand it, amazing.

English
10-09-2010, 13:31
English,



.....


English, for that I appologize.




CanyonMan

CanyonMan, for that, thank you.

English

English
10-09-2010, 13:36
My apologies to English and Canyonman, I know that I was ultimately responsible for starting a "word war" and that was far, far from my intent (quite opposite actually) but I really feel bad.

/Dreamaster passes around ice cold beer.

I'll be the designated driver tonight.
/Dreamaster drinks a Dr. Pepper.

Dreamaster,
Thank you, but I am sure you do not need to feel guilty since there was no way you could have predicted what it led to. I certainly didn't. I enjoyed our conversation.

English

CanyonMan
10-09-2010, 13:49
My apologies to English and Canyonman, I know that I was ultimately responsible for starting a "word war" and that was far, far from my intent (quite opposite actually) but I really feel bad.

/Dreamaster passes around ice cold beer.

I'll be the designated driver tonight.
/Dreamaster drinks a Dr. Pepper.



Hey man 'no worries', it was not 'your' fault !


Stay safe !



CM

unit1069
10-09-2010, 17:02
Good to see that things are back on an even keel again. Thanks for patching things up, guys.

What the .308 round through the gelatin block demonstrates to me is that velocity creates a powerful wave that to my untrained eye must create physiological havoc upon animal or human tissue, nerves, and motor function. That is, if calibrated gel is a close replication of the consistency of human tissue what we see in the video must correlate to what happens in animal and human tissue when a bullet enters and passes through animal/human tissue. Otherwise, calibrated gel is a worthless scientific exercise.

The retort from anti-BPW advocates (including current and former LEO) is usually, "Sure, there's BPW from a powerful rifle projectile; but it doesn't exist in handgun velocities".

I read pro-BPW posts from those with better knowledge than me (including current and former LEO) who state, "The .357 Magnum is legendary for one-shot stops with certain rounds, even when the shot did not hit a vital organ or directly hit the central nervous system. Let's continue looking into the validity of handgun caliber BPW".

In my mind there must be a threshold combination of caliber/velocity where BPW comes into the equation. I expect that threshold effect would incrementally increase with each step-up in caliber and velocity to the point where some handgun calibers do and don't deliver some element of BPW according to the specific load shot. And if the borderline is such that certain rounds produce a BPW effect while other rounds in the same caliber don't produce one this would be the expected search area for scientific discovery.

uz2bUSMC
10-09-2010, 18:20
Unit1069,

It also must be remembered that it is just not caliber and velocity, it is construction, aswell. The bullet construction, as you know, is what will allow that given caliber at a given velocity the ability to perform at whatever level of BPW. A rifle can have little BPW if it interacts poorly with retarding forces where as a handgun may excel based mostly on construction.

Glolt20-91
10-09-2010, 23:14
Good to see that things are back on an even keel again. Thanks for patching things up, guys.

What the .308 round through the gelatin block demonstrates to me is that velocity creates a powerful wave that to my untrained eye must create physiological havoc upon animal or human tissue, nerves, and motor function. That is, if calibrated gel is a close replication of the consistency of human tissue what we see in the video must correlate to what happens in animal and human tissue when a bullet enters and passes through animal/human tissue. Otherwise, calibrated gel is a worthless scientific exercise.

The retort from anti-BPW advocates (including current and former LEO) is usually, "Sure, there's BPW from a powerful rifle projectile; but it doesn't exist in handgun velocities".

I read pro-BPW posts from those with better knowledge than me (including current and former LEO) who state, "The .357 Magnum is legendary for one-shot stops with certain rounds, even when the shot did not hit a vital organ or directly hit the central nervous system. Let's continue looking into the validity of handgun caliber BPW".

In my mind there must be a threshold combination of caliber/velocity where BPW comes into the equation. I expect that threshold effect would incrementally increase with each step-up in caliber and velocity to the point where some handgun calibers do and don't deliver some element of BPW according to the specific load shot. And if the borderline is such that certain rounds produce a BPW effect while other rounds in the same caliber don't produce one this would be the expected search area for scientific discovery.

Perhaps of interest is another quote from the trauma surgeon I quoted earlier.

The patient is a 23-year-old Asian male who presented to the Ben Taub General Hospital Emergency Department after sustaining a gunshot wound to the left neck. On arrival, the patient was noted to have stridor and hoarseness, as well as the inability to move his extremities. Radiographic examination in the shock room confirmed a cervical spine fracture of C6 and C7 with bullet fragments tracking from anterosuperiorly to posteroinferiorly. The bullet was visualized in the subcutaneous tissues of the left shoulder. The patient was taken emergently to the operating room where fiberoptic intubation was performed. The Otolaryngology Service was consulted intraoperatively to perform direct laryngoscopy and esophagoscopy, and there was noted to be a large amount of edema of the upper aerodigestive tract as well as a laceration in the hypopharynx. After insuring that the patient was stable, a CT scan was obtained to assess the damage to the cervical spine. A comminuted fracture of C6 and C7 was confirmed, and it was determined that no acute intervention was necessary for the spine injury by neurosurgery. A decision was made to take the patient back to the operating room for a neck exploration. On adequate exposure, there was noted to be perforating wounds to the thyrohyoid membrane and the posterior cervical esophagus. These injuries were repaired primarily, a tracheotomy was performed, and drains were placed and the wound closed. The postoperative course was complicated by the formation of a pharyngocutaneous fistula on post operative day #5, which eventually required operative irrigation and debridement. The remainder of the hospital course was unremarkable. The patient remained quadriplegic and was subsequently discharged to a rehabilitation facility and decannulated a month later.

Bob :cowboy:

Blast
10-10-2010, 01:49
Some more gel shots. Couldn't find .45, 10mm, .357, etc.

9mm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omUjwaGCSRo&feature=related

9mm Fang Face
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTwyxMNwHn4&feature=related

.223 Remington
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJsuu_wE-Wo&feature=related

Another .308
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-Zip_b-5RQ&feature=related

.50 BMG
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYSGuiko6Gg&feature=related

uz2bUSMC
10-10-2010, 05:58
So a guy was shot through the neck. The bullet had frag, dude was messed up. What was the point, did I miss something in that? :dunno: Just askin.

Glolt20-91
10-10-2010, 12:12
So a guy was shot through the neck. The bullet had frag, dude was messed up. What was the point, did I miss something in that? :dunno: Just askin.

You may want to re-read the quote, much more than just being "shot through the neck".

Bob :cowboy:

uz2bUSMC
10-10-2010, 12:17
You may want to re-read the quote, much more than just being "shot through the neck".

Bob :cowboy:


Yea, I got that. I don't see how that pertains to BPW or any sort of Venturi effect. Bullet went in, fragged, damage was done. Doesn't seem to be anymore specific than that.

Glolt20-91
10-10-2010, 12:43
Yea, I got that. I don't see how that pertains to BPW or any sort of Venturi effect. Bullet went in, fragged, damage was done. Doesn't seem to be anymore specific than that.

BPW effects the CNS how?

Bob :cowboy:

buster hyman
10-10-2010, 13:14
10mm for the win!

481
10-10-2010, 13:36
10mm for the win!

It is completely O/T, but I think that your screen name is the funniest I've ever read! :animlol:


I now return this thread to the crash course that it was on prior to my unscheduled interruption. :upeyes:

buster hyman
10-10-2010, 14:04
My Father was a drinking man with a strange sense of humor. It has made life interesting at times.

uz2bUSMC
10-10-2010, 14:25
BPW effects the CNS how?

Bob :cowboy:


A. Pressure directly effects the spinal cord in the area local to impact
B. Pressure through the circ system creates TBI

Still doesn't relate to the quoted material, so I ask again, what was the point of it?

Glolt20-91
10-10-2010, 14:58
A. Pressure directly effects the spinal cord in the area local to impact

Still doesn't relate to the quoted material, so I ask again, what was the point of it?

What happens when the spinal cord is directly hit???

Comminuted = Destroyed

After insuring that the patient was stable, a CT scan was obtained to assess the damage to the cervical spine. A comminuted fracture of C6 and C7 was confirmed, . . .

Bob :cowboy:

cowboy1964
10-10-2010, 16:26
Some more gel shots. Couldn't find .45, 10mm, .357, etc.

9mm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omUjwaGCSRo&feature=related

9mm Fang Face
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTwyxMNwHn4&feature=related

.223 Remington
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJsuu_wE-Wo&feature=related

Another .308
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-Zip_b-5RQ&feature=related

.50 BMG
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYSGuiko6Gg&feature=related

Cool stuff. The 9mm looks pretty wimpy there. The .223 was more impressive than I thought it would be. The .50 just obliterated the gel block.

I assume those gel blocks are 16" in length?

The 9mm cavity closely resembles the one in this famous pic that everyone knows and loves:

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e15/itsthewhitmans/jason/Gelatin.jpg

uz2bUSMC
10-10-2010, 17:29
What happens when the spinal cord is directly hit???

Comminuted = Destroyed



Bob :cowboy:

Exactly my point, that quote had no relevance. Thought I was missin something but I wasn't.

Glolt20-91
10-10-2010, 19:02
Exactly my point, that quote had no relevance. Thought I was missin something but I wasn't.

You're not missing anything, you're just out of ammo. :supergrin:

Bob :cowboy:

uz2bUSMC
10-10-2010, 19:03
You're not missing anything, you're just out of ammo. :supergrin:

Bob :cowboy:

Damnit man, well played.

Glolt20-91
10-10-2010, 19:59
Damnit man, well played.

Ah yes, not all brain cells have died; but there are times when I wonder what they are up to. :supergrin:

Bob :cowboy:

cole
10-10-2010, 19:59
...

1) ... gelatin block demonstrates to me is that velocity creates a powerful wave that to my untrained eye must create physiological havoc ... must correlate to what happens in animal and human tissue ....

2) The retort from anti-BPW advocates (including current and former LEO) is usually, "Sure, there's BPW from a powerful rifle projectile; but it doesn't exist in handgun velocities".

...

3) In my mind there must be a threshold combination of caliber/velocity where BPW comes into the equation. ...

1) One caveat, among many I'm sure, is that humans and animals are made of bone as well, and also have space between organs and tissue. Gel blocks are homogenous and will allow wave transfer to a greater magnitude than a non-homogeneous object.

2) I agree that the real question is: "Do modern, common service caliber loads in service handguns travel fast enough?". IMO, no, not to any reliable degree. So, I focus on the depth of hole made, handgun capacity, handgun size/weight and my proficiency with the handgun. To get reliable BPW, I would sacrifice key elements to effectiveness I value far more. That's not acceptable to me and I do NOT believe you can have it both ways in service handguns.

3) Surely there is a "threshold" because it certainly exists at rifle velocities. It's reasonable to conclude the CNS can be "stunned". However, again, we return to issue #2.