COR®BON; Stopping Power Myths Addressed! [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : COR®BON; Stopping Power Myths Addressed!


glock20c10mm
07-09-2011, 13:07
Stopping Power
Myths Addressed!


BIGGER BULLET?
In previous years, it has been thought that a heavier bullet of large diameter provided the best stopping power. This was the idea, behind the adoption of the .45 ACP round for U.S. military use, when only full metal jacketed bullets were available. However, we now know that bullet size alone is not the answer, since it is feasible that full metal jacket .45 bullets can whistle through an attacker without stopping him. Today, it is our contention that the best self defense loads are high velocity expanding bullets. It should be of adequate caliber that a person can handle safely and accurately. This load should emphasize speed over weight and be carried in a concealable handgun that is comfortable to carry. Bigger is not always better.


BETTER BULLET?

An effective self-defense load must deliver two basic fundamentals, bullet expansion and penetration. Some bullet designs look good in magazine ads, but larger expansion and deeper penetration are the critical elements to stopping a fight instantly. The construction of a bullet is one crucial factor of its performance. With traditional Hollowpoints, they must have a soft lead core and a thin jacket, along with a hollowpoint that is large enough for material to get inside and push outward on the walls to enhance its expansion. If the hollowpoint is too small or the lead is too hard then it will not expand enough to perform well. It also must have adequate penetration without over penetrating. This is the key to a better bullet. However, there is one exception to this, DPX. This bullet construction is all copper and has a large enough hollowpoint to exceed traditional expansion expectations.


FASTER BULLET? (Expansion is key, but Velocity is KING!)

High Velocity –The answer to reliable bullet expansion. High velocity is obtained by optimum choices in gun powder selection. The greater the velocity, the more violently the bullet will expand. This causes enhanced shock to the nervous system and increases the chance of incapacitation. High powered rifles are known to have the highest velocity. That is why a rifle’s stopping power is much more efficient than a handgun. When choosing a handgun for self-defense a person should choose ammunition that can supply the highest amount of velocity, safely. Bullet expansion in conjunction with high velocity is what creates a larger than caliber wound channel. It also facilitates transfer of energy and increases tissue damage. Bullets must expand every time for optimal performance. Hollowpoints that do not expand will stop fights with one shot, but only 60-70% of the time. Hollowpoints that expand will come in at 75-90%. Hollowpoints that expand violently are 85-95% effective.


GETTING TECHNICAL:

To simulate how a bullet will perform, we shoot our bullets into a medium called ordnance gelatin. Ordnance gelatin is designed to simulate the density and elasticity of human flesh. We cover the ordnance gelatin with four layers of 10oz denim to simulate heavy clothing. All COR®BON ammo is tested in ordnance gelatin, we measure the total penetration depth of the bullet, the recovered diameter and the percentage of weight retention. From these results, the size of the permanent (crush) and the temporary (stretch) cavities are calculated. Bullets that expand produce larger crush cavities than bullets which do not expand. As the volume of the crush cavity increases, so does the stopping power. The crush cavity is a good indicator of stopping power at lower impact velocities. The size and shape of the temporary cavity is also measured and evaluated. Bullets that expand violently produce larger, more effective stretch cavities than bullets which expand slowly or marginally. As the volume of this stretch cavity increases so does stopping power. The stretch cavity is a good indicator of stopping power at higher impact velocities. But expansion in ordnance gelatin tells us only part of the story. In an actual gunfight, slower Hollowpoints can often become plugged with clothing material. When a bullet lacks velocity it performs like a round nose bullet, expanding hardly at all. To be an effective stopper, a bullet must have enough velocity to expand whether plugged with debris or not. It needs to expand and dissipate its energy within the target to effectively create stopping power. In the case of Pow’RBall bullets, the hollowpoint is protected by a polymer ball which prevents plugging. The ball also delays expansion to allow the bullet to obtain optimum penetration before expansion begins. Lab tests and street results have shown that Hollowpoints that expand in gelatin will typically expand in street use. Hollowpoint bullets that barely expand in gelatin do not expand in real gunfights unless bone is hit. There are many loads sold to civilians and law enforcement that do not have enough velocity to insure reliable expansion. All COR®BON defensive ammo like our Traditional JHPs, Pow’RBall, and DPX are designed with adequate velocity to expand in gelatin...or bad guys. COR®BON ammo expands reliably and creates Stopping Power!


COR®BON AMMO

Every production lot of COR®BON ammo is tested and re-tested to assure our customers the very best ammunition they can purchase. COR®BON ammo consistently ranks at the top of the class in actual one shot stops. We have developed a variety of loads for various real life situations. All our customers need to do is select the type of load that meets their needs.Our company offers live technical support to answer any questions and help you decide. We believe that if you choose COR®BON, you will have the best ammo with the highest probability of a one shot stop. Why take chances with anything else? With these ever changing events in our country, it is important that each American retain their rights protected by our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is up to us as free people, to keep the constitution as our forefathers wrote it. I’m amazed by their great foresight and wisdom. Protect your Gun Rights and they will protect your freedom.


Peter Pi, Sr., President COR®BON/Glaser

Z28ricer
07-09-2011, 13:11
But expansion in ordnance gelatin tells us only part of the story. In an actual gunfight, slower Hollowpoints can often become plugged with clothing material. When a bullet lacks velocity it performs like a round nose bullet, expanding hardly at all. To be an effective stopper, a bullet must have enough velocity to expand whether plugged with debris or not.


And from the emphasis on velocity section:

Bullets must expand every time for optimal performance. Hollowpoints that do not expand will stop fights with one shot, but only 60-70% of the time. Hollowpoints that expand will come in at 75-90%. Hollowpoints that expand violently are 85-95% effective.


Weird that SLOW .45acp, hst, gold dots, and Ranger-T, reliably expand in testing, and real world use.

:upeyes:

cowboy1964
07-09-2011, 14:14
"Bullet expansion in conjunction with high velocity is what creates a larger than caliber wound channel. It also facilitates transfer of energy and increases tissue damage."

Not in handguns.

Pardoner
07-09-2011, 14:30
Why is someone posting a cut and paste of Corbon' cool-aid?

If we wanted to read one of their ads, then we would go to their website.

I don't care how much a better or faster bullet in their opinion does when they can't load them without experiencing setback.

Z28ricer
07-09-2011, 14:34
Why is someone posting a cut and paste of Corbon' cool-aid?

If we wanted to read one of their ads, then we would go to their website.

I don't care how much a better or faster bullet in their opinion does when they can't load them without experiencing setback.

Cause he's still trying to push FPS as a wounding mechanism.

Weird how available pictures of ballistic gelatin testing, showing potential wound tract, the .45acp stuff, doesnt differ noticeably from the .357sig, with a giant 500 fps (roughly) difference. :dunno:

PghJim
07-09-2011, 15:13
Cause he's still trying to push FPS as a wounding mechanism.

Weird how available pictures of ballistic gelatin testing, showing potential wound tract, the .45acp stuff, doesnt differ noticeably from the .357sig, with a giant 500 fps (roughly) difference. :dunno:

I think what he is trying to say is that an ammo munufacturer, who has skin in the game, believes that more fps and violent expansion adds to the effectiveness.

By the way, I saw you chart. Where did you have to go to find a 357sig that only went 1,319fps. I get over 1,500fps from my DT load.

Z28ricer
07-09-2011, 15:22
I think what he is trying to say is that an ammo munufacturer, who has skin in the game, believes that more fps and violent expansion adds to the effectiveness.

By the way, I saw you chart. Where did you have to go to find a 357sig that only went 1,319fps. I get over 1,500fps from my DT load.


Federal lists their HST at 1350 fps.

I believe RangerT in sig is also rated right at 1350 fps.

violent expansion (fast and early) i'll buy into, but i'm more interested in a company that does this by bullet design, not using a velocity band-aid.

HST and Ranger-T expands fast, they say clothing plugs slow rounds and they dont expand, ranger t, hst, gold dots, have been proven to expand reliably in .45acp, in clothing testing, go figure, slow rounds, without all this extra velocity, expanding, just like the ad indicates they wont.

Velocity needs to be appropriate for the bullet, and its design. Its been show that overdriving a bullet velocity wise has adverse effects also, and why 10mm guys often want to cry discrepancy against tests because they have to use bullets designed for .40S&W velocites, oh well then, just stick with whats working, proven to work, and supported by all of the major makers.

Go figure, no HST offered in 10mm, no RangerT offered in 10mm, no speer gold dot LE in 10mm from speer.

Apparently 10mm and uber velocity is such a great idea, that none of the top 3 offer their top loadings in a cartridge for it. :dunno:

RichardB
07-09-2011, 16:14
Go figure, no HST offered in 10mm, no RangerT offered in 10mm, no speer gold dot LE in 10mm from speer.

Apparently 10mm and uber velocity is such a great idea, that none of the top 3 offer their top loadings in a cartridge for it. :dunno:

Could it be that those companies view the 10mm market in terms of hunting, not a police/self defense round thus needing to bullets of a different design?

AWESOMO 4000
07-09-2011, 16:15
The best .357SIG load I've tried yet is probably the regular Plain-Jane 125gr CorBon JHP. Loaded hot like it's supposed to be. Expanded the greatest, most accurate, had noticeably more pop to it, and held together reasonably well, and seemed to penetrate a hair more than the others, about the same as the Gold Dot. It's expensive, but it works. Gelatin is cool and everything but you don't really hear about CorBon ever failing to expand or work. Their 115gr +P 9mm load was among the best in the 1990's.

THplanes
07-09-2011, 16:59
Cause he's still trying to push FPS as a wounding mechanism.

Weird how available pictures of ballistic gelatin testing, showing potential wound tract, the .45acp stuff, doesnt differ noticeably from the .357sig, with a giant 500 fps (roughly) difference. :dunno:

It's not just about velocity. Diameter is also a factor. The TSC size is about energy transfer to the tissue. The larger diameter of the bullet, the faster the energy will be transfered. The higher the velocity of a bullet, the faster the energy will be transfered. So it's really a sliding scale that depends on the final, expanded, bullet diameter and the velocity of said bullet. The smaller the bullet the faster it has to go to produce a certain size TSC. The larger the bullet the slower it can go to produce a certain size TSC.

As I've pointed out in the other thread, what you see in that chart is an artifact produced because ballistic gell cracks at handgun velocities. When viewed from only one perspective you don't get a clear picture of the size of the TSC. It's not a true measure of the TSC size.

Angry Fist
07-09-2011, 17:09
10mm DT 155 gr. Barnes TAC-XP for me.


Not a nuke, but who wants to find out? :supergrin:

THplanes
07-09-2011, 17:23
Federal lists their HST at 1350 fps.

HST and Ranger-T expands fast, they say clothing plugs slow rounds and they dont expand, ranger t, hst, gold dots, have been proven to expand reliably in .45acp, in clothing testing, go figure, slow rounds, without all this extra velocity, expanding, just like the ad indicates they wont.

I don't know about the .45, but some RangerT has been shown to plug and fail to expand in 4 layer denim tests.

Go figure, no HST offered in 10mm, no RangerT offered in 10mm, no speer gold dot LE in 10mm from speer.

Apparently 10mm and uber velocity is such a great idea, that none of the top 3 offer their top loadings in a cartridge for it. :dunno:

The official policy of both companies is HST and RangerT are sold to LEO only. Since LEO don't use 10mm there is no reason HST and RangerT would be loaded in 10mm.

Whether 10mm and uber velocity is a great idea or not doesn't matter. What matters is whether it's used by LEOs. It's not used by them because they require a caliber that can be used by officers of all sizes. The 10mm doesn't fit this need for one size to fit all. It has is too large and has too much recoil for occasional shooters and most LEO are just that. They shoot when required to qualify. The suitability of the 10mm for us certified gun nuts is a whole nother story. Some like it, so don't.

glock20c10mm
07-09-2011, 18:05
Cause he's still trying to push FPS as a wounding mechanism.
I have never said that, pushed that, or believed that, and, have corrected you on that.

So, what is the reason you are still saying it, being that it is NOT true, and it has already been pointed out to you on NUMEROUS occasions that it is NOT true?

glock20c10mm
07-09-2011, 18:19
Why is someone posting a cut and paste of Corbon' cool-aid?

If we wanted to read one of their ads, then we would go to their website.

I don't care how much a better or faster bullet in their opinion does when they can't load them without experiencing setback.
Why are you here then? Obviously a whole lot of people out there purchase CORBON ammo or they wouldn't be in business. Likewise, CORBON is far from the only ammo manufacturer who has run into setback, which I expect by now has been addressed and fixed by any and ALL manufacturers who bumped into the issue. You disagree? Or are you just having a bad day?

agtman
07-09-2011, 18:28
The official policy of both companies is HST and RangerT are sold to LEO only. Since LEO don't use 10mm there is no reason HST and RangerT would be loaded in 10mm.

Whether 10mm and uber velocity is a great idea or not doesn't matter. What matters is whether it's used by LEOs. It's not used by them because they require a caliber that can be used by officers of all sizes. The 10mm doesn't fit this need for one size to fit all. It has is too large and has too much recoil for occasional shooters and most LEO are just that. They shoot when required to qualify. The suitability of the 10mm for us certified gun nuts is a whole nother story. Some like it, so don't.

I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that.

There are any number of Depts not mandating a uniform caliber where officers can carry a 10mm pistol provided they've qualified with it, or can do so using one as a second, back-up, or off-duty gun - again, provided they qualify with it. :whistling:

That said, as far as Corbon's 10mm ammo, they offer only mid-range or, at best, upper mid-range 10mm EDC/duty use loads, similar to the energy level Georgia Arms markets (Corbon does offer two separate 10mm "hunting" loads).

CB does not load their 10mm product to the same high-performance level as Buffalo Bore, Double Tap, Reed's Ammo, or more recently, Swamp Fox, or even the ancient original Norma levels.

I'm not saying CB's 10mm is "bad," just don't mistake it for the full-strength stuff ... 'cause it ain't.

:cool:

cowboy1964
07-09-2011, 19:27
10mm is still the official caliber for some departments. To say none use it is a falsehood.

9mm +p+
07-09-2011, 20:14
Horse ****, the 45's basic ballistics have been killing things 2 and 4 legged since the 1870's, still doing it today. All the whizbang velocity in a handgun does not guarantee expansion, so a bigger bullet makes more sense to me. You wanna rock a 9mm feel free, it'll work but i'll stick with my old school 45 ACP thanks. Ask some African guides which works better Weatherby's super high velocity stuff or just regular rounds, see what you find out.

unit1069
07-09-2011, 20:26
10mm is still the official caliber for some departments. To say none use it is a falsehood.

It's my understanding that some Northern European countries issue the 10mm pistol to officers stationed above the Arctic Circle who may be expected to encounter polar bears. I also believe some Alaskan LEO carry Glock G-20 pistols.

It's also my understanding that polar bears are the largest carnivorous land animals in the world, which indicates the respect Denmark and other Northern European countries have for 10mm caliber. I can't tell you what the issue rounds are but anyone with the persistence to find out ought to get an answer.

unit1069
07-09-2011, 20:33
The best .357SIG load I've tried yet is probably the regular Plain-Jane 125gr CorBon JHP. Loaded hot like it's supposed to be. Expanded the greatest, most accurate, had noticeably more pop to it, and held together reasonably well, and seemed to penetrate a hair more than the others, about the same as the Gold Dot. It's expensive, but it works. Gelatin is cool and everything but you don't really hear about CorBon ever failing to expand or work. Their 115gr +P 9mm load was among the best in the 1990's.

That's why I don't buy Cor-Bon.

Back when I owned a pocket .380ACP I tried out some Cor-Bon DPX and in less than a 20-round box I realized I'd need a second mortgage to afford enough CB DPX ammo for testing, much less carry inventory.

I'm not saying it's not worthy ammo; I'm only saying with all the quality alternatives available the Cor-Bon line of ammo isn't cost-effective for those of us on five-figure incomes.

unit1069
07-09-2011, 20:35
Velocity needs to be appropriate for the bullet, and its design. Its been show that overdriving a bullet velocity wise has adverse effects ...

That's my understanding also. It's critical to have the right power load matched to bullet design for optimum performance.

THplanes
07-09-2011, 21:07
10mm is still the official caliber for some departments. To say none use it is a falsehood.


OK, I worded it poorly. There are no large US departments that issue the 10mm. Without a large department or several large departments it's probably not worth the cost of developing a real 10mm bullet for a real 10mm load.

I knew some departments would allow officers to carry there own 10mm. I didn't think anyone issued it department wide. Do you happen to know what departments issue it. I'd be interested to see what ammo they use.

481
07-09-2011, 22:37
But expansion in ordnance gelatin tells us only part of the story. In an actual gunfight, slower Hollowpoints can often become plugged with clothing material. When a bullet lacks velocity it performs like a round nose bullet, expanding hardly at all. To be an effective stopper, a bullet must have enough velocity to expand whether plugged with debris or not.


And from the emphasis on velocity section:

Bullets must expand every time for optimal performance. Hollowpoints that do not expand will stop fights with one shot, but only 60-70% of the time. Hollowpoints that expand will come in at 75-90%. Hollowpoints that expand violently are 85-95% effective.


Weird that SLOW .45acp, hst, gold dots, and Ranger-T, reliably expand in testing, and real world use.

:upeyes:

How very interesting to note that nowhere in the initial drive-by "cut and paste" above does Corbon list BPW as an important or significant effect in the terminal performance of any their ammunition.

Very interesting, indeed.

Zombie Steve
07-09-2011, 22:39
What... no expanding rotational cone of NyTrillium matrix particles, causing neurological collapse to the central nervous system?


http://www.extremeshockusa.com/gfx_splash/agent_stop.jpg

Z28ricer
07-09-2011, 23:15
I'm just going to bottleneck a 10mm case down to .177 caliber, and put crossman HP pellets in.

Imagine the velocity, and nuclear bpw that will happen !

Blood vessels will be obliterated.


After plenty more reading, on both sides of the arguement, i've unfortunately come across existing posts, where 481, Glolt20-91, and others have already had these same arguements with 10mmnutso, and he refused to accept proof there.

May as well just stop, sit aside and laugh, as proven rounds, over countless years, just dont work worth a damn, because they are not the almighty 10mm, handloaded, to the limits of its capabilities, for SD.

cowboy1964
07-09-2011, 23:16
How very interesting to note that nowhere in the initial drive-by "cut and paste" above does Corbon list BPW as an important or significant effect in the terminal performance of any their ammunition.

Very interesting, indeed.

They most certainly do refer to it. They don't call it BPW by name but they do say this:

The greater the velocity, the more violently the bullet will expand. This causes enhanced shock to the nervous system and increases the chance of incapacitation.

It also facilitates transfer of energy and increases tissue damage.

Z28ricer
07-09-2011, 23:23
I just want to see corbons report on 14.5mm stopping power.

http://blog.usnavyseals.com/2010/04/live-ammunition-removed-from-afghan-soldier%E2%80%99s-head.html


:rofl:

CDW4ME
07-10-2011, 06:09
I'm thinking that a 230 gr. 45 acp Ranger T with about 400# of KE doesn't lack stopping power against humans (bad ones of course).

I also like the 357 SIG and 40 for when only a Glock subcompact will do.

Straight_Shooter
07-10-2011, 06:23
I'll just leave this here. (http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm)

unit1069
07-10-2011, 07:38
I'll just leave this here. (http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm)

Thanks for posting that link to the Urey Report. I was going to do it in a previous thread but that thread was closed before I could get to it.

Reading the Urey Report the author makes it very clear that since calibrated ballistics gel is the only consistent method to test the effectiveness of handgun rounds that method is the only one that can be relied upon to base handgun caliber/ammunition decisions.

The author also goes on to note the impossibility of reliably and accurately reconstructing each and every individual shooting incident --- since each is a unique event of its own --- and makes it clear that approaching the issue by any other method that cannot be duplicated in a laboratory amounts to hearsay.

Facklerites, however, have taken the Urey Report and used it as a club against those who do believe gathering facts and information about LEO "street shootings" is a valid and important source of information about "what works". The Urey Report discounts this method as unscientific and unverifiable because of the impossibility of accurately measuring events at the time those events are taking place; but nowhere in the Report does the author discount the honesty and goodwill of those whose only alleged sin is their attempt to add to the overall body of knowledge valuable to LEO, scientists, and law-abiding civilians alike.

Some Facklerites obsession with attacking those who are tying to add to this body of knowledge often tips over the edge into bizarre rants. For example, if you search Shawn Dodson's web site you'll see an article entitled "Myths ... ". (I believe) Myth #3 descends into a bizarre rant against anyone who states that Facklerite orthodoxy counts penetration as paramount. Dodson immediately attacks, stating that anyone believing that Fackler's priority is penetration doesn't understand Fackler's priorities. Dodson incomprehensibly claims that "hitting the vitals" is Fackler's priority and not penetration. Dodson goes out of his way to emphasize this point. How bizarre, as the Urey Report makes the very point --- relying on Fackler --- that penetration is everything because a bullet must penetrate a sufficient depth to hit a vital organ, major blood vessel, or CNS to successfully terminate a deadly encounter.

Reading Myth #3 gives one the opportunity to consider for oneself the degree to which some Facklerites have entrenched themselves in a kind of fortress mentality; and reading Dodson's bizarre insistence on "hitting vital organs" while denouncing those who believe "penetration" is Fackler's priority gives one the understanding that Dodson's rant amounts to a distinction without a difference, such is his hair-trigger response to any perceived enemy. You immediately understand the poor man's delirium as a result of an obsession to see attacks against his established orthodoxy even in cases where none exist.

We often see this mentality displayed on Glock Talk, where some Facklerites maintain that BPW proponents are searching for a "magic bullet" no matter how many times BPW advocates point to their complete acceptance of Urey's list of ballistics priorities as perquisite to any consideration of possible BPW quality of specific rounds.

I like a good honest discussion and debate and try my best to give credence to the goodwill of everyone on every side of the issues. Marshall and Sanow, as well as others who gather valuable and important information about "street shootings", are needlessly and unfairly attacked for their efforts. The Urey Report explains how impossible a task it is to quantify factors that can't realistically be scientifically quantified or cataloged, but that doesn't mean this information is worthless. I happen to believe it's extremely credible and valuable in the same way oral histories of cultures and peoples are recognized by anthropologists as indispensable to their field of scientific study. I wish the white lab coats would grant the same respect to their comrades working to document the oral histories of LEO street shootings that compliments lab science, not detracts from it.

Mwinter
07-10-2011, 08:01
Handguns, specifically popular service/CCW cartridges like 9x19, .45acp, 10mm, .40SW, et al, poke holes in things. That's it. Nebulous, poorly applied terms like 'energy dump' and 'shock' are not wounding mechanisms. Cutting, crushing, tearing = wounding mechanisms, handgun or otherwise.

I'm a huge fan of the 10mm, but large ammunition makers have regarded as a "dead caliber" in LE for many years. Besides, if ATK or anyone else made a LE 10mm load using the most modern JHP designs (HST, etc.), it'd most likely be a Fed-lite .40SW-spec load anyways. Large contracts drive manufacturers, which in turn can trickle down (but not always in any useful or desirable form....lousy 'civvie' Winchester not-quite-Talons anyone?) to the commercial market.

I'm interested to test the DT 125gr 10mm Barnes load, as this HP is supposedly designed specifically for the fast-10mm performance envelope. I'd also love to see Hawk or another maker come out with 155, 180, and 200gr MODERN defensive-use stuff for the 10mm.

mastrbloata
07-10-2011, 08:39
I expect Mr. Shovel will be along any moment now...

happyguy
07-10-2011, 09:08
I would say that velocity and rapid expansion are important, but rank way lower than consistent expansion and sufficient penetration.

I have seen the difference in impact between typical service calibers and the higher velocity ones like .357 Sig and .44 Mag in ordnance gelatin . The higher velocity rounds have a far more violent impact than the others. Whether this translates into more stopping power or not is open to conjecture but I suspect that it would at least have a psychological effect.

In the final analysis, if the guy stops then the bullet did it's job. Whether he was unable to continue, or just unwilling to continue, the fact that he stopped doing what it was that was making you shoot him is what is important.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

PghJim
07-10-2011, 09:51
I'll just leave this here. (http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm)

I note this from the Bible you have been quoting:

Psychological factors are probably the most important relative to achieving rapid incapacitaion from gunshot wounds to the torso.

They do not know that and do use the word "probably". From what I read from this report if this unknown incapacitation does not occur you are in for a hell of a time either getting a CNS hit, or waiting for the guy to bleed out.

I do not buy the psychological and this FBI report does not REALLY know it either. This is the area that the, "penetration and expansion are the only thing that matters crowd", will not explore. From what I read in this FBI report, it really does not matter how large the expansion or deep the penetration, if you do not get this "psychological" incapacitation you are waiting for a bleed out.

481
07-10-2011, 10:02
They most certainly do refer to it. They don't call it BPW by name but they do say this:

The greater the velocity, the more violently the bullet will expand. This causes enhanced shock to the nervous system and increases the chance of incapacitation.

It also facilitates transfer of energy and increases tissue damage.

Wrong. That you choose to interpret the wording (that you highlighted) as you have does not make it so. There are many mechanisms that can be defined as "shock" and they do not specify to which mechanism they refer.

If you perceive some sort of an inference or indirect reference to something not named specifically in the article then that is simply your perception, but not necessarily reality.

If the engineering staff at Corbon intended to claim that BPW was a legitimate or significant mechanism in the terminal performance of their ammunition, they would have mentioned it specifically by name, yet nowhere in the above "drive-by cut and paste" is the term BPW used.

It is nice to see that the folks at Corbon are not interested in the pseudo-science (of BPW) being promulgated as unassailable fact by those who would have us all on our knees before the altar of what is so clearly junk science.

Nice try. :wavey:

English
07-10-2011, 10:05
Unit1069,
Excellent post!

English

English
07-10-2011, 10:46
Handguns, specifically popular service/CCW cartridges like 9x19, .45acp, 10mm, .40SW, et al, poke holes in things. That's it. Nebulous, poorly applied terms like 'energy dump' and 'shock' are not wounding mechanisms. Cutting, crushing, tearing = wounding mechanisms, handgun or otherwise.

I'm a huge fan of the 10mm, but large ammunition makers have regarded as a "dead caliber" in LE for many years. Besides, if ATK or anyone else made a LE 10mm load using the most modern JHP designs (HST, etc.), it'd most likely be a Fed-lite .40SW-spec load anyways. Large contracts drive manufacturers, which in turn can trickle down (but not always in any useful or desirable form....lousy 'civvie' Winchester not-quite-Talons anyone?) to the commercial market.

I'm interested to test the DT 125gr 10mm Barnes load, as this HP is supposedly designed specifically for the fast-10mm performance envelope. I'd also love to see Hawk or another maker come out with 155, 180, and 200gr MODERN defensive-use stuff for the 10mm.

I agree with your second and third pargraphs but have to take issue with the first. No bullet just pokes a hole. A sword can be said to poke a hole because it is a low energy device. It pokes a hole but causes very little cellular damage beyond the surface of that hole. A bullet is a high energy device for most of its penetration which does damage by creating a pressure wave which bursts cells, tears tissue and bruises tissue. The permanent cavity of a bullet wound is essentially the volume which used to be occupied by intact cells but is now occupied by burst cells or nothing. Outside that zone is torn tissue where the cells are mainly intact but which will fall back into place after the bullet has passed. Clearly this zone of tissue will be non funtional until healing has taken place. Outside that, tissue will be bruised and will have reduced function or be non functional for a short to an extended period. All of these types of damage will have an effect on the fighting ability of the shot individual.

In other words the damage caused by a bullet is much wider than that caused by poking a hole and terms like energy dump and neural shock, though nebulous or ignorant, are refering, no matter how incompetently, to the greater effects of bullet wound trauma and the fact that current orthodoxy does not explain some of these effects. The simple fact is that many people who have been shot have collapsed in far less time than can be explained by blood loss but have not been hit in the CNS. The people who have reported these incidents can generally be considered to be competent witnesses and they are not talking about psychological stops where the individual sits down but remains conscious and genrally sentient or says, "I've been shot!" or "Don't shoot!" These are surely effects that deserve serious study.

English

PghJim
07-10-2011, 11:21
I agree with your second and third pargraphs but have to take issue with the first. No bullet just pokes a hole. A sword can be said to poke a hole because it is a low energy device. It pokes a hole but causes very little cellular damage beyond the surface of that hole. A bullet is a high energy device for most of its penetration which does damage by creating a pressure wave which bursts cells, tears tissue and bruises tissue. The permanent cavity of a bullet wound is essentially the volume which used to be occupied by intact cells but is now occupied by burst cells or nothing. Outside that zone is torn tissue where the cells are mainly intact but which will fall back into place after the bullet has passed. Clearly this zone of tissue will be non funtional until healing has taken place. Outside that, tissue will be bruised and will have reduced function or be non functional for a short to an extended period. All of these types of damage will have an effect on the fighting ability of the shot individual.

In other words the damage caused by a bullet is much wider than that caused by poking a hole and terms like energy dump and neural shock, though nebulous or ignorant, are refering, no matter how incompetently, to the greater effects of bullet wound trauma and the fact that current orthodoxy does not explain some of these effects. The simple fact is that many people who have been shot have collapsed in far less time than can be explained by blood loss but have not been hit in the CNS. The people who have reported these incidents can generally be considered to be competent witnesses and they are not talking about psychological stops where the individual sits down but remains conscious and genrally sentient or says, "I've been shot!" or "Don't shoot!" These are surely effects that deserve serious study.

English

English - Thank you. You have stated something very clearly that I have been finding hard explain.

PghJim
07-10-2011, 11:40
I like a good honest discussion and debate and try my best to give credence to the goodwill of everyone on every side of the issues. Marshall and Sanow, as well as others who gather valuable and important information about "street shootings", are needlessly and unfairly attacked for their efforts. The Urey Report explains how impossible a task it is to quantify factors that can't realistically be scientifically quantified or cataloged, but that doesn't mean this information is worthless. I happen to believe it's extremely credible and valuable in the same way oral histories of cultures and peoples are recognized by anthropologists as indispensable to their field of scientific study. I wish the white lab coats would grant the same respect to their comrades working to document the oral histories of LEO street shootings that compliments lab science, not detracts from it.

unit1069 - Excellent - the whole post. I wanted to make a comment on this. Ever since the harsh and unfair treatment of Marshall and Sanow, credible people who have observations and theories that do not fit into the current orthodoxy do not come forward for fear of being publically ridiculed. They may not have evidence or full explanations of what they have observed, so when they see the withering attack on Marshall they are justifiably quiet. I just picked up the last Marshall and Sanow book, and although there are holes in it, I cannot not discount to body of knowledge gathered. Besides Marshall and Sanow, there are several other credible people in the book who are of the same mindset.

glock20c10mm
07-10-2011, 13:43
unit1069 - Excellent - the whole post. I wanted to make a comment on this. Ever since the harsh and unfair treatment of Marshall and Sanow, credible people who have observations and theories that do not fit into the current orthodoxy do not come forward for fear of being publically ridiculed. They may not have evidence or full explanations of what they have observed, so when they see the withering attack on Marshall they are justifiably quiet. I just picked up the last Marshall and Sanow book, and although there are holes in it, I cannot not discount to body of knowledge gathered. Besides Marshall and Sanow, there are several other credible people in the book who are of the same mindset.
Great point that is often overlooked, along with being a "sword in the side" to those that choose to ignore reality and fact, that if they consciously realize, hope from a dishonest way of thinking the word doesn't get out.

Thanks for putting it out there. It has always amazed me how some individuals fear truth in relation to a change in fact compared to past beliefs.

glock20c10mm
07-10-2011, 13:44
Thanks for posting that link to the Urey Report. I was going to do it in a previous thread but that thread was closed before I could get to it.

Reading the Urey Report the author makes it very clear that since calibrated ballistics gel is the only consistent method to test the effectiveness of handgun rounds that method is the only one that can be relied upon to base handgun caliber/ammunition decisions.

The author also goes on to note the impossibility of reliably and accurately reconstructing each and every individual shooting incident --- since each is a unique event of its own --- and makes it clear that approaching the issue by any other method that cannot be duplicated in a laboratory amounts to hearsay.

Facklerites, however, have taken the Urey Report and used it as a club against those who do believe gathering facts and information about LEO "street shootings" is a valid and important source of information about "what works". The Urey Report discounts this method as unscientific and unverifiable because of the impossibility of accurately measuring events at the time those events are taking place; but nowhere in the Report does the author discount the honesty and goodwill of those whose only alleged sin is their attempt to add to the overall body of knowledge valuable to LEO, scientists, and law-abiding civilians alike.

Some Facklerites obsession with attacking those who are tying to add to this body of knowledge often tips over the edge into bizarre rants. For example, if you search Shawn Dodson's web site you'll see an article entitled "Myths ... ". (I believe) Myth #3 descends into a bizarre rant against anyone who states that Facklerite orthodoxy counts penetration as paramount. Dodson immediately attacks, stating that anyone believing that Fackler's priority is penetration doesn't understand Fackler's priorities. Dodson incomprehensibly claims that "hitting the vitals" is Fackler's priority and not penetration. Dodson goes out of his way to emphasize this point. How bizarre, as the Urey Report makes the very point --- relying on Fackler --- that penetration is everything because a bullet must penetrate a sufficient depth to hit a vital organ, major blood vessel, or CNS to successfully terminate a deadly encounter.

Reading Myth #3 gives one the opportunity to consider for oneself the degree to which some Facklerites have entrenched themselves in a kind of fortress mentality; and reading Dodson's bizarre insistence on "hitting vital organs" while denouncing those who believe "penetration" is Fackler's priority gives one the understanding that Dodson's rant amounts to a distinction without a difference, such is his hair-trigger response to any perceived enemy. You immediately understand the poor man's delirium as a result of an obsession to see attacks against his established orthodoxy even in cases where none exist.

We often see this mentality displayed on Glock Talk, where some Facklerites maintain that BPW proponents are searching for a "magic bullet" no matter how many times BPW advocates point to their complete acceptance of Urey's list of ballistics priorities as perquisite to any consideration of possible BPW quality of specific rounds.

I like a good honest discussion and debate and try my best to give credence to the goodwill of everyone on every side of the issues. Marshall and Sanow, as well as others who gather valuable and important information about "street shootings", are needlessly and unfairly attacked for their efforts. The Urey Report explains how impossible a task it is to quantify factors that can't realistically be scientifically quantified or cataloged, but that doesn't mean this information is worthless. I happen to believe it's extremely credible and valuable in the same way oral histories of cultures and peoples are recognized by anthropologists as indispensable to their field of scientific study. I wish the white lab coats would grant the same respect to their comrades working to document the oral histories of LEO street shootings that compliments lab science, not detracts from it.
Well researched and explained. Thanks!

glock20c10mm
07-10-2011, 13:55
Wrong. That you choose to interpret the wording (that you highlighted) as you have does not make it so. There are many mechanisms that can be defined as "shock" and they do not specify to which mechanism they refer.

If you perceive some sort of an inference or indirect reference to something not named specifically in the article then that is simply your perception, but not necessarily reality.

If the engineering staff at Corbon intended to claim that BPW was a legitimate or significant mechanism in the terminal performance of their ammunition, they would have mentioned it specifically by name, yet nowhere in the above "drive-by cut and paste" is the term BPW used.
And somehow, nowhere in the Fackler et al supposed documents is the term "BPW" or "ballistic pressure wave" used either. Therefore they never discredited it. Thanks for indirectly pointing that out!:thumbsup:

It is nice to see that the folks at Corbon are not interested in the pseudo-science (of BPW) being promulgated as unassailable fact by those who would have us all on our knees before the altar of what is so clearly junk science.

Nice try. :wavey:
Wow, you don't say! Claiming Dr. Courtney's work; "...is so clearly junk science." You know what, it would be nothing short of wonderful is you could simply point out the work(s) showing this so clearly to be the case!!! And to think this whole time I thought differently.

Thanks in Advance!:wavey:

glock20c10mm
07-10-2011, 14:02
Horse ****, the 45's basic ballistics have been killing things 2 and 4 legged since the 1870's, still doing it today. All the whizbang velocity in a handgun does not guarantee expansion, so a bigger bullet makes more sense to me. You wanna rock a 9mm feel free, it'll work but i'll stick with my old school 45 ACP thanks. Ask some African guides which works better Weatherby's super high velocity stuff or just regular rounds, see what you find out.
That would be the greatest post in this thread thus far if CorBon or anyone else was talking about killing. As we're not, the above post I quoted is irrelevant. Thanks for playing though!:wavey:

glock20c10mm
07-10-2011, 14:20
I'm just going to bottleneck a 10mm case down to .177 caliber, and put crossman HP pellets in.

Imagine the velocity, and nuclear bpw that will happen !

Blood vessels will be obliterated.
:shakehead: There you are again, stuck on more velocity being the single attributing factor to more BPW, to which it isn't always. No wonder your confused. Would you like me to explain further, or would you simply choose to ignore that facts as usual?

After plenty more reading, on both sides of the arguement, i've unfortunately come across existing posts, where 481, Glolt20-91, and others have already had these same arguements with 10mmnutso, and he refused to accept proof there.
Glolt20-91 has claimed everything from venturi effects to momentum models proving otherwise, but failed. 481 argues: credentials, grammer, and wording, while at the same time failing to post much of anything otherwise. Dr. Martin Fackler has NEVER argued BPW. Please post what you feel was proof that has been wrongly refused by 10mmnutso so we might get to the bottom of your allegation that we may have missed as to stay fair in the debate. Thanks in advance!:wavey:

May as well just stop, sit aside and laugh, as proven rounds, over countless years, just dont work worth a damn, because they are not the almighty 10mm, handloaded, to the limits of its capabilities, for SD.
Which proven rounds are you referring to?

Z28ricer
07-10-2011, 14:27
Which proven rounds are you referring to?

9mm, .40S&W, .45acp

You know, stuff that works every single day in the real world, without being loaded to 1700 fps :upeyes:

glock20c10mm
07-10-2011, 14:43
9mm, .40S&W, .45acp

You know, stuff that works every single day in the real world, without being loaded to 1700 fps :upeyes:
What is your definition of "countless years"? Also, are you referring to every load available in all 3 cartridges you mentioned, or just the ones from countless years ago?

Z28ricer
07-10-2011, 14:53
What is your definition of "countless years"? Also, are you referring to every load available in all 3 cartridges you mentioned, or just the ones from countless years ago?

Every load, definetly not, its been shown repeatedly that certain available cartridges just dont work all that well. I've said over and over again, and the only thing that seems to correlate consistently with effective stopping:

Velocity has been proven that it must be appropriate for bullet design, and weight, as well as having a design in the first place that will actually work.

happyguy
07-10-2011, 15:08
What is your definition of "countless years"? Also, are you referring to every load available in all 3 cartridges you mentioned, or just the ones from countless years ago?

:upeyes:

Regards,
Happyguy :)

glock20c10mm
07-10-2011, 15:18
Every load, definetly not, its been shown repeatedly that certain available cartridges just dont work all that well.
Okay. You said; "May as well just stop, sit aside and laugh, as proven rounds, over countless years, just dont work worth a damn, because they are not the almighty 10mm, handloaded, to the limits of its capabilities, for SD."

So which specific proven loads that have been around for countless years are you referring? Is this really a hard question to answer based on what you yourself suggested, or were you just joking and never meant for it to be taken seriously?

Is something wrong with me asking for clarification in your opinion?

Z28ricer
07-10-2011, 15:31
http://www.handguninfo.com/Archive/www.Pete-357.com/one.shot.stops.htm

Well, theres the old hydrashock .45acp doing 96%

As well as GS .40S&W doing 94% for a 1 shot stop

9mm doing 91%

Weird, that caliber went up, velocity went down, for each of those steps, yet probability of a 1 shot stop went up...

But again, that could simply be that in each of the cases for some reason the bullet design, happened to work better.

Whats this say again in reality ? 9, 40, 45, and your holy grail 10mm, all of them work similarly, in ACTUAL USE, not some research paper, and even if you do manage an actual advantage, its percentage gain, will be marginal, at best.

glock20c10mm
07-10-2011, 15:47
http://www.handguninfo.com/Archive/www.Pete-357.com/one.shot.stops.htm

Well, theres the old hydrashock .45acp doing 96%

As well as GS .40S&W doing 94% for a 1 shot stop

9mm doing 91%

Weird, that caliber went up, velocity went down, for each of those steps, yet probability of a 1 shot stop went up...

But again, that could simply be that in each of the cases for some reason the bullet design, happened to work better.

Whats this say again in reality ? 9, 40, 45, and your holy grail 10mm, all of them work similarly, in ACTUAL USE, not some research paper, and even if you do manage an actual advantage, its percentage gain, will be marginal, at best.

No, it doesn't. And since the scientific method is greek to you, and you have no clue how the data was collected, it wouldn't pay for me to explain it to you either. Carry on.

481
07-10-2011, 18:21
:shakehead: There you are again, stuck on more velocity being the single attributing factor to more BPW, to which it isn't always. No wonder your confused. Would you like me to explain further, or would you simply choose to ignore that facts as usual?

You may post all of the rude little emoticons that you'd like. They make no contribution to any argument that you are making.

Your continued illogic and incomplete comprehension of several scientific disciplines hardly constitutes a basis upon which to base a valid argument. While I can find no reason as to why anyone would ask you to "explain further" such silliness; if you feel the need and are so compelled, I suppose that I could use the laugh.

Glolt20-91 has claimed everything from venturi effects to momentum models proving otherwise, but failed.

Holding me responsible for any other member's statement, whether I agree with it or not, is simply intellectual cowardice.

481 argues: credentials, grammer, and wording, while at the same time failing to post much of anything otherwise. Dr. Martin Fackler has NEVER argued BPW. Please post what you feel was proof that has been wrongly refused by 10mmnutso so we might get to the bottom of your allegation that we may have missed as to stay fair in the debate.

I have no idea who 10mmnutso is :dunno:and my comments regarding the claimed validity and subsequent debunking of BPW are not confied to Fackler alone.

Yes, I most certainly do argue credentials and educational level. They are obviously very important and have everything to do with someone's competence, ability and expertise in any field or profession.

Just as no one would consult an auto-mechanic, computer repairman, carpenter or car salesman for a broken bone, surgical removal of a malignant tumor or to address some other physiological malady, there is little to support your acclaimed competency in the technical fields in which you profess enough expertise to offer anyone a further explanation on this rather technical topic.

In a prior post, you've made your qualifications quite clear to everyone here, the first being that that you have no more than a high school education. (and possess no further training or additional undergraduate or post-graduate coursework in a related technical discipline)

Second, you've made your employment history (present and/or past) clear to me and two other GT members on several occasions:

Having met Craig in person, when his occupation was a driver,...


http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17377101#post17377101

see post 267:

When I met Craig in person, he told me he was a driver taking people to appointments or wherever else they needed to go.


http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1346952&page=9

Craig also told me via telephone that he was a convalescent bus driver & cleaned house for a Real Estate agency.


As such, neither your direct professional(?) experience nor your rudimentary education rises to the level of conferring upon you, anything that could be even remotely construed as sufficient expertise and training that would permit you to address with any authority the technical nature of terminal ballistic performance and its related fields.

Declining to accept someone's opinion based upon their possession of no more than a rudimentary education and non-existent or inapplicable credentials in the discipline or field in question is a customary and acceptable evaluative decision-making process that people make, and rightfully so, everyday.


Good Evening.

cowboy1964
07-10-2011, 18:55
Wrong. That you choose to interpret the wording (that you highlighted) as you have does not make it so. There are many mechanisms that can be defined as "shock" and they do not specify to which mechanism they refer.

High Velocity – The greater the velocity, the more violently the bullet will expand. This causes enhanced shock to the nervous system

Would you feel better if Corbon had said this:

High Velocity – The greater the velocity, the more violently the bullet will expand. This causes enhanced hydrostatic shock to the nervous system

I'll let the readers conclude whether or not Corbon was referring to BPW/hydrostatic shock in their statement. I think most people would say it is fairly obvious.

RichardB
07-10-2011, 20:28
Yes, I most certainly do argue credentials and educational level. They are obviously very important and have everything to do with someone's competence, ability and expertise in any field or profession.




Not necessarily. Many of us have had the experience of working with folks with higher education who couldn't find their own ass using both hands. Yes, most of our MS and PhD co workers / subordinates are competent and good workers but not all which shows us that higher education is not the be all and end all on showing the most competence in a field.

The late Barbara Tuchman was a first class historian and writer, but many of her contemporaries with PhDs in history tried to keep her in her place because she only had earned a BA. They were just pissed because even though she was self trained, she was a better historian than they were.

Bill Gates quit school before graduation.

Not long ago many engineering organizations had "engineers" who did not have a BS; they had learned on the job. Due to long years of working with specific issues they had become experts within their organization and were relied upon by the ticketed professionals.

I am not dismissing professional education but pointing out there are other ways to learn skills than taking a degree route.

481
07-10-2011, 20:46
High Velocity – The greater the velocity, the more violently the bullet will expand. This causes enhanced shock to the nervous system

Would you feel better if Corbon had said this:

High Velocity – The greater the velocity, the more violently the bullet will expand. This causes enhanced hydrostatic shock to the nervous system.


I never felt bad to begin with.

Corbon's literature never used the term "hydrostatic" either and never was there any specific reference to the debunked BPW theory ever made. What sort of "shock" they were referring to is left undefined, but it is not unreasonable to expect that had they been using that specific theory, they would've mentioned it instead of skirting about it. After all it wasn't as if the inclusion of those three letters was going to throw the print job outta wack and off of the page.

I'll let the readers conclude whether or not Corbon was referring to BPW/hydrostatic shock in their statement.What is the definition of BPW? I think most people would say it is fairly obvious.

I reckon they are free to do so. As for the definition of BPW, I am sure that it is avaialble in one of courtney's documents, but since the proposal has been debunked by several highly trained and educated authorities across various disciplines and within the field, I've no use for it and no desire to chase it down.

481
07-10-2011, 21:14
Not necessarily. Many of us have had the experience of working with folks with higher education who couldn't find their own ass using both hands. Yes, most of our MS and PhD co workers / subordinates are competent and good workers but not all which shows us that higher education is not the be all and end all on showing the most competence in a field.

The late Barbara Tuchman was a first class historian and writer, but many of her contemporaries with PhDs in history tried to keep her in her place because she only had earned a BA. They were just pissed because even though she was self trained, she was a better historian than they were.

Bill Gates quit school before graduation.

Not long ago many engineering organizations had "engineers" who did not have a BS; they had learned on the job. Due to long years of working with specific issues they had become experts within their organization and were relied upon by the ticketed professionals.

I am not dismissing professional education but pointing out there are other ways to learn skills than taking a degree route.

Since you removed from my post's context by failing to quote where I plainly recognize the existence "direct professional experience" (no educational requirement is presented) as a criteria in my post above, you might've missed my point, Dick.

I shall clarify since you chosen to quote me out of context.

While I realize that a few highly educated folks in certain professions lack the sense to come in out of a driving rain or step out of the way of a speeding car and are the exception rather than the rule, by no means does suggest that we must also accept as valid, the claims of someone whose credentials never surpass that of a high school (and a very rudimentary level at that) education with nothing more than a "general laborer" background whose experience is not related by even the longest stretch of the imagination to the field in which they profess such "expertise".

As such, neither your direct professional(?) experience nor your rudimentary education rises to the level of conferring upon you, anything that could be even remotely construed as sufficient expertise and training that would permit you to address with any authority the technical nature of terminal ballistic performance and its related fields.

If you are equating or making even the slightest implication that the member to whom I was referring to (above) is somehow in the same league as Bill Gates, I'd be led to suspect that you are not being entirely honest with yourself or anyone else reading this thread.

unit1069
07-10-2011, 21:14
Bill Gates quit school before graduation.


If I may add to your excellent observations ...

Bobby Fischer dropped out of high school in his mid-teens because school was boring. Not everyone is suited for mass-production education, especially if one is gifted. In Fischer's case he stated that school was a waste of his time because the rote US education system couldn't teach him anything about chess.

Bobby Fischer won the US Open Chess Championship at age 14 and blazed a legendary path through the chess world by himself. He was an extremely complicated and difficult individual who made many enemies over the years. Some called him a "dropout", but most acknowledged him a genius in the narrow field he chose for his life's dedication.

Bobby Fischer --- alone, with no structured organizational support --- took on the mighty Soviet Union chess establishment after crushing all opponents in the 1972 World Chess Championship qualifications. His record of superiority over opponents in those qualifying matches is unmatched to this day.

The Soviet political hierarchy traveled to the airport with World Champion Boris Spassky to give him a sendoff with the official blessing of the Communist government. Spassky was also a chess prodigy, but he enjoyed the backing and support of the mighty and powerful Soviet Chess apparatus behind him --- chess prodigies themselves who would analyze and calculate moves during game adjournments while the champion resorted to much needed rest, relaxation, and sleep.

After losing the first game of the championship match and forfeiting the second game over a dispute with the FIDE Fischer's prospects appeared insurmountable. The Soviet Chess establishment and political powers thought Spassky should return home with the FIDE's blessing and retention of his crown.

The match was saved through much intervention by various organizations and individuals and Fischer quickly overcame his seemingly insurmountable odds. The match ended without going the full number of games, such was Fischer's dominance of the chess board and the genius he possessed. Boris Spassky returned home to an empty airport tarmac in official disgrace over having let down the communist ideology of collective power vs capitalism's individual initiative and competence.

Fischer, however, never forgot the respect Spassky showed him for continuing the match against the Soviet political establishment's directives, and in gratitude for Spassky's sportsmanship granted Spassky a rematch in the early 1990s when both were past their prime. The financial rewards for the rematch were generous and the two competitors ate, drank, and conversed nightly in mutual admiration for each other. Both were worthy former World Chess Champions at that stage in their lives.

Robert J. Fischer was a high school dropout. He was alone in his opposition to the world, and many people think he was an idiot savant. We'll never know what drove this man but his narrowly-focused genius was so powerful that it conquered the legendary Soviet Union chess apparatus.

If credentials per se are everything then Fischer was a failure in every respect.

481
07-10-2011, 21:44
If I may add to your excellent observations ...

Bobby Fischer dropped out of high school in his mid-teens because school was boring. Not everyone is suited for mass-production education, especially if one is gifted. In Fischer's case he stated that school was a waste of his time because the rote US education system couldn't teach him anything about chess.

Bobby Fischer won the US Open Chess Championship at age 14 and blazed a legendary path through the chess world by himself. He was an extremely complicated and difficult individual who made many enemies over the years. Some called him a "dropout", but most acknowledged him a genius in the narrow field he chose for his life's dedication.

Bobby Fischer --- alone, with no structured organizational support --- took on the mighty Soviet Union chess establishment after crushing all opponents in the 1972 World Chess Championship qualifications. His record of superiority over opponents in those qualifying matches is unmatched to this day.

The Soviet political hierarchy traveled to the airport with World Champion Boris Spassky to give him a sendoff with the official blessing of the Communist government. Spassky was also a chess prodigy, but he enjoyed the backing and support of the mighty and powerful Soviet Chess apparatus behind him --- chess prodigies themselves who would analyze and calculate moves during game adjournments while the champion resorted to much needed rest, relaxation, and sleep.

After losing the first game of the championship match and forfeiting the second game over a dispute with the FIDE Fischer's prospects appeared insurmountable. The Soviet Chess establishment and political powers thought Spassky should return home with the FIDE's blessing and retention of his crown.

The match was saved through much intervention by various organizations and individuals and Fischer quickly overcame his seemingly insurmountable odds. The match ended without going the full number of games, such was Fischer's dominance of the chess board and the genius he possessed. Boris Spassky returned home to an empty airport tarmac in official disgrace over having let down the communist ideology of collective power vs capitalism's individual initiative and competence.

Fischer, however, never forgot the respect Spassky showed him for continuing the match against the Soviet political establishment's directives, and in gratitude for Spassky's sportsmanship granted Spassky a rematch in the early 1990s when both were past their prime. The financial rewards for the rematch were generous and the two competitors ate, drank, and conversed nightly in mutual admiration for each other. Both were worthy former World Chess Champions at that stage in their lives.

Robert J. Fischer was a high school dropout. He was alone in his opposition to the world, and many people think he was an idiot savant. We'll never know what drove this man but his narrowly-focused genius was so powerful that it conquered the legendary Soviet Union chess apparatus.

If credentials per se are everything then Fischer was a failure in every respect.

Fischer was indeed a prodigy (prodigy n. an extraordinary person, thing or act specif. a child of genius) and there are very, very, very few like him.

If his kind were more common than they are, then your assertion-

"If credentials per se are everything then Fischer was a failure in every respect."

-would stand more firmly.

Still, an exception does not a rule make, except perhaps unto itself.

ricklee4570
07-11-2011, 04:21
Just my opinion.....I work in an education facility. I have found that some of the most educated are also some of the most lacking in common sense.

While I interact regularly with both support staff and professionally educated staff, I find that when one wants to "think outside the box" for real world solutions, it is better to find those that work for a living rather than those who stand behind their many degrees.

English
07-11-2011, 06:21
..........
Yes, I most certainly do argue credentials and educational level. They are obviously very important and have everything to do with someone's competence, ability and expertise in any field or profession.

.......

481,
In case you have not noticed, Glock Talk and Caliber Corner Corner within it are part of the internet and, with a few exceptions, the contributors here write under pseudonyms. For reasons particular to themselves, individuals give more or less information about themselves, but, as they are not writing under their own names, others are unable to verify that information. Under such circumstances, what people post should be judged on its own merit as an argument from fact or common sense rather than from their claimed credits. If you pay for an opinion from a doctor of medicine, a lawer or an engineer you are justified in asking for his or her qualifications but you will be wiser, if you are able, to ask others about his or her ability.

None of that applies here since all that is posted is posted without a fee. You can take it for what it offers and you can argue against it from fact and logic. Since it is the internet and you are anonymous you can, in a cowardly way, abuse the poster within vague limits or lie about his or her qualifications to dare to post an opinion or argument you disagree with. You can, and do, even make boringly repeated attacks on the country of a poster's origin or a random typo or spelling mistake as though it is a joke worth making and repeating. Part of your basic repetoire is accusing those you disagree with of lying and you make these same accusations time after time through different threads.

In view of your obsession with qualifications, it seems worth while to examine yours. We don't know who you are or where you gained the qualifications you gained so we are unable to check on their reality.

In your Sig line, if that is the correct term, you claim to be a Super Genius though you rank this below the relatively trivial qualification of a Glock armourer. For a long time, as someone who judges by what a poster writes rather than what they claim for themselves, I thought that this was an attempt at humour. Then I realised that humour was not part of your personality and, as an ordinary genius I wondered what a super genius could be. That caused me to look at your self description:

About 481

Biography
Masters in Organic Chemistry, undergraduate (B.Sc. double major) Russian and physics
Location
USA
Interests
Marksmanship, hunting, physics, calculus, ballistic testing, modeling and analysis
Occupation
Sworn LEO (ret.)

Who would have thought the above to be so by reading your pompous posts which are so concerned about qualifications but which show no understanding of the nature of scientific proof or scientific method beyond the highly fallible peer review system which is not part of the scientific method at all but a convenience to the editors of learned journals. With all that education and super genius level IQ, why is it that your posts are notable for their ad hominem attacks and complete lack of logical argument or creative or destructive nature?

Of course, the claims to IQ and education might be no more than vapour. Let us look at them in more detail. You have a lower case p for Physics but upper case initial letters for Organic, Chemistry and Russian. Could the great 481 have committed a typo to the internet? I promise not to repeat this for my next 20 posts! Even super geniuses should be allowed the occasional typo.

Then we have, "undergraduate (B.Sc. double major) Russian and physics". This is a little strange. Did you drop out of your double major before you graduated? It would be more normal to say, "B.Sc. double major graduate in Russian and Physics".

How did you get from there to a "Masters in Organic Chemistry"? For something as specialised as Organic Chemistry, most schools would require a lower degree in Chemistry as an entry requirement. As a super genius, had you been able to complete the course content of a Chemistry degree without being formally enrolled and so able to talk your way into a Masters in Organic Chemistry? Enquiring minds would like to know! Or is it half, or three quarters, or all imaginary?

Then what happened? You joined the police force and as a super genius you did not become, in time, the head of a major City, Region or federal department, but, from other posts, rose to the dizzying heights of member of a SWAT team. You didn't even make use of your supposed intellect as a detective.

With all that talent, why did you not go on to do a Ph.D? If we assume that some of your claims are correct, I can make a guess based on the strange content of your numerous posts, where you show no scientific apptitude or understanding, and the above. As one kind of super genius you had a good memory, even a brilliant memory, and you could mop up information like a sponge. Undergraduate level work and exams in almost anything would have been very easy for you. Then you went on, by some means, to a Masters in a science but at that point you were found out by your project supervisor. You did not really understand the nature of science, you could not create a logical argument from facts, and you could not think an original thought. All you really felt at home with was the potted ideas of men you could respect.

You got your Masters because they felt it would have been too cruel to fail you and you joined the police force because you needed something that would give you authority over others. You are now retired and you seek that same feeling of authority based on no more than position which you had as a LEO. You get that to some extent by making many abusive posts and proclaiming your superior experience and knowledge.

How sad!

English

481
07-11-2011, 07:57
481,
In case you have not noticed, Glock Talk and Caliber Corner Corner within it are part of the internet and, with a few exceptions, the contributors here write under pseudonyms. For reasons particular to themselves, individuals give more or less information about themselves, but, as they are not writing under their own names, others are unable to verify that information. Under such circumstances, what people post should be judged on its own merit as an argument from fact or common sense rather than from their claimed credits. If you pay for an opinion from a doctor of medicine, a lawer or an engineer you are justified in asking for his or her qualifications but you will be wiser, if you are able, to ask others about his or her ability.

None of that applies here since all that is posted is posted without a fee. You can take it for what it offers and you can argue against it from fact and logic. Since it is the internet and you are anonymous you can, in a cowardly way, abuse the poster within vague limits or lie about his or her qualifications to dare to post an opinion or argument you disagree with. You can, and do, even make boringly repeated attacks on the country of a poster's origin or a random typo or spelling mistake as though it is a joke worth making and repeating. Part of your basic repetoire is accusing those you disagree with of lying and you make these same accusations time after time through different threads.

In view of your obsession with qualifications, it seems worth while to examine yours. We don't know who you are or where you gained the qualifications you gained so we are unable to check on their reality.

In your Sig line, if that is the correct term, you claim to be a Super Genius though you rank this below the relatively trivial qualification of a Glock armourer. For a long time, as someone who judges by what a poster writes rather than what they claim for themselves, I thought that this was an attempt at humour. Then I realised that humour was not part of your personality and, as an ordinary genius I wondered what a super genius could be. That caused me to look at your self description:

About 481

Biography
Masters in Organic Chemistry, undergraduate (B.Sc. double major) Russian and physics
Location
USA
Interests
Marksmanship, hunting, physics, calculus, ballistic testing, modeling and analysis
Occupation
Sworn LEO (ret.)

Who would have thought the above to be so by reading your pompous posts which are so concerned about qualifications but which show no understanding of the nature of scientific proof or scientific method beyond the highly fallible peer review system which is not part of the scientific method at all but a convenience to the editors of learned journals. With all that education and super genius level IQ, why is it that your posts are notable for their ad hominem attacks and complete lack of logical argument or creative or destructive nature?

Of course, the claims to IQ and education might be no more than vapour. Let us look at them in more detail. You have a lower case p for Physics but upper case initial letters for Organic, Chemistry and Russian. Could the great 481 have committed a typo to the internet? I promise not to repeat this for my next 20 posts! Even super geniuses should be allowed the occasional typo.

Then we have, "undergraduate (B.Sc. double major) Russian and physics". This is a little strange. Did you drop out of your double major before you graduated? It would be more normal to say, "B.Sc. double major graduate in Russian and Physics".

How did you get from there to a "Masters in Organic Chemistry"? For something as specialised as Organic Chemistry, most schools would require a lower degree in Chemistry as an entry requirement. As a super genius, had you been able to complete the course content of a Chemistry degree without being formally enrolled and so able to talk your way into a Masters in Organic Chemistry? Enquiring minds would like to know! Or is it half, or three quarters, or all imaginary?

Then what happened? You joined the police force and as a super genius you did not become, in time, the head of a major City, Region or federal department, but, from other posts, rose to the dizzying heights of member of a SWAT team. You didn't even make use of your supposed intellect as a detective.

With all that talent, why did you not go on to do a Ph.D? If we assume that some of your claims are correct, I can make a guess based on the strange content of your numerous posts, where you show no scientific apptitude or understanding, and the above. As one kind of super genius you had a good memory, even a brilliant memory, and you could mop up information like a sponge. Undergraduate level work and exams in almost anything would have been very easy for you. Then you went on, by some means, to a Masters in a science but at that point you were found out by your project supervisor. You did not really understand the nature of science, you could not create a logical argument from facts, and you could not think an original thought. All you really felt at home with was the potted ideas of men you could respect.

You got your Masters because they felt it would have been too cruel to fail you and you joined the police force because you needed something that would give you authority over others. You are now retired and you seek that same feeling of authority based on no more than position which you had as a LEO. You get that to some extent by making many abusive posts and proclaiming your superior experience and knowledge.

How sad!

English

Engli',

The energy that you've elected to devote to another rambling and embittered, several hundred word rant (above) in which you deride professions of authority and those that require advanced education suggests that your well-known anger and resentment towards those individuals so employed (you seem to possess an unusual amount of rage and hostility towards the police and the US military and those in the medical profession) continues to grow.

Given that you made your post above at approximately 12:21 p.m. (your time, local), I suppose that it is possible that alcohol played a major role in both the content and fueling the temperament of yet another whining 700+ word dissertation.

As the song says: "It's five o'clock somewhere!" :winkie:

glock20c10mm
07-11-2011, 08:03
Engli'

The energy that you've elected to devote to another rambling and embittered, several hundred word rant (above) in which you deride professions of authority and those that require advanced education suggests that your well-known anger and resentment towards those individuals so employed (you seem to possess an unusual amount of rage and hostility towards the police and the US military and those in the medical profession) continues to grow and ebb.

Given that you made your post above at approximately 12:21 p.m. (your time, local), I suppose that it is possible that alcohol played a major role in both the content and fueling the temperament of yet another whining 700+ word dissertation.

As the song says: "It's five o'clock somewhere!" :winkie:
So you're saying you need a tissue?:crying:

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s271/glock20c10mm/Facepalms%20and%20Such/e101b_funny-pictures-penguin-has-a-bad-day.jpg

Merkavaboy
07-11-2011, 08:56
Unit1069,
Excellent post!

English

I agree with English. Thanks for a very well written post. :thumbsup:

English
07-11-2011, 10:06
Engli',

The energy that you've elected to devote to another rambling and embittered, several hundred word rant (above) in which you deride professions of authority and those that require advanced education suggests that your well-known anger and resentment towards those individuals so employed (you seem to possess an unusual amount of rage and hostility towards the police and the US military and those in the medical profession) continues to grow.

Given that you made your post above at approximately 12:21 p.m. (your time, local), I suppose that it is possible that alcohol played a major role in both the content and fueling the temperament of yet another whining 700+ word dissertation.

As the song says: "It's five o'clock somewhere!" :winkie:

481,
Can there be anyone else besides you on Glock Talk who thinks it funny to address me as Engli' rather than English because on some occasion I made a typo or the computer or the internet had a glitch? What kind of super genius does this take?

You question the energy I have expended on a 700 (your count) word post. As they say in the hair or makeup ads, it's because you are worth it.

I am not embittered and I approve of education, but I do despise those who claim education and intelligence but who cannot think. I don't despise the medical professsion, my daughter and my best friend at university were and are medics, but I do recognise them for what they are and do as they are in real life rather than some distant position of heroism. Likewise the military but that does not mean it would be efficient to look to military men for the next scientific breakthrough.

And the police, like any group they contain good and bad but because of their opportunities to gain from criminal action probably more go bad than the general population in other kinds of honest employment. At present we have an investigation into the corrupt provision of sensitive information to newspapers by members of the Metropolitan Police here. For a long time the head of the MET has been chosen from some other police force because it has been recognised that it was hard to rise through the MET without at least turning a blind eye towards some form of police corruption. A lawyer friend tells me that in one suburban court a large proportion of the accused complain of being fitted up but in a neighbouring one hardly any do so. The only sensible explanation is the difference in police cultures within those two areas. The Serpico story showed how corrupt the NYPD was at the time. You don't need a great intellect to know of many things like this but you do need a good pair of blinkers to pretend that they do not exist. The control of the police force is extremely difficult and is always a balance between effectiveness and honesty. A LEO needs a lot more than honesty to shop his criminal colleagues.

Where is any of this bitter? I am just realistic. The other problem with police is the tendency to jump to conclusions and to assume that everyone is dirty. Good policing takes an open mind and intelligence. Is the reason you didn't even make detective because they found out you lacked the first of those two essentials? Being on a SWAT team was so much simpler - all you had to do was shoot when someone told you to do so.

I think it is you who is bitter and who is projecting that bitterness onto me. There you were, a clever boy wanting to achieve things and lead an exciting life who had been sure of his ability and future as he had sailed through school with top marks year after year. You learned Russian and sciences so that you could become a spy, but the CIA turned you down and you couldn't make it in science. So you joined the police but couldn't make detective either. Bitter? That would be a good word for it and you have never recovered from it.

English

481
07-11-2011, 10:45
481,
Can there be anyone else besides you on Glock Talk who thinks it funny to address me as Engli' rather than English because on some occasion I made a typo or the computer or the internet had a glitch? What kind of super genius does this take?

You question the energy I have expended on a 700 (your count) word post. As they say in the hair or makeup ads, it's because you are worth it.

I am not embittered and I approve of education, but I do despise those who claim education and intelligence but who cannot think. I don't despise the medical professsion, my daughter and my best friend at university were and are medics, but I do recognise them for what they are and do as they are in real life rather than some distant position of heroism. Likewise the military but that does not mean it would be efficient to look to military men for the next scientific breakthrough.

And the police, like any group they contain good and bad but because of their opportunities to gain from criminal action probably more go bad than the general population in other kinds of honest employment. At present we have an investigation into the corrupt provision of sensitive information to newspapers by members of the Metropolitan Police here. For a long time the head of the MET has been chosen from some other police force because it has been recognised that it was hard to rise through the MET without at least turning a blind eye towards some form of police corruption. A lawyer friend tells me that in one suburban court a large proportion of the accused complain of being fitted up but in a neighbouring one hardly any do so. The only sensible explanation is the difference in police cultures within those two areas. The Serpico story showed how corrupt the NYPD was at the time. You don't need a great intellect to know of many things like this but you do need a good pair of blinkers to pretend that they do not exist. The control of the police force is extremely difficult and is always a balance between effectiveness and honesty. A LEO needs a lot more than honesty to shop his criminal colleagues.

Where is any of this bitter? I am just realistic. The other problem with police is the tendency to jump to conclusions and to assume that everyone is dirty. Good policing takes an open mind and intelligence. Is the reason you didn't even make detective because they found out you lacked the first of those two essentials? Being on a SWAT team was so much simpler - all you had to do was shoot when someone told you to do so.

I think it is you who is bitter and who is projecting that bitterness onto me. There you were, a clever boy wanting to achieve things and lead an exciting life who had been sure of his ability and future as he had sailed through school with top marks year after year. You learned Russian and sciences so that you could become a spy, but the CIA turned you down and you couldn't make it in science. So you joined the police but couldn't make detective either. Bitter? That would be a good word for it and you have never recovered from it.

English

Engli',

My, my, my, it is entertaining to watch you thrash about as you search for a way to explain away your lengthy, irrational rants that convey such bitterness and anger.

Even as you struggle with that considerable task, it becomes clear that you just can't seem to restrain yourself from throwing several subtle (and not so subtle) insults at US military and police organizations and their respective personnel.

Keep typing. Your clumsy attempts to analyze me are amusing.

cowboy1964
07-11-2011, 11:50
Welp, another thread bites the dust. Moving on...

RichardB
07-11-2011, 12:12
The only credentials that count on Glock Talk are ones postings.

windplex
07-11-2011, 13:07
"Bullet expansion in conjunction with high velocity is what creates a larger than caliber wound channel. It also facilitates transfer of energy and increases tissue damage."

Not in handguns.

The greater the velocity, the more violently the bullet will expand. This causes enhanced shock to the nervous system and increases the chance of incapacitation.


This ABOVE caught my eye, too, -- HUGEbone of contention about hand gun bullets. Wonder what they have to back it up?

...Hollowpoints that do not expand will stop fights with one shot, but only 60-70% of the time. Hollowpoints that expand will come in at 75-90%. Hollowpoints that expand violently are 85-95% effective.

curious where this data is from? -- my belief is they are not making it up but do have the stats to back it up.

glock20c10mm
07-11-2011, 15:08
The greater the velocity, the more violently the bullet will expand. This causes enhanced shock to the nervous system and increases the chance of incapacitation.


This ABOVE caught my eye, too, -- HUGEbone of contention about hand gun bullets. Wonder what they have to back it up?

...Hollowpoints that do not expand will stop fights with one shot, but only 60-70% of the time. Hollowpoints that expand will come in at 75-90%. Hollowpoints that expand violently are 85-95% effective.

curious where this data is from? -- my belief is they are not making it up but do have the stats to back it up.
I would like to have a look at the source data myself. LE have experience with CorBon ammunition. I expect CorBon gleaned from it. Sure would be nice to get a look at.

windplex
07-11-2011, 15:40
Stopping Power
Myths Addressed!


BIGGER BULLET?


BETTER BULLET?

they must have a soft lead core and a thin jacket, along with a hollowpoint that is large enough for material to get inside and push outward on the walls to enhance its expansion.


FASTER BULLET? (Expansion is key, but Velocity is KING!)

High Velocity –The answer to reliable bullet expansion.


GETTING TECHNICAL:

From these results, the size of the permanent (crush) and the temporary (stretch) cavities are calculated. Bullets that expand produce larger crush cavities than bullets which do not expand. As the volume of the crush cavity increases, so does the stopping power. The crush cavity is a good indicator of stopping power at lower impact velocities. The size and shape of the temporary cavity is also measured and evaluated. Bullets that expand violently produce larger, more effective stretch cavities than bullets which expand slowly or marginally. As the volume of this stretch cavity increases so does stopping power. The stretch cavity is a good indicator of stopping power at higher impact velocities. But expansion in ordnance gelatin tells us only part of the story. In an actual gunfight, slower Hollowpoints can often become plugged with clothing material. When a bullet lacks velocity it performs like a round nose bullet, expanding hardly at all. To be an effective stopper, a bullet must have enough velocity to expand whether plugged with debris or not. It needs to expand and dissipate its energy within the target to effectively create stopping power. In the case of Pow’RBall bullets, the hollowpoint is protected by a polymer ball which prevents plugging. The ball also delays expansion to allow the bullet to obtain optimum penetration before expansion begins. Lab tests and street results have shown that Hollowpoints that expand in gelatin will typically expand in street use. Hollowpoint bullets that barely expand in gelatin do not expand in real gunfights unless bone is hit. There are many loads sold to civilians and law enforcement that do not have enough velocity to insure reliable expansion. All COR®BON defensive ammo like our Traditional JHPs, Pow’RBall, and DPX are designed with adequate velocity to expand in gelatin...or bad guys. COR®BON ammo expands reliably and creates Stopping Power!


COR®BON AMMO

Every production lot of COR®BON ammo is tested and re-tested to assure our customers the very best ammunition they can purchase. COR®BON ammo consistently ranks at the top of the class in actual one shot stops. We have developed a variety of loads for various real life situations. All our customers need to do is select the type of load that meets their needs.Our company offers live technical support to answer any questions and help you decide. We believe that if you choose COR®BON, you will have the best ammo with the highest probability of a one shot stop. Why take chances with anything else? With these ever changing events in our country, it is important that each American retain their rights protected by our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is up to us as free people, to keep the constitution as our forefathers wrote it. I’m amazed by their great foresight and wisdom. Protect your Gun Rights and they will protect your freedom.


Peter Pi, Sr., President COR®BON/Glaser

Glock 20c -- I enjoyed you post, thnak you!

AWESOMO 4000
07-11-2011, 20:13
I've always been of the feeling that CorBon makes sense in small-mid calibers, while as you get into .44/.45 territory, pretty much any JHP is going to work well. Like they say, kind of hard to find a bad .40 or .45 loading.

I'm not really into DPX either. Their regular JHP offerings are fine by me. I also have HST, Ranger T, Gold Dot, and old school 9BPLE (i.e. Federal Hi-Shock). Variety is the spice of life as with pistols, loads, and calibers.

Every company has their own marketing gimmick. ATK is the parent company of Speer and Federal....and Gold Dot and HST/Tactical Bonded play in the same arena but are positioned as competitors. As long as it works, cycles, doesn't fail to feed/extract, or expand, it should probably be okay if you hold up your end of the bargain.

ModGlock17
07-11-2011, 21:28
It appears to me that a couple of people with long winded posts are very LONELY. Your best friend is the keyboard.

Just sayin'

THplanes
07-11-2011, 22:46
http://www.handguninfo.com/Archive/www.Pete-357.com/one.shot.stops.htm

Well, theres the old hydrashock .45acp doing 96%

As well as GS .40S&W doing 94% for a 1 shot stop

9mm doing 91%

Weird, that caliber went up, velocity went down, for each of those steps, yet probability of a 1 shot stop went up...

But again, that could simply be that in each of the cases for some reason the bullet design, happened to work better.

Whats this say again in reality ? 9, 40, 45, and your holy grail 10mm, all of them work similarly, in ACTUAL USE, not some research paper, and even if you do manage an actual advantage, its percentage gain, will be marginal, at best.

I see you conveniently left the .357 mag 125gr SJHP out of the numbers. You don't understand the studies that underly these numbers. They're not meant to be an exact representation of one stop shots in the real world. The methodology of the study self selects for people who are vulnerable to one shot stops, be it psychological or physiological. It's simply meant to provide data about what works and relative effectiveness. Real world numbers will be lower than the numbers given. Have you figured out what the definition of BPW is. Have you figured out the proposed mechanism of action or do you still think it has to do with localized tissue damage.




In a prior post, you've made your qualifications quite clear to everyone here, the first being that that you have no more than a high school education. (and possess no further training or additional undergraduate or post-graduate coursework in a related technical discipline)

Second, you've made your employment history (present and/or past) clear to me and two other GT members on several occasions:




http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17377101#post17377101

see post 267:


http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1346952&page=9



As such, neither your direct professional(?) experience nor your rudimentary education rises to the level of conferring upon you, anything that could be even remotely construed as sufficient expertise and training that would permit you to address with any authority the technical nature of terminal ballistic performance and its related fields.

Declining to accept someone's opinion based upon their possession of no more than a rudimentary education and non-existent or inapplicable credentials in the discipline or field in question is a customary and acceptable evaluative decision-making process that people make, and rightfully so, everyday.


Good Evening.

Again you have nothing substantive to say, just personal attacks. I know you and Gloat will stretch the truth, some would call it lying. So I have little reason to believe your attack. Since we can't check claimed education, it's not really useful. I look at what people write and judge them on that. If you would like I can point out misinformation and half truths you're so prone to.

.


As for the definition of BPW, I am sure that it is avaialble in one of courtney's documents, but since the proposal has been debunked by several highly trained and educated authorities across various disciplines and within the field, I've no use for it and no desire to chase it down.

Has it been debunked by the same people that think measuring PCC is the proper metric for measuring wounding. It appears to be a rather gross error on their part. That is unless you want to add the amount of damaged tissue as a third method of incapacitation. I should receive MacPherson's book sometime this week and see what it says before commenting further.

481,

In view of your obsession with qualifications, it seems worth while to examine yours. We don't know who you are or where you gained the qualifications you gained so we are unable to check on their reality.

In your Sig line, if that is the correct term, you claim to be a Super Genius though you rank this below the relatively trivial qualification of a Glock armourer. For a long time, as someone who judges by what a poster writes rather than what they claim for themselves, I thought that this was an attempt at humour. Then I realised that humour was not part of your personality and, as an ordinary genius I wondered what a super genius could be. That caused me to look at your self description:

About 481

Biography
Masters in Organic Chemistry, undergraduate (B.Sc. double major) Russian and physics
Location
USA
Interests
Marksmanship, hunting, physics, calculus, ballistic testing, modeling and analysis
Occupation
Sworn LEO (ret.)

Who would have thought the above to be so by reading your pompous posts which are so concerned about qualifications but which show no understanding of the nature of scientific proof or scientific method beyond the highly fallible peer review system which is not part of the scientific method at all but a convenience to the editors of learned journals. With all that education and super genius level IQ, why is it that your posts are notable for their ad hominem attacks and complete lack of logical argument or creative or destructive nature?

Of course, the claims to IQ and education might be no more than vapour. Let us look at them in more detail. You have a lower case p for Physics but upper case initial letters for Organic, Chemistry and Russian. Could the great 481 have committed a typo to the internet? I promise not to repeat this for my next 20 posts! Even super geniuses should be allowed the occasional typo.

Then we have, "undergraduate (B.Sc. double major) Russian and physics". This is a little strange. Did you drop out of your double major before you graduated? It would be more normal to say, "B.Sc. double major graduate in Russian and Physics".

How did you get from there to a "Masters in Organic Chemistry"? For something as specialised as Organic Chemistry, most schools would require a lower degree in Chemistry as an entry requirement. As a super genius, had you been able to complete the course content of a Chemistry degree without being formally enrolled and so able to talk your way into a Masters in Organic Chemistry? Enquiring minds would like to know! Or is it half, or three quarters, or all imaginary?

Then what happened? You joined the police force and as a super genius you did not become, in time, the head of a major City, Region or federal department, but, from other posts, rose to the dizzying heights of member of a SWAT team. You didn't even make use of your supposed intellect as a detective.

With all that talent, why did you not go on to do a Ph.D? If we assume that some of your claims are correct, I can make a guess based on the strange content of your numerous posts, where you show no scientific apptitude or understanding, and the above. As one kind of super genius you had a good memory, even a brilliant memory, and you could mop up information like a sponge. Undergraduate level work and exams in almost anything would have been very easy for you. Then you went on, by some means, to a Masters in a science but at that point you were found out by your project supervisor. You did not really understand the nature of science, you could not create a logical argument from facts, and you could not think an original thought. All you really felt at home with was the potted ideas of men you could respect.

You got your Masters because they felt it would have been too cruel to fail you and you joined the police force because you needed something that would give you authority over others. You are now retired and you seek that same feeling of authority based on no more than position which you had as a LEO. You get that to some extent by making many abusive posts and proclaiming your superior experience and knowledge.

How sad!

English

I have wondered why his career in the sciences petered out at a masters. If you look at his complete lack of understanding of scientific method and tendency to tell half truths, it pretty much explains it's self.

I have wondered if he gets his ballistics testing material from A.C.M.E. and if so how the quality and price are.

Engli',

Given that you made your post above at approximately 12:21 p.m. (your time, local), I suppose that it is possible that alcohol played a major role in both the content and fueling the temperament of yet another whining 700+ word dissertation.



You don't care, but made the effort to count the length of his post, hilarious.

I realize I don't have the authority to ask you a question. But since I can't find anyone who has this much power, I'm going to ask anyway.

1) Is their a published paper that documents a ballistic impact on an anesthetized lab animal that shows an increase in intra-cranial pressure. If so, and we know the answer is yes, where is the study debunking it. At what point, if any, it hinders the assailant's ability to continue the attack is a separate question.

2) Where are the psychological studies that back up the assertion that all cases of rapid incapacitation are:
A) due to a CNS his
B) due to psychological factors - This is the one I'm really interested in

3)Even if B turns out to be true, is there any evidence that this is completely random and the caliber and specific load have no affect on rapid incapacitation rates

Z28ricer
07-12-2011, 09:38
I see you conveniently left the .357 mag 125gr SJHP out of the numbers.

Interesting that even when you throw it in there, its still 1:1 with .45acp

Wheres the giant advantage of lighter and faster vs slower and heavier ?

500 fps ? I'd expect a HUGE gain, not simply matching another load.

Just as the corbon ad indicates, but people take the wrong thing from it:

"velocity is the key for reliable expansion"

And apparently thats very true for smaller calibers with a smaller opening in which to extract that expansion from, it would seem .45acp isnt limited to the same velocity requirements to get reliable expansion...

ModGlock17
07-12-2011, 09:45
I am not dismissing professional education but pointing out there are other ways to learn skills than taking a degree route.

While I was struggling to add to my collection of degrees, a fella in a nearby dorm put me to shame. Years younger than me, he was selling computer boards and parts from his dorm room. A few months after that, he flunked out of school as a freshman, simply did not make the grade.

Many years after he become relatively successful, the same University gave him an honorary degree, though he had never earned one from the ground up. I am not sure, but I think they gave him a "chair", more like a gesture of thank you, after he gave them so many millions in donation which he needed to do for tax breaks.

His name is Michael Dell. And The University of Texas at Austin, the Texas Lornghorns, is the University.

There's a rumor that helped me feel better. His parents were rich from Texas oil activity and they rumored to give him some $4-$5M start a company. While many parents' wealth actually destroy their children, Michael Dell is an exceptional man.

English
07-12-2011, 13:08
Interesting that even when you throw it in there, its still 1:1 with .45acp

Wheres the giant advantage of lighter and faster vs slower and heavier ?

500 fps ? I'd expect a HUGE gain, not simply matching another load.

Just as the corbon ad indicates, but people take the wrong thing from it:

"velocity is the key for reliable expansion"

And apparently thats very true for smaller calibers with a smaller opening in which to extract that expansion from, it would seem .45acp isnt limited to the same velocity requirements to get reliable expansion...

I suspect there are several truths in your post, but first you need to understand something else.

If you can accept that a bullet does almost all its damage (perhaps all of it) by creating a pressure wave which does the actual damage and that this pressure wave does damage both in front of the bullet and to the side of its track, we can start to explain the benefit of the .45 over smaller calibers as well as the benefit of smaller calibers over the .45.

To pass through flesh or any other fluid medium, a bullet has to displace the flesh from its path. It must displace at least its frontal area times its speed in feet per second every second. Obviously it can't actually do this for a whole second since it does not take a second to come to a stop, but if we say its frontal area times its speed in feet per millisecond every millisecond you might get a better idea. In fact its speed is slowing rapidly and its frontal area is increasing rapidly for the first inch or two and so it is more complicated but I hope you see the idea.

The higher the velocity and the higher the frontal area, the greater the volume of flesh it must push aside and so the faster it must push it aside. This gives the flesh that is displaced a momentum away from the track of the bullet. Dead center in front of the bullet that momentum is forwards but as we move away from the center line it is more and more to the sides but never at right angles. This momentum carries it beyond the diameter of the bullet and is what forms the temporary cavity. It should be clear that, at any moment, frontal area and velocity are interchangeable. That is you could achieve the same rate of clearing the path of the bullet by a narrow bullet travelling faster or a wider bullet travelling slower.

The speed at which the bullet pushes the flesh aside is directly related to the energy the bullet looses and the energy that is transmitted to the flesh. Some proportion of that energy is wasted, some of it goes into overkill by liquidising cells, some of it disables flesh by tearing it apart and some of it does damage which disables the function of that flesh in the short term. Regardless of these unavoidable inefficiencies, it is this transmission of energy which does the damage and this is true whether we are talking about a light and fast bullet or a slow and heavy one.

To push flesh aside, the bullet has to provide a force which will produce an accelleration of the mass concerned. Since flesh is essentially fluid at these speeds, the force comes in the form of a pressure gradient in front of the nose of the bullet. This is a pressure wave. That pressure wave produces a pressure inside the hollow point equal to that just in front of it and it is this which causes it to expand.

That is true as long as the hollow point is hollow and this gets straight to one of your contentions. A hollow point only produces outward pressure against the sides of the hollow if it is filled with liquid. If it is plugged with cloth or pulverised bone it acts like a solid because the pressure on the front of the bullet just produces a directly rearward force through the plug rather than a rearward and outward pressure on the sides and base of the hollow. The .45 now gains in two ways. The first is that the person shot wears the same clothes whether he is shot by a .45 or a 9mm, but because the .45 is wider its hollow can be made deeper. That means that the cloth plug is not as deep relative to the depth of the hollow and so more of the sides of the hollow point are exposed to pressure. So through clothing a .45 is less likely to be as plugged as a 9mm. Through a rib the hollow point is likely to be completely plugged for both 9mm and .45 so the advantage is limited.

The next advantage of the .45 might be a little harder to understand but if we think of the hollow point separating into petals which are spread outwards, because the petals are less curved the pressure directed in the direction in which each petal folds outwards is a greater proportion of the pressure on that petal and because each petal is wider there is more force per petal available to tear it away from its neighbour. Because the petal's base is less curved it has less resistand to being bent over.

So, it looks as though the .45 is winning the expansion competition, but by increasing the velocity of the 9mm we can increase the pressure in the nose and overcome that advantage, provided the nose is not plugged. Provided the bullet expands it does not need to expand to the diameter of the .45 to dispace the same volume of flesh per unit time because it is travelling faster.

At this point it seems we can say that the smaller caliber is likely to be more errratic in its performance than the larger caliber. It is not that simple of course because the damage the bullet is causing is a function of the energy it is delivering to the flesh. But the limit on a useable handgun is felt recoil and rate of fire. The handgun cannot be to big or too heavy or it cannot be carried conveniently enough. So the ability to fire a handgun effectively depends on the ability of the shooter to handle recoil or to carry a heavy pistol. If we assume a uniform carry weight limit the limit then becomes the momentum of the bullet fired.

For convenience consider a .45ACP versus a 9x23mm Winchester. Why is this convenient? Because the .45ACP will drive a 230gn bullet at 850fps and the 9x23mm will drive a 115gn bullet at 1700fps. So with half the weight but twice the speed, both have the same momentum and produce the same recoil in the same weight pistols. The difference is that the 9x23mm has twice the KE and roughly twice the tissue destroying capability per shot. So we can compromise and have substantially more KE for substantially less recoil and that allows us to carry a lighter pistol or fire at a higher rate with the same weight of pistol. Either of these can be a considerable advantage.

The purpose of the hollow point is to increase the rate of energy transmission form bullet to flesh and the other disadvantage of light and fast bullets is that they give up their energy too quickly in the initial part of their penetration. Since you can have more energy for less recoil this is not a great problem provided you don't go to extremes, like shooting a moose with a varmint round.

I hope this explains at least part of the effectiveness of hollowpoint .45s, which I had not realised myself till your post got me thinking about it. I hope it also make clear that it is not simply an either light and fast or heavy and slow problem by a continuum or compromise.

English

unit1069
07-12-2011, 17:44
While I was struggling to add to my collection of degrees, a fella in a nearby dorm put me to shame. Years younger than me, he was selling computer boards and parts from his dorm room. A few months after that, he flunked out of school as a freshman, simply did not make the grade.

Many years after he become relatively successful, the same University gave him an honorary degree, though he had never earned one from the ground up. I am not sure, but I think they gave him a "chair", more like a gesture of thank you, after he gave them so many millions in donation which he needed to do for tax breaks.

His name is Michael Dell. And The University of Texas at Austin, the Texas Lornghorns, is the University.

There's a rumor that helped me feel better. His parents were rich from Texas oil activity and they rumored to give him some $4-$5M start a company. While many parents' wealth actually destroy their children, Michael Dell is an exceptional man.

I remember it well!

At the time I was living in Austin and working for a financial firm at 6th & Brazos when one of our clients came in and told me of the young UT dropout who was just starting a company and was looking to hire employees.

I was happy where I was and didn't think much of it until Dell took off after a couple of years and those initial employees all became millionaires.

The high-tech boom in Austin was just beginning and it changed the entire character of the city. As you recall anyone could get from one end of town to the other in 20 minutes no matter where you were or wanted to go. Anything north of US 183 was "out of town" and so was anything south of TX 71.

In the last ten years whenever I visit Austin it doesn't seem any different than Dallas. Too bad; I lived there for a decade during its real heyday and I still consider it the best city I ever lived, which includes Santa Barbara, CA, if that tells you anything.

THplanes
07-12-2011, 23:43
Interesting that even when you throw it in there, its still 1:1 with .45acp

Wheres the giant advantage of lighter and faster vs slower and heavier ?

500 fps ? I'd expect a HUGE gain, not simply matching another load.

Just as the corbon ad indicates, but people take the wrong thing from it:

"velocity is the key for reliable expansion"

And apparently thats very true for smaller calibers with a smaller opening in which to extract that expansion from, it would seem .45acp isnt limited to the same velocity requirements to get reliable expansion...

If you look at Dr. Courtney's work, he derives a one stop shot percentage formula that includes both BPW and and the direct tissue damage. The resulting formula shows the +p 230 gr .45 to be equal to the 125 gr .357 mag. I haven't looked at the specific paper in some time so don't recall the exact details as to what he uses to measure tissue damage. The real argument here is usually about standard pressure 9mm verses +p, +p+, and 357 sig or light bullets in the .40 vs heavier bullets. The .40 vs the 10mm as well. The argument is over the relative importance of the BPW and PCC. Some people do get a little over invested in the BPW side of things and forget the formula includes tissue damage.

ModGlock17
07-13-2011, 07:05
Mr. Pi,

Your company seems to recommend light+high velocity rounds for self-defense and heavy for woods.

Where I live, we get aligators crawling up our backyard. They've got very thick skin and although I have never shot one, I am confident that if you can punch through the skin, the hollow point would expand.

I don't think gelatin is a good model for them.

Do you recommend heavy bullets for such situation?

Thx.

cowboy1964
07-13-2011, 12:15
For convenience consider a .45ACP versus a 9x23mm Winchester. Why is this convenient? Because the .45ACP will drive a 230gn bullet at 850fps and the 9x23mm will drive a 115gn bullet at 1700fps. So with half the weight but twice the speed, both have the same momentum and produce the same recoil in the same weight pistols. The difference is that the 9x23mm has twice the KE and roughly twice the tissue destroying capability per shot.

Handgun bullets in these calibers DO NOT DESTROY TISSUE THEY DO NOT PHYSICALLY TOUCH. Can you show ONE test that measures the permanent cavity that shows twice as large as cavity for a 9mmx23 as for a 45 ACP?

Handgun KE does not destroy tissue. This is basic stuff.

"In the case of low-velocity missiles, e.g., pistol bullets, the bullet produces a direct path of destruction with very little lateral extension within the surrounding tissues. Only a small temporary cavity is produced. To cause significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet must strike that structure directly. The amount of kinetic energy lost in tissue by a pistol bullet is insufficient to cause remote injuries produced by a high velocity rifle bullet."20 (http://www.thegunzone.com/quantico-wounding.html#fn20)The reason is that most tissue in the human target is elastic in nature. Muscle, blood vessels, lung, bowels, all are capable of substantial stretching with minimal damage. Studies have shown that the outward velocity of the tissues in which the temporary cavity forms is no more than one tenth of the velocity of the projectile.21 (http://www.thegunzone.com/quantico-wounding.html#fn21) This is well within the elasticity limits of tissue such as muscle, blood vessels, and lungs, Only inelastic tissue like liver, or the extremely fragile tissues of the brain, would show significant damage due to temporary cavitation.22 (http://www.thegunzone.com/quantico-wounding.html#fn22)
The tissue disruption caused by a handgun bullet is limited to two mechanisms. The first, or crush mechanism is the hole the bullet makes passing through the tissue. The second, or stretch mechanism is the temporary cavity formed by the tissues being driven outward in a radial direction away from the path of the bullet. Of the two, the crush mechanism, the result of penetration and permanent cavity, is the only handgun wounding mechanism which damages tissue.23 (http://www.thegunzone.com/quantico-wounding.html#fn23) To cause significant injuries to a structure within the body using a handgun, the bullet must penetrate the structure. Temporary cavity has no reliable wounding effect in elastic body tissues. Temporary cavitation is nothing more than a stretch of the tissues, generally no larger than 10 times the bullet diameter (in handgun calibers), and elastic tissues sustain little, if any, residual damage.

English
07-13-2011, 14:01
Handgun bullets in these calibers DO NOT DESTROY TISSUE THEY DO NOT PHYSICALLY TOUCH. Can you show ONE test that measures the permanent cavity that shows twice as large as cavity for a 9mmx23 as for a 45 ACP?

Handgun KE does not destroy tissue. This is basic stuff.

"In the case of low-velocity missiles, e.g., pistol bullets, the bullet produces a direct path of destruction with very little lateral extension within the surrounding tissues. Only a small temporary cavity is produced. To cause significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet must strike that structure directly. The amount of kinetic energy lost in tissue by a pistol bullet is insufficient to cause remote injuries produced by a high velocity rifle bullet."20 (http://www.thegunzone.com/quantico-wounding.html#fn20)The reason is that most tissue in the human target is elastic in nature. Muscle, blood vessels, lung, bowels, all are capable of substantial stretching with minimal damage. Studies have shown that the outward velocity of the tissues in which the temporary cavity forms is no more than one tenth of the velocity of the projectile.21 (http://www.thegunzone.com/quantico-wounding.html#fn21) This is well within the elasticity limits of tissue such as muscle, blood vessels, and lungs, Only inelastic tissue like liver, or the extremely fragile tissues of the brain, would show significant damage due to temporary cavitation.22 (http://www.thegunzone.com/quantico-wounding.html#fn22)
The tissue disruption caused by a handgun bullet is limited to two mechanisms. The first, or crush mechanism is the hole the bullet makes passing through the tissue. The second, or stretch mechanism is the temporary cavity formed by the tissues being driven outward in a radial direction away from the path of the bullet. Of the two, the crush mechanism, the result of penetration and permanent cavity, is the only handgun wounding mechanism which damages tissue.23 (http://www.thegunzone.com/quantico-wounding.html#fn23) To cause significant injuries to a structure within the body using a handgun, the bullet must penetrate the structure. Temporary cavity has no reliable wounding effect in elastic body tissues. Temporary cavitation is nothing more than a stretch of the tissues, generally no larger than 10 times the bullet diameter (in handgun calibers), and elastic tissues sustain little, if any, residual damage.

That sounds impressive! Can you show ONE test that shows it to be true? Can you, for instance, show casts of the permanent cavities of a range of representative pistol rounds that are the diameters or the expanded bullets and no more and no less? Can you show one test of elastic tissue stretched at the rate at which the temporary cavity tissue stretches surrounding tissue where no damage is done to it?

Dr. Fackler was an inovative surgeon in the treatment of gun shot wounds. The thing he pioneered succesfully was the reduced debridment of tissue around the direct wound. That is, prior to Fackler more tissue surrounding the permanent cavity was cut away. Why do you think surgeons did that if the tissue was not clearly damaged? What Fackler did was leave more of that tissue in place. Within my description of the different zones of tissue damage around the bullet track, that method of surgery is entirely consistent with tissue that is torn but then falls back into place. Left in situ, it can then heal over time but this treatment probably depends on the availability of antibiotics. As with many forms of trauma the recovered tissue will never be as effective as the original but it can be better than nothing.

I fear your quotations are no more than repetitions of Fackler's ideas which he did not have the visual immagination to extend and develop. Urey was an FBI agent and he had to be intelligent to get there but he was writing outside his expertise and repeating the collected ideas of a range of other people. A competent journalist could have produced the same paper in the same way and yet it continues to be treated as though it was produced by some kind of Einsteinian individual.

English

paragon1
07-13-2011, 15:06
That sounds impressive! Can you show ONE test that shows it to be true? Can you, for instance, show casts of the permanent cavities of a range of representative pistol rounds that are the diameters or the expanded bullets and no more and no less? Can you show one test of elastic tissue stretched at the rate at which the temporary cavity tissue stretches surrounding tissue where no damage is done to it?

Dr. Fackler was an inovative surgeon in the treatment of gun shot wounds. The thing he pioneered succesfully was the reduced debridment of tissue around the direct wound. That is, prior to Fackler more tissue surrounding the permanent cavity was cut away. Why do you think surgeons did that if the tissue was not clearly damaged? What Fackler did was leave more of that tissue in place. Within my description of the different zones of tissue damage around the bullet track, that method of surgery is entirely consistent with tissue that is torn but then falls back into place. Left in situ, it can then heal over time but this treatment probably depends on the availability of antibiotics. As with many forms of trauma the recovered tissue will never be as effective as the original but it can be better than nothing.

I fear your quotations are no more than repetitions of Fackler's ideas which he did not have the visual immagination to extend and develop. Urey was an FBI agent and he had to be intelligent to get there but he was writing outside his expertise and repeating the collected ideas of a range of other people. A competent journalist could have produced the same paper in the same way and yet it continues to be treated as though it was produced by some kind of Einsteinian individual.

English

How often do you shoot handguns in London?
How often have you shot an animal with service calibers?
How often have you trussed a deer to skin it, and examined where it was shot?

SuperMassive
07-13-2011, 22:53
While disinclined to take advertisers' claims seriously (aren't we all?), I have a question about one of the terms being employed in the initial post that seems to have escaped any meaningful definition.

By way of example, where pressure has its units of measure in psi or MPa, velocity has its units in feet per second or kilometers per hour, temperature has its units in degrees Fahrenheit or Centigrade and volume has its units in cubic inches, meters or yards, in what convention of measure (in other words, what "units") is "stopping power" expressed and how can anyone profess to dispel any myths about "stopping power" if it has yet to be actually defined in such a manner?

17119jfkioe
07-13-2011, 23:28
I love caliber trash talking here on GT. It reminds me of the kids in elementary school when they would say "my dad can beat up your dad!"

glock20c10mm
07-14-2011, 00:13
Interesting that even when you throw it in there, its still 1:1 with .45acp
Where are you getting that from?
Wheres the giant advantage of lighter and faster vs slower and heavier ?
Where is the GIANT advantage between FMJ and JHP?


Where is the GIANT advantage between 9mm and 45 Auto?


Where is the GIANT advantage between a bonded core/jacket and a non bonded core/jacket?
Just as the corbon ad indicates, but people take the wrong thing from it:

"velocity is the key for reliable expansion"

"High Velocity.....This causes enhanced shock to the nervous system and increases the chance of incapacitation.....Bullet expansion in conjunction with high velocity is what creates a larger than caliber wound channel. It also facilitates transfer of energy and increases tissue damage.....Hollowpoints that expand will come in at 75-90%. Hollowpoints that expand violently are 85-95% effective."

You miss that part or what?
And apparently thats very true for smaller calibers with a smaller opening in which to extract that expansion from, it would seem .45acp isnt limited to the same velocity requirements to get reliable expansion...
You mean except from 3 inch barrels except with specific designs of JHP?

glock20c10mm
07-14-2011, 00:29
Handgun bullets in these calibers DO NOT DESTROY TISSUE THEY DO NOT PHYSICALLY TOUCH.
Just because it hasn't been crushed within the direct path of the penetrated projectile does not mean it hasn't been destroyed at least temporarily till healing can fix it to work again.

In the quote you posted (reference #20), what handgun rounds were being compared in that 1987 data?

glock20c10mm
07-14-2011, 00:36
How often do you shoot handguns in London?
How often have you shot an animal with service calibers?
How often have you trussed a deer to skin it, and examined where it was shot?
Regardless the answer, how would it necessarily matter? I'll help you out since you're struggling. It doesn't.:thumbsup:

glock20c10mm
07-14-2011, 00:46
While disinclined to take advertisers' claims seriously (aren't we all?), I have a question about one of the terms being employed in the initial post that seems to have escaped any meaningful definition.

By way of example, where pressure has its units of measure in psi or MPa, velocity has its units in feet per second or kilometers per hour, temperature has its units in degrees Fahrenheit or Centigrade and volume has its units in cubic inches, meters or yards, in what convention of measure (in other words, what "units") is "stopping power" expressed and how can anyone profess to dispel any myths about "stopping power" if it has yet to be actually defined in such a manner?
Because something isn't defined doesn't mean it doesn't exist, as can clearly be seen in many aspects of science and otherwise.

One could ask how the after effects of terminal wounding are DEFINED from one JHP to another, or from one specific caliber in one specific load to another, or between JHP and FMJ,...

In the most common general sense that people usually define "stopping power", it would probably be better to use the terminology "quickest incapacitating power", no different than Dr. Courtney realizing that "hydrostatic shock" and "shock wave" were poorly chosen phrases and more correctly corrected them to the term "ballistic pressure wave."

Z28ricer
07-14-2011, 00:47
Where are you getting that from?

Where is the GIANT advantage between FMJ and JHP?


Where is the GIANT advantage between 9mm and 45 Auto?


Where is the GIANT advantage between a bonded core/jacket and a non bonded core/jacket?


"High Velocity.....This causes enhanced shock to the nervous system and increases the chance of incapacitation.....Bullet expansion in conjunction with high velocity is what creates a larger than caliber wound channel. It also facilitates transfer of energy and increases tissue damage.....Hollowpoints that expand will come in at 75-90%. Hollowpoints that expand violently are 85-95% effective."

You miss that part or what?

You mean except from 3 inch barrels except with specific designs of JHP?

Sweet, you bought into an advertisement.

Good job, I've got a metal insert for your vehicles air intake tract for sale, for $75.96 you can have +40% fuel mileage increase, 5-7 HP, and 10-13 ft lbs.

Credit card info please ?

glock20c10mm
07-14-2011, 00:50
Sweet, you bought into an advertisement.

Good job, I've got a metal insert for your vehicles air intake tract for sale, for $75.96 you can have +40% fuel mileage increase, 5-7 HP, and 10-13 ft lbs.

Credit card info please ?
It's not directly advertising. It's a letter from Peter Pi, Sr., President COR®BON/Glaser to all others interested in reading it. Does it endorse their ammo? Yes. Is it specifically advertising? No.

Z28ricer
07-14-2011, 00:58
It's not directly advertising. It's a letter from Peter Pi, Sr., President COR®BON/Glaser to all others interested in reading it. Does it endorse their ammo? Yes. Is it specifically advertising? No.

:faint:

SuperMassive
07-14-2011, 10:25
Because something isn't defined doesn't mean it doesn't exist, as can clearly be seen in many aspects of science and otherwise.

One could ask how the after effects of terminal wounding are DEFINED from one JHP to another, or from one specific caliber in one specific load to another, or between JHP and FMJ,...

In the most common general sense that people usually define "stopping power", it would probably be better to use the terminology "quickest incapacitating power", no different than Dr. Courtney realizing that "hydrostatic shock" and "shock wave" were poorly chosen phrases and more correctly corrected them to the term "ballistic pressure wave."

Since I am not asking if the phenomena exists or not, let's just assume for the sake of argument that it does.

That aside, in what units of measure is the mechanism of "stopping power" quantified (that's measured) other than in a "general sense" (which is vague and allows no meaningful comparison) so that we may directly compare the amount produced by different/other rounds for the purpose of direct comparison?

Is "stopping power"/"quickest incapacitating power" expressed in units of energy? (Joules), power? (Watts), work? (kiloWatt-hours), force? (Newtons), acceleration? (meters/second^2), mass? (kilograms), velocity? (meters per second), momentum? (kilogram meter-second) or some other unit of measure?


:dunno:

RichardB
07-14-2011, 13:10
I'm skeptical that there is a correct answer.

If we are looking for a metric for stopping power one could propose seconds of time until the target stopped being a threat. Now this metric would be questionable as no one in a gunfight would be verifying the time with a stop watch. Despite our best intentions to be scientific about this there are too many uncontrollable variables (health and mass of target, exact path of projectile(s), thing punctured and things missed, distance, differences in bullets and powder, bones hit, motion of target etc).

Everything can be compared on a theoretical basis using a similar test medium such as ballistic jell, wet newspapers, packed sand; you name it. But handgun performance against real people is a real crap shoot.

I'm partial to using a body count but those are very selective, not at all "scientific".

.45Super-Man
07-14-2011, 16:09
Life is passing you by, guys! Carry/use whichever caliber and load you want to(after all, it's your hide on the line)and stop devoting a good % of your life to this.

SuperMassive
07-14-2011, 20:26
I'm skeptical that there is a correct answer.

If we are looking for a metric for stopping power one could propose seconds of time until the target stopped being a threat. Now this metric would be questionable as no one in a gunfight would be verifying the time with a stop watch. Despite our best intentions to be scientific about this there are too many uncontrollable variables (health and mass of target, exact path of projectile(s), thing punctured and things missed, distance, differences in bullets and powder, bones hit, motion of target etc).

Everything can be compared on a theoretical basis using a similar test medium such as ballistic jell, wet newspapers, packed sand; you name it. But handgun performance against real people is a real crap shoot.

I'm partial to using a body count but those are very selective, not at all "scientific".

OK, at least that is an answer to the question posed (and now clarified). At least a "body count" is tangible.

If the mechanism of "stopping power" (or the synonymous term suggested above) relies upon the conceptual relationship of power (energy expended/produced per unit time) as its basic unitary value, then it stands to reason that that value would have to be some expression of power (joules/second?) and therefore time would have something (but not exclusively) to do with some aspect of its unitary dimensions.

However, the unit of measurement (time, seconds) falls short of quantifying the actual effect in that it only measures the time after the effect is produced by the mechanism and not the direct effect created by the projectile's impingement upon/within the target.

If we are to accept the claims made of the "myths" being dispelled by either party (the OP or the advertiser), then it is only reasonable to expect that either party can explain the phenomena and its mechanism by providing a unitary denomination that provides a concrete definition of the phenomena/mechanism being demystified or clarified. Without knowing the unitary definition of the phenomena, it is impossible to know what "stopping power" is and consequently, say with any authority or certainty what it is not or what influences it.

I realize that the material (the claimed phenomena, its mechanism and myths being "dispelled") quoted may very well be beyond the explanatory abilities of the OP, and look forward to the OP specifying what units of measurement (if he is able to do so) are used to quantify the mechanism of "stopping power" or "quickest incapacitating power" that any given round possesses.

How about it, OP? :winkie:

SuperMassive
07-14-2011, 23:35
Life is passing you by, guys! Carry/use whichever caliber and load you want to(after all, it's your hide on the line)and stop devoting a good % of your life to this.
How do you figure?

I took the day off and sent nearly 400 rounds down range today.

Then I spent the rest of the day carrying my dirty, but very happy M17 around town on my hip (we can open carry here) as I ran errands that I've meant to attend to (I am very good at procrastinating) for quite some time.

sdsnet
07-14-2011, 23:49
tagged

English
07-15-2011, 04:58
I am sure that the idea of idea of unitizing stopping power in terms of joules, acceleration and so on is misguided. The idea of power in this instance is not related to the meaning of the term "power" in physics but in commomn language, as in, "people power", "power of persuasion", "power of the press", "power of love" and so on.

If we consider the metrics for IQ, they are composed of weightings for different so called "primary" mental abilities, but this means that individuals with the same IQ score can have very different real world ability with respect to different tasks or jobs.

Because there are so many different body types, states of health and personality amongst those who might be shot there is no way in which stopping power could be unitized even to the extent that IQ is unitized where the different schemes of measurement only agree on the concept of IQ and not on what the weightings of its components should be.

When we then add in the range of different loadings of the many different calibers, the range of bullets that can be loaded, the different bullet tracks through the body, whether a rib is hit on entry or not, and so on we can see the numerical scope of the problem. There is no practical way in which data of this complexity can be reduced from street results. The best we can hope for is that department X believes its results after a change from .45ACP to 357SIG are an improvement. Even here, without careful statistical analysis, we are likely to get a self justifying report from the decision makers.

As a matter, perhaps, of side interest, it might be more useful to count the numbers of catastrophic failures than the number of rapid stops. When the .38 Sp racked up so many cases of 12, 15 or more hits to the torso without producing a stop, something should have been done.

Balistic Gellatine tests tell us a lot about what a bullet does but that is distinct from its ability to stop an individual from continuing to fight. What could be done is measurement of the effects on animals, since we can't do this to people. The Drs. Courtney did this for one aspect of wounding, but the same kind of thing could be done for different bullet effect on shots to the liver, shots to the heart, lungs and so on. These results could then be combined in much the same way as an IQ score. It would not be perfect but would be better than nothing as a guide to choice of cartridge and would be a useful guide to how much is being given up by carrying a mouse gun or sub compact relative to a service size pistol. The same system could be applied to rifle rounds and then we could actually see the approximate difference and be saved all the ready made phrases.

Given tests for the same bullets at different speeds it should be possible to calculate the approximate difference of effect on people of different weight.

If you think of the number of appropriately sized animals that would have to be shot to do all this you can see that it is unlikely to happen and that we should be grateful to the Courtneys for their ingenious way round this problem for at least some useful data.

English

21Carrier
07-15-2011, 05:35
I promised myself I'd never jump into another one of these BPW threads, but it will only be momentary.

This stuff is like religion. It seems it's human nature that anything that is not COMPLETELY understood is highly polarizing. When there is no INDISPUTABLE proof for one side, it gives the other side a small foothold (which is all that's necessary for these internet battles to begin and persist). As with religion, when two sides have competing ideas that are as yet unproved (despite HEAVY evidence in favor of one side), there seems to be massive conflict. There's JUST ENOUGH credibility left on the old-school side to keep people hanging around, and trick them into ignoring the evidence. It always goes this way. The "new-school" guys demand evidence that debunks their theory, but none is given. Only references to decades (or millennia) old material is offered. The arguments never go anywhere.

Only time will solve these issues. One day both of these unanswered questions will be answered once enough proof has been discovered. It took centuries to unravel the subtleties of genetics, microbiology, and astronomy. Many times it required the advent of new devices (be they genetic sequencers, microscopes, or telescopes) to enlighten the masses. We still don't understand how MANY medicines work, especially mood altering drugs that are thought to affect neurotransmitters. That doesn't mean they don't work, it just means we aren't yet smart enough to fully realize what's happening. Perhaps it will require a new brain scanning device before these drugs' mechanisms are fully understood.

I suspect ballistic wounding to follow a similar model. Until we fully--or better--understand our bodies, this will remain a stalemate. All I can say is that I'm not putting my money on the "old school" idea of attackers falling because "that's what the movies tell them to do". I'm also not saying BPW is correct. It may not be, and I truly mean that. But at least it TRIES to answer the question of what's going on. I SERIOUSLY am trying to keep an open mind, and only look at the facts. But the non-BPW side really has no good explanation of what happens when people just drop with poor shots, and they (the actual scientists and ballistic experts, not the GT posters) admit that they are only hypothesizing. The "old school" ideas just try to circumvent the issue with a pitiful explanation. This is not psychological. Something PHYSIOLOGICAL is happening here. Either it is yet unexplained, or BPW is on the right track. Either way, the idea that it's "psychological" is either poor thinking or an admission of ignorance, and it will eventually go the way of the Earth being flat theory. Until then, keep it friendly boys.

481, I think English made some valid points. If your educational background is true, what happened? It's really none of my business, but "super geniuses" usually do not end up being ordinary beat cops. Anyway, you seem like an angry little man. It will be ok. Probably. Unless you live to see your ideas proved wrong. In that case, I see your world crumbling. Extract yourself from the Caliber Corner for a while. You will be happier.

Z28, bullet technology has made great strides recently. Not too long ago, it was VERY common for .45ACP bullets to not expand well unless fired from 5" or longer barrels. The round is obviously a low velocity round, and when used in shorter barrels, even lower. There have historically been many issues with .45ACP JHPs opening reliably when fired from short barrels, especially when met with denim. Although recent technology has greatly helped fix this deficiency (almost to the point of elimination), some older design bullets may still have problems. This is directly due to its low velocity. As English was explaining, the higher a bullet's velocity, the higher the hydraulic pressure inside the hollow point's cavity, the better the bullet expands. The larger cavity of a .45ACP JHP helps, but it does not fix the velocity issue completely. A hollow point needs velocity to create pressure in its cavity. So, the lower the velocity, the less pressure inside the cavity, the more likely the expansion mechanism will fail.

EDIT: Also, I wanted to add that too much velocity can also overdrive a bullet's design and cause failure, so it's not always smart to push velocity to the ragged extreme. However, I think there's more room for added velocity than most realize. I do think if comparing two of the same bullet at two different velocities (both within the bullet's design limits), the faster bullet will always win. Also, the idea that 10mm is disadvantaged since most .400" bullets are designed for .40S&W and thus beyond their capabilities is not totally true. I've tested lots of 10mm bullets, all at full-power 10mm velocities, and only one or two have fragmented. Given that those bullets also do so at .40S&W velocities, I think that is a designed characteristic.

glock20c10mm
07-15-2011, 11:35
Since I am not asking if the phenomena exists or not, let's just assume for the sake of argument that it does.

That aside, in what units of measure is the mechanism of "stopping power" quantified (that's measured) other than in a "general sense" (which is vague and allows no meaningful comparison) so that we may directly compare the amount produced by different/other rounds for the purpose of direct comparison?

Is "stopping power"/"quickest incapacitating power" expressed in units of energy? (Joules), power? (Watts), work? (kiloWatt-hours), force? (Newtons), acceleration? (meters/second^2), mass? (kilograms), velocity? (meters per second), momentum? (kilogram meter-second) or some other unit of measure?


:dunno:
By Dr. Courtney's theory, it's expressed as a probability (% chance) at differing levels of peak ballistic pressure wave, measured in pounds per square inch, as measured by a high speed pressure transducer, which can be generally calculated for a given load of ammo.

Dr. Courtney's work suggests the following probabilities:

500 PSI = 15%
700 PSI = 50%
1000 PSI = 75%
1300 PSI = 90%

More specifically these probabilities relate to incapacitation in less than 5 seconds with a hit to the thoracic cavity for rounds that are capable of at least 9.5" penetration depth.

The equation is; p = (5*E)/(pi*d)

p is the peak pressure wave magnitude on the surface of a 1" diameter cylinder centered on the wound channel in PSI. E = the impact energy in ft-lbs. d is the penetration depth in feet. Fragmentation adds to the peak BPW and can be explained in further detail if you wish. But for example, the basic idea is that a bullet which loses 25% of its mass to fragmentation will have its pressure wave magnitude increased by 25%.

glock20c10mm
07-15-2011, 11:55
Life is passing you by, guys! Carry/use whichever caliber and load you want to(after all, it's your hide on the line)and stop devoting a good % of your life to this.
You've contradicted yourself.

At the same time you tell all to stop devoting their life to this, you also say to carry whichever caliber and load they want.

The latter requires a decision to be made, and all of us as individuals will decide for ourselves how long that decision will take. In the meantime we all still carry something while keeping an open mind toward better products and updated research that may be to our benefit. If it's such a waste to think/learn, why would anyone be shooting anything but old school JHP when they choose to carry JHP? For that matter, why carry anything but FMJ, as it still does the job most of the time.

How about you do what you want, and I'll do what I want. If I ever need someone else to make my decisions for me in whatever amount of time I choose to, I'll let you know. Thanks.:wavey:

glock20c10mm
07-15-2011, 12:03
OK, at least that is an answer to the question posed (and now clarified). At least a "body count" is tangible.

If the mechanism of "stopping power" (or the synonymous term suggested above) relies upon the conceptual relationship of power (energy expended/produced per unit time) as its basic unitary value, then it stands to reason that that value would have to be some expression of power (joules/second?) and therefore time would have something (but not exclusively) to do with some aspect of its unitary dimensions.

However, the unit of measurement (time, seconds) falls short of quantifying the actual effect in that it only measures the time after the effect is produced by the mechanism and not the direct effect created by the projectile's impingement upon/within the target.

If we are to accept the claims made of the "myths" being dispelled by either party (the OP or the advertiser), then it is only reasonable to expect that either party can explain the phenomena and its mechanism by providing a unitary denomination that provides a concrete definition of the phenomena/mechanism being demystified or clarified. Without knowing the unitary definition of the phenomena, it is impossible to know what "stopping power" is and consequently, say with any authority or certainty what it is not or what influences it.

I realize that the material (the claimed phenomena, its mechanism and myths being "dispelled") quoted may very well be beyond the explanatory abilities of the OP, and look forward to the OP specifying what units of measurement (if he is able to do so) are used to quantify the mechanism of "stopping power" or "quickest incapacitating power" that any given round possesses.

How about it, OP? :winkie:
What CorBon bases their beliefs on is not clear, therefore it's impossible for me to comment in regard to CorBon.

I go by Dr. Courtney's theory of BPW, where the peak ballistic pressure wave in PSI = the unitary definition of the phenomena.

The effect, by Dr. Courtney's theory of BPW, is incapacitation of a subject in less than 5 seconds.

Glolt20-91
07-15-2011, 12:39
Originally Posted by glock20c10mm
Stopping Power
Myths Addressed!


BIGGER BULLET?


BETTER BULLET?

they must have a soft lead core and a thin jacket, along with a hollowpoint that is large enough for material to get inside and push outward on the walls to enhance its expansion.


FASTER BULLET? (Expansion is key, but Velocity is KING!)

High Velocity –The answer to reliable bullet expansion.


GETTING TECHNICAL:

From these results, the size of the permanent (crush) and the temporary (stretch) cavities are calculated. Bullets that expand produce larger crush cavities than bullets which do not expand. As the volume of the crush cavity increases, so does the stopping power. The crush cavity is a good indicator of stopping power at lower impact velocities. The size and shape of the temporary cavity is also measured and evaluated. Bullets that expand violently produce larger, more effective stretch cavities than bullets which expand slowly or marginally. As the volume of this stretch cavity increases so does stopping power. The stretch cavity is a good indicator of stopping power at higher impact velocities. But expansion in ordnance gelatin tells us only part of the story. In an actual gunfight, slower Hollowpoints can often become plugged with clothing material. When a bullet lacks velocity it performs like a round nose bullet, expanding hardly at all. To be an effective stopper, a bullet must have enough velocity to expand whether plugged with debris or not. It needs to expand and dissipate its energy within the target to effectively create stopping power. In the case of Pow’RBall bullets, the hollowpoint is protected by a polymer ball which prevents plugging. The ball also delays expansion to allow the bullet to obtain optimum penetration before expansion begins. Lab tests and street results have shown that Hollowpoints that expand in gelatin will typically expand in street use. Hollowpoint bullets that barely expand in gelatin do not expand in real gunfights unless bone is hit. There are many loads sold to civilians and law enforcement that do not have enough velocity to insure reliable expansion. All COR®BON defensive ammo like our Traditional JHPs, Pow’RBall, and DPX are designed with adequate velocity to expand in gelatin...or bad guys. COR®BON ammo expands reliably and creates Stopping Power!


COR®BON AMMO

Every production lot of COR®BON ammo is tested and re-tested to assure our customers the very best ammunition they can purchase. COR®BON ammo consistently ranks at the top of the class in actual one shot stops. We have developed a variety of loads for various real life situations. All our customers need to do is select the type of load that meets their needs.Our company offers live technical support to answer any questions and help you decide. We believe that if you choose COR®BON, you will have the best ammo with the highest probability of a one shot stop. Why take chances with anything else? With these ever changing events in our country, it is important that each American retain their rights protected by our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is up to us as free people, to keep the constitution as our forefathers wrote it. I’m amazed by their great foresight and wisdom. Protect your Gun Rights and they will protect your freedom.


Peter Pi, Sr., President COR®BON/Glaser

Glock 20c -- I enjoyed you post, thnak you!


Since there isn't a national data base for shooting incidents (OIS), how can Peter Pi issue a statement that Corbon ammo has the highest probability of one shot stops???

Bob :cowboy:

SuperMassive
07-15-2011, 12:55
I am sure that the idea of idea of unitizing stopping power in terms of joules, acceleration and so on is misguided. The idea of power in this instance is not related to the meaning of the term "power" in physics but in commomn language, as in, "people power", "power of persuasion", "power of the press", "power of love" and so on.

If we consider the metrics for IQ, they are composed of weightings for different so called "primary" mental abilities, but this means that individuals with the same IQ score can have very different real world ability with respect to different tasks or jobs.

Because there are so many different body types, states of health and personality amongst those who might be shot there is no way in which stopping power could be unitized even to the extent that IQ is unitized where the different schemes of measurement only agree on the concept of IQ and not on what the weightings of its components should be.

When we then add in the range of different loadings of the many different calibers, the range of bullets that can be loaded, the different bullet tracks through the body, whether a rib is hit on entry or not, and so on we can see the numerical scope of the problem. There is no practical way in which data of this complexity can be reduced from street results. The best we can hope for is that department X believes its results after a change from .45ACP to 357SIG are an improvement. Even here, without careful statistical analysis, we are likely to get a self justifying report from the decision makers.

As a matter, perhaps, of side interest, it might be more useful to count the numbers of catastrophic failures than the number of rapid stops. When the .38 Sp racked up so many cases of 12, 15 or more hits to the torso without producing a stop, something should have been done.

Balistic Gellatine tests tell us a lot about what a bullet does but that is distinct from its ability to stop an individual from continuing to fight. What could be done is measurement of the effects on animals, since we can't do this to people. The Drs. Courtney did this for one aspect of wounding, but the same kind of thing could be done for different bullet effect on shots to the liver, shots to the heart, lungs and so on. These results could then be combined in much the same way as an IQ score. It would not be perfect but would be better than nothing as a guide to choice of cartridge and would be a useful guide to how much is being given up by carrying a mouse gun or sub compact relative to a service size pistol. The same system could be applied to rifle rounds and then we could actually see the approximate difference and be saved all the ready made phrases.

Given tests for the same bullets at different speeds it should be possible to calculate the approximate difference of effect on people of different weight.

If you think of the number of appropriately sized animals that would have to be shot to do all this you can see that it is unlikely to happen and that we should be grateful to the Courtneys for their ingenious way round this problem for at least some useful data.

English

Then you are equating the term "stopping power" to being nothing more than a meaningless idiomatic expression?


1.) In the first sentence of your post, you state-


"I am sure that the idea of idea of unitizing stopping power in terms of joules, acceleration and so on is misguided"


and then cause your third paragraph to read-


"Because there are so many different body types, states of health and personality amongst those who might be shot there is no way in which stopping power could be unitized even to the extent that IQ is unitized where the different schemes of measurement only agree on the concept of IQ and not on what the weightings of its components should be"


-supporting your assertion in your first sentence (above) that unitization of the phenomena of "stopping power" is, using your language, "misguided".

You then state in the sixth paragraph of your post-


"The Drs. Courtney did this for one aspect of wounding, but the same kind of thing could be done for different bullet effect on shots to the liver, shots to the heart, lungs and so on. These results could then be combined in much the same way as an IQ score".


If I'm not mistaken, the BPW model proposed employs psi (pressure units of pounds per square inch) in order to quantify (unitize) the results of the proposed mechanism.

Are you saying that the Courtney's are "misguided" for their use of unitization in quantifying their research results?

This also appears to contradict your statement that follows-


...and that we should be grateful to the Courtneys for their ingenious way round this problem for at least some useful data.

Since the Courtney's elected to unitize their research results; a practice that you've deemed "misguided", can you explain how you justify such self-contradictory statements?


2.) Your suggestion (underlined above and below) of the combination of (and as yet undefined) test results across a wide range of organs and physiological structures will require a common unit of measure to combine those results as you've suggested-


"The Drs. Courtney did this for one aspect of wounding, but the same kind of thing could be done for different bullet effect on shots to the liver, shots to the heart, lungs and so on. These results could then be combined in much the same way as an IQ score".


-otherwise those results will become a meaningless and unrelated assortment of combined unitary values that would then be rendered incomparable against one another.


3.) In your first sentence, you have labeled attempts to unitize the phenomena of "stopping power" as "misguided", only to then suggest a combined set of broad ranging test results (unitized?)-


These results could then be combined in much the same way as an IQ score".


-that would be meaningless if lacking any unit of measure (unitization) and self-confounding if lacking a common unit of measure.


How is it that you can have it both ways?

SuperMassive
07-15-2011, 13:34
What CorBon bases their beliefs on is not clear, therefore it's impossible for me to comment in regard to CorBon.

Then what purpose did you have in posting their advertisement?

Does it support or refute your beliefs in "stopping power"?


The effect, by Dr. Courtney's theory of BPW, is incapacitation of a subject in less than 5 seconds.

The time until incapacitation is measured in seconds, not units of pressure (psi) and does not measure the actual mechanism of "stopping power", a mechanism whose units you state exist in psi.

Are you now saying that the mechanism of "stopping power" should be measured in "seconds to incapacitation" and not in psi as you have previously indicated?


I go by Dr. Courtney's theory of BPW, where the peak ballistic pressure wave in PSI = the unitary definition of the phenomena.

OK, so your unitary definition of "stopping power" is peak psi.

A prior poster, English, has made the following statements regarding the validity of unitizing the phenomena of "stopping power"-

1.)

"I am sure that the idea of idea of unitizing stopping power in terms of joules, acceleration and so on is misguided"


2.)

"Because there are so many different body types, states of health and personality amongst those who might be shot there is no way in which stopping power could be unitized even to the extent that IQ is unitized where the different schemes of measurement only agree on the concept of IQ and not on what the weightings of its components should be"



I am curious. How do you answer to his appraisal of those who choose to unitize the phenomena of "stopping power" as being "misguided" ?




.

Glolt20-91
07-15-2011, 13:54
Then what purpose did you have in posting their advertisement?

Does it support or refute your beliefs in "stopping power"?




The time until incapacitation is measured in seconds, not units of pressure (psi) and does not measure the actual mechanism of "stopping power", a mechanism whose units you state exist in psi.

Are you now saying that the mechanism of "stopping power" should be measured in "seconds to incapacitation" and not in psi as you have previously indicated?




OK, so your unitary definition of "stopping power" is peak psi.

A prior poster, English, has made the following statements regarding the validity of unitizing the phenomena of "stopping power"-

1.) "I am sure that the idea of idea of unitizing stopping power in terms of joules, acceleration and so on is misguided"

and

2.) "Because there are so many different body types, states of health and personality amongst those who might be shot there is no way in which stopping power could be unitized even to the extent that IQ is unitized where the different schemes of measurement only agree on the concept of IQ and not on what the weightings of its components should be"

I am curious. How do you answer to his appraisal of those who choose to unitize the phenomena of "stopping power" as being "misguided" ?




.

Welcome to the forum! Intelligent questions, but don't expect the same kind of replies. :supergrin:

Bob :cowboy:

SuperMassive
07-15-2011, 14:13
Welcome to the forum! Intelligent questions, but don't expect the same kind of replies. :supergrin:

Bob :cowboy:

Thanks.

Asking questions is the primary instrument of my profession and I have come to find that it is the only way to ascertain the truth*.

*although the truth one ultimately reveals may be of an all together different sort than the one one initially set out to ascertain

agtman
07-15-2011, 19:00
Well, ... :whistling: after five pages of spewing, the proposition appears to be settled.

Get something chambered for the 10mm AUTO, load it with real 10mm ammo (not watered-down, .40-duplicating crapola),
and be done with it. :upeyes:

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/agtman/800px-10MM_AUTO_-_FMJ_-_1.jpg

:cool:

21Carrier
07-15-2011, 19:20
Well, ... :whistling: after five pages of spewing, the proposition appears to be settled.

Get something chambered for the 10mm AUTO, load it with real 10mm ammo (not watered-down, .40-duplicating crapola),
and be done with it. :upeyes:

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/agtman/800px-10MM_AUTO_-_FMJ_-_1.jpg

:cool:

I agree, why force yourself to choose between light and fast, or heavy and slow, when you can shoot 10mm Auto and have heavy AND fast. I'd think a 200gr projectile around 1250fps would qualify. I choose 155gr projectiles at about 1450fps. That is still heavier than any 9mm bullets, about mid weight for .40S&W, with velocity that beats them all. Or maybe a 180gr projectile at 1350fps would be best? I just like that I have the option depending on my intended target and mood.

Can we all agree that this is a good middle ground? Can we all just get along?

21Carrier
07-15-2011, 19:31
Thanks.

Asking questions is the primary instrument of my profession and I have come to find that it is the only way to ascertain the truth*.

*although the truth one ultimately reveals may be of an all together different sort than the one one initially set out to ascertain

The Spanish Inquisition asked lots of questions. Asking questions alone does not lead you to the truth. The truth can only be found in LISTENING to the answers, and scientifically proving them. If you don't listen to the answers, the questioning is just a facade. Unfortunately, that's the downfall of BOTH sides here.

I'm not saying you are wrong, or anyone else is right, I'm just finishing your half-truth. I think there is too much posturing going on in this ongoing feud without enough actual application of scientific method and meaningful debate. I'm not saying that I'M doing any of that, I'm just trying to play "devil's advocate" and point out the obvious flaws in the entire argument. Until BOTH sides become more open-minded, accept the idea that one side or both may be wrong, and agree to work TOGETHER to find the truth, we will ALL keep living in the dark. The TRUTH about this whole debate is that NEITHER side ACTUALLY knows the truth.

SuperMassive
07-15-2011, 20:31
The Spanish Inquisition asked lots of questions. Asking questions alone does not lead you to the truth. The truth can only be found in LISTENING to the answers, and scientifically proving them. If you don't listen to the answers, the questioning is just a facade. Unfortunately, that's the downfall of BOTH sides here.

I'm not saying you are wrong, or anyone else is right, I'm just finishing your half-truth. I think there is too much posturing going on in this ongoing feud without enough actual application of scientific method and meaningful debate. I'm not saying that I'M doing any of that, I'm just trying to play "devil's advocate" and point out the obvious flaws in the entire argument. Until BOTH sides become more open-minded, accept the idea that one side or both may be wrong, and agree to work TOGETHER to find the truth, we will ALL keep living in the dark. The TRUTH about this whole debate is that NEITHER side ACTUALLY knows the truth.

The Spanish Inquisition, huh? Kind of an overly emotional comparison isn't it?

Of course, asking questions requires listening to the answers elicited. I believe that that idea goes without saying. If you'll kindly re-read my post you'll see that I said that asking questions is the primary instrument of my profession, not the only instrument of my profession.

SuperMassive
07-15-2011, 22:05
I agree, why force yourself to choose between light and fast, or heavy and slow, when you can shoot 10mm Auto and have heavy AND fast. I'd think a 200gr projectile around 1250fps would qualify.

Fired out of a G20, that load (italicized in red above) will provide 15.10 fpe of free recoil energy which actually exceeds by ~13% the free recoil energy of 13.39 fpe produced by a .44 Magnum 240 gr. JHP at 1,250 fps as fired from a 5 1/2" barreled Ruger Super Black Hawk revolver.

What if you are unable to control the recoil of such a load and find yourself in need of a second, third or fourth shot under the stress of protecting yourself and/or your loved ones against a rapidly advancing lethal threat?

Conversely, accepting your suggestion above as a step in the right direction, then why not just go the rest of the way and run fully charged .44 Magnum loads (240 JHPs @ 1300 fps or 300's @ 1,100 fps) in a 3" S&W Mountain revolver?

21Carrier
07-15-2011, 23:15
The Spanish Inquisition, huh? Kind of an overly emotional comparison isn't it?

I would argue that the most effective comparisons are those that effect an emotional response.

Of course, asking questions requires listening to the answers elicited. I believe that that idea goes without saying. If you'll kindly re-read my post you'll see that I said that asking questions is the primary instrument of my profession, not the only instrument of my profession.

OK, so you get the point. Now, everyone else needs to also realize this and begin applying it.

Fired out of a G20, that load (italicized in red above) will provide 15.10 fpe of free recoil energy which actually exceeds by ~13% the free recoil energy of 13.39 fpe produced by a .44 Magnum 240 gr. JHP at 1,250 fps as fired from a 5 1/2" barreled Ruger Super Black Hawk revolver.

What if you are unable to control the recoil of such a load and find yourself in need of a second, third or fourth shot under the stress of protecting yourself and/or your loved ones against a rapidly advancing lethal threat?

Conversely, accepting your suggestion above as a step in the right direction, then why not just go the rest of the way and run fully charged .44 Magnum loads (240 JHPs @ 1300 fps or 300's @ 1,100 fps) in a 3" S&W Mountain revolver?

My calculations show different figures. Using a 9.5gn charge of 800-X to push a 200gn bullet at 1250fps, in a 1.75lb Glock 20 yields 15.02fpe (just about what you got). Using 23.0gn of H110 to push a 240gn bullet to 1250fps in a 2.75lb Blackhawk yields 17.71fpe. I'm guessing you used a lower charge of a faster powder to get your figure. Either way, the Glock is a semi-auto, and will have less felt recoil.

Also, I believe you are trying to fool us into believing the recoil of that 10mm load will be equivalent to a real .44Magnum load. That is simply not the case. A REAL .44Magnum load would be 24.5gn of Lil' Gun pushing that 240gn bullet to 1550fps. THAT load would yield 26.77fpe, nearly TWICE that of the G20. Or, if you prefer a 300gn bullet, Double Tap has a 300gn load at 1325fps (not the 1100fps you're using). Duplicating that load would take 18.5gn of AA#9. That load gives us a 300gn bullet at 1330fps, and a nearly equivalent free recoil energy of 25.62fpe. So, your comparison really didn't prove much. That's like me saying that .32ACP has as much recoil as 10mm because my comparison is using a 135gn 10mm bullet at only 600fps. If you're gonna compare recoil between calibers, lets compare hot loads to hot loads, not bunny-fart loads.

I can shoot that 200gn 10mm load just fine. I might lose a fraction of a second on follow-up compared to a light 9mm load, but I believe the trade-off would be worth it. Now, I wouldn't use that load for human SD, simply because of over-penetration concerns. For human SD, I use 13.0gn of Blue Dot under a 155gn bullet doing about 1450fps. That load yields 13.87fpe, which is roughly HALF of a .44Magnum. I am TOTALLY aware that multiple shots will almost certainly be necessary in a SD shooting. I would not depend on a 10mm pistol if I could not get several rapid shots on target accurately. But I can, so why not use it?

Nice try, but even scorching hot 10mm loads have nowhere near the recoil of a .44Magnum.

SuperMassive
07-15-2011, 23:36
I would argue that the most effective comparisons are those that effect an emotional response.

So you prefer emoting over contemplative thought when it comes to responses?

OK, so you get the point. Now, everyone else needs to also realize this and begin applying it.

I believe that I just made my position clear to you.

I assume that you believe that this standard applies to you as well?

Given your post (see post #98, page 4 of this thread) in which you directed rude commentary towards another member of this forum-


481, I think English made some valid points. If your educational background is true, what happened? It's really none of my business, but "super geniuses" usually do not end up being ordinary beat cops. Anyway, you seem like an angry little man. It will be ok. Probably. Unless you live to see your ideas proved wrong. In that case, I see your world crumbling. Extract yourself from the Caliber Corner for a while. You will be happier.


-it is difficult to accept your calls for such restraint from others.

Of course, asking questions requires listening to the answers elicited. I believe that that idea goes without saying. If you'll kindly re-read my post you'll see that I said that asking questions is the primary instrument of my profession, not the only instrument of my profession.

Have you re-read what I posted?

:)

Glolt20-91
07-15-2011, 23:41
I agree, why force yourself to choose between light and fast, or heavy and slow, when you can shoot 10mm Auto and have heavy AND fast. I'd think a 200gr projectile around 1250fps would qualify. I choose 155gr projectiles at about 1450fps. That is still heavier than any 9mm bullets, about mid weight for .40S&W, with velocity that beats them all. Or maybe a 180gr projectile at 1350fps would be best? I just like that I have the option depending on my intended target and mood.

Can we all agree that this is a good middle ground? Can we all just get along?

I reload a lot of 10mm, please list any 180gr JHP that stays together on impact at 1350fps . . .

Bob :cowboy:

21Carrier
07-15-2011, 23:51
So you prefer emoting over contemplative thought when it comes to responses?

No, of course not. But using phrases that effect strong emotional response is a good way to get someone's attention. That is what I meant, and that is what I did.

I believe that I just made my position clear to you.



Have you re-read what I posted?

:)

Look, man. I'm neither arguing for or against BPW. I've been there, done that, had no fun. I'm just saying we don't understand what is going on when someone gets shot and drops in the absence of a CNS hit. BPW might explain it, or psychological factors might explain it. All I'm saying is that everyone here is strictly adhering to one side or the other, but failing to realize that BOTH sides admit to not really knowing the answer. The non-BPW side says they THINK it's psychological, but it's just a guess, while the BPW side says they THINK it's BPW, but can't prove the mechanism beyond all doubt. I'm just saying that instead of just yelling at each other, we should quit posturing, and work together on a solution.

I am not the other guys that have been arguing BPW to death, so drop the attitude and quit treating me like I am that way. I'm just trying to point out the obvious fact that each side claims to have irrefutable proof, but a quick read of both sides' literature proves that both arguments contain holes.

21Carrier
07-15-2011, 23:53
I reload a lot of 10mm, please list any 180gr JHP that stays together on impact at 1350fps . . .

Bob :cowboy:

180gn XTP, 180gn Gold Dot (over expands, but stays together), 175gn Silvertip (close enough). If you doubt me, go to the 10mm Reloading Forum and look through my thread on testing bullets in my wax tube. The XTPs and Silvertips are especially tough bullets. They would likely handle 1450fps, especially the XTP.

Also, 155gn Silvertips and XTPs handle 1450fps with ease. They NEVER come apart. It also seems the 135gn Nosler and Sierra JHPs are not as bad as people think. I've tested both at 1600fps, and both create MASSIVE wound cavities while still penetrating decently. I think both of them reached 8-10" in the wax. I have learned through comparison to other media with known loads/factory rounds that penetration in gelatin/tissue should be about 1.6-2.0 times greater than the wax. So, that means even the 135gn bullets at 1600fps penetrate beyond the 12" minimum, and create massive, nasty wounds.

Also, for anyone who cares, I'll be testing a 200gn WFNGC bullet tomorrow morning. I conjured up a special 37" long wax tube for it. It should be an interesting test.

SuperMassive
07-16-2011, 00:09
I'm just saying that instead of just yelling at each other, we should quit posturing, and work together on a solution.

I am not the other guys that have been arguing BPW to death, so drop the attitude and quit treating me like I am that way. I'm just trying to point out the obvious fact that each side claims to have irrefutable proof, but a quick read of both sides' literature proves that both arguments contain holes.

I assume that you believe that this standard applies to you as well?

Given your post (see post #98, page 4 of this thread) in which you directed rude commentary towards another member of this forum-


481, I think English made some valid points. If your educational background is true, what happened? It's really none of my business, but "super geniuses" usually do not end up being ordinary beat cops. Anyway, you seem like an angry little man. It will be ok. Probably. Unless you live to see your ideas proved wrong. In that case, I see your world crumbling. Extract yourself from the Caliber Corner for a while. You will be happier.


-it is difficult to accept your calls for such restraint from others.

21Carrier
07-16-2011, 00:16
I assume that you believe that this standard applies to you as well?

Given your post (see post #98, page 4 of this thread) in which you directed rude commentary towards another member of this forum-



-it is difficult to accept your calls for such restraint from others.

You're right, my post was rude. I really had this epiphany after that post. I started to realize how similar this discussion is to religious discussions, and I tried to apply the same type of thinking as I do to religious discussions. I realized that arguing and nastiness does nothing to further your point. I apologize to 481 for my comments. I only did so because he is usually so rude and his background does seem sketchy. I remember him from a previous BPW thread in which he was continually making personal attacks.

Anyway, you are correct, the standard should apply to me as well. I apologize and promise to adhere to my own standards in the future.

21Carrier
07-16-2011, 00:22
I know this is off-topic, but SuperMassive, do you study stars by profession, or is it just a hobby? I have always been fascinated with space. I often wish I had not chosen to pursue medicine, and tried to be an astronaut (I'm too old now, and the space program is sadly being buried). That's not to say I don't like what I'm training for, it's just a hindsight regret.

SuperMassive
07-16-2011, 00:30
You're right, my post was rude. I really had this epiphany after that post. I started to realize how similar this discussion is to religious discussions, and I tried to apply the same type of thinking as I do to religious discussions. I realized that arguing and nastiness does nothing to further your point. I apologize to 481 for my comments. I only did so because he is usually so rude and his background does seem sketchy. I remember him from a previous BPW thread in which he was continually making personal attacks.

Anyway, you are correct, the standard should apply to me as well. I apologize and promise to adhere to my own standards in the future.

It takes an upright man to admit an error (and offer an apology for it in public) and you stand a whole lot taller in my eyes for doing that.

Looking forward to that wax tube test of the 200gn WFNGC.

:)

SuperMassive
07-16-2011, 00:44
I know this is off-topic, but SuperMassive, do you study stars by profession, or is it just a hobby?

Nope, just a hobby. Stellar nucleosynthesis, degenerate matter, stuff that would bore most folks to tears. My specific discipline is more "earthbound" and that is all that I am comfortable sharing on an open forum. Hope you understand.

I have always been fascinated with space. I often wish I had not chosen to pursue medicine, and tried to be an astronaut (I'm too old now, and the space program is sadly being buried). That's not to say I don't like what I'm training for, it's just a hindsight regret.

It is hard for me to accept that we no longer have readily available manned orbital capabilities and must rely on others for transportation.

Hitch-hiking is so undignified. :upeyes:

Glolt20-91
07-16-2011, 00:53
I would argue that the most effective comparisons are those that effect an emotional response.



OK, so you get the point. Now, everyone else needs to also realize this and begin applying it.



My calculations show different figures. Using a 9.5gn charge of 800-X to push a 200gn bullet at 1250fps, in a 1.75lb Glock 20 yields 15.02fpe (just about what you got). Using 23.0gn of H110 to push a 240gn bullet to 1250fps in a 2.75lb Blackhawk yields 17.71fpe. I'm guessing you used a lower charge of a faster powder to get your figure. Either way, the Glock is a semi-auto, and will have less felt recoil.

Also, I believe you are trying to fool us into believing the recoil of that 10mm load will be equivalent to a real .44Magnum load. That is simply not the case. A REAL .44Magnum load would be 24.5gn of Lil' Gun pushing that 240gn bullet to 1550fps. THAT load would yield 26.77fpe, nearly TWICE that of the G20. Or, if you prefer a 300gn bullet, Double Tap has a 300gn load at 1325fps (not the 1100fps you're using). Duplicating that load would take 18.5gn of AA#9. That load gives us a 300gn bullet at 1330fps, and a nearly equivalent free recoil energy of 25.62fpe. So, your comparison really didn't prove much. That's like me saying that .32ACP has as much recoil as 10mm because my comparison is using a 135gn 10mm bullet at only 600fps. If you're gonna compare recoil between calibers, lets compare hot loads to hot loads, not bunny-fart loads.

I can shoot that 200gn 10mm load just fine. I might lose a fraction of a second on follow-up compared to a light 9mm load, but I believe the trade-off would be worth it. Now, I wouldn't use that load for human SD, simply because of over-penetration concerns. For human SD, I use 13.0gn of Blue Dot under a 155gn bullet doing about 1450fps. That load yields 13.87fpe, which is roughly HALF of a .44Magnum. I am TOTALLY aware that multiple shots will almost certainly be necessary in a SD shooting. I would not depend on a 10mm pistol if I could not get several rapid shots on target accurately. But I can, so why not use it?

Nice try, but even scorching hot 10mm loads have nowhere near the recoil of a .44Magnum.

Hornady max load data lists IMR800X/200gr at 8.1grs, what is your source for 9.5grs?

AA #9, 13.0grs (Hornady max is 13.2grs), 200gr XTP/G20/6" produced an MV/1220fps, ES 35fps, SD 11fps

29oz (est) light weight with the 6" barrel;

Recoil calculated using RCBS software;

16.3fpe, 24.0fps (19.23fps bullet - 4.82fps powder)

Here is some .44mag load data I compiled comparing M629/6.5" and M29/4" Mountain . . . most of the loads were a closer weight to the 200gr XTP, i.e. 210gr Gold Dots. I also compared the same AA #9 powder loaded in both 10mm/6"/200gr and .44mag/210grs;


Loading the .44 magnum with 6.5” M629 (50 oz.) and 4” M29 Mountain (39oz) barrels, 6-shot strings.
Quite a difference in MV.

W296 – 26.7grs, 210gr Gold Dot, CCI 350, Starline V, COAL – 1.600”:
M629 – 1570fps/1150fpe, ES-58fps, SD-21fps;
Recoil – 21.2ft/lbs – 20.9fps (15.1fps bullet _ 5.8fps powder)
M29 – 1439fps/966fpe, ES-62fps, SD-21fps;
Recoil – 24.0ft/lbs – 25.2fps (17.7fps bullet _ 7.4fps powder)
W296 – 27.2grs; (max load per Speer = 27.5grs)
M629 – 1595fps/1196fpe, ES-40fps, SD-13fps;
(3 recovered Gold Dots after passing through ½” plywood and recovered in cement-like caliche clay:
#1-.838”x1.121”, #2-.868”x1.109”, #3-.766”x1.002”)

M29 – 1443fps/971fpe, ES-69fps, SD-20fps

AA #9 – 22.2grs, 210gr Gold Dot, CCI 300, Starline V, COAL – 1.600”
M629 – 1520fps/1077fpe, ES-15fps, SD-05fps;
Recoil – 18.1 ft/lbs – 19.3fps (14.6fps bullet _ 4.7fps powder)
M29 – 1390fps/901fpe, ES-22fps, SD-10fps;
Recoil – 20.3 ft/lbs – 23.2fps (17.1fps bullet _ 6.1fps powder)
AA#9 – 22.8grs; (max load per Speer = 23.0grs)
M629 – 1549fps/1148fpe, ES-38fps, SD-14fps;
Recoil – 19.1ft/lbs – 19.8fps (14.9fps bullet _ 5.0fps powder)
M29 – 1407fps/923fpe, ES-41fps, SD-16fps.
Recoil – 21.3ft/lbs – 23.7fps (17.4fps _ 6.3fps powder)
Accuracy Load:
75F, 4200ft., RH 20%;

AA #9 – 20.0grs, 240gr Sierra JHP, CCI 350, Starline x1, COAL – 1.600”;
M629 – 1429fps/1088fpe, ES-20fps, SD-08fps.
5-shot string @31 meters = 0.95”

Recoil – 19.4ft/lbs – 20.0fps (15.7fps bullet _ 4.3fps powder)
Nice 210gr Silvertip load:
AA #9 – 22.4grs, CCI 350, Starline x1, COAL – 1.610”;
M629 – 1563fps/1139fpe, ES-28fps, SD-11fps.
6-Shot string @31 meters = 2.5”.

Notice the 210gr Silvertip load exceeded the 210gr Gold Dot MV by 14.0fps with 0.4grs less AA #9 powder, CCI 350/CCI 300 primers and slightly longer COAL 1.610”/1.600”.

22.8grs of AA #9 (1549fps) runs pretty close to 26.7grs of W296 (1595fps) with 210gr Gold Dots; nearly 4grs less powder means less recoil and muzzle flash.

AA #9 softens the recoil with the 4” M29 barrel (39oz) and also has less muzzle flash than W296. The 0.5gr increase of W296 powder in the M29 only increased MV by 04fps, this means switching to AA #9 is more efficient w/less perceived recoil.



It would appear that using similar weight bullets and the same powder at the upper end of their respective load weights, recoil with the M629/6.5" (1549fps/1148fpe) compared to the G20/6" (1220fps/661fpe) is only 1.8fpe to 2.8fpe more.

Basically one gets an increase of 343fps/478fpe with the added benefits of a bonded bullet, better M629 ergonomics, target trigger, drilled and tapped for scope mounts combined with the recoil absorbing Hogue grips . . .

To put it simply, the .44mag/210gr GDs slow down to 10mm energies at ~115 yards. Sight in the .44mag at 100 yards on a 6" target and you have a point blank range to 126 yards, meaning the flat shooting .44mag's bullet will neither rise or drop 3" in that distance. Add a scope/rings and the recoil of the M629 becomes significantly less than that of the G20/6".

Yeah, i'd say the .44mag has rather obvious advantages over the G20, with basically the same recoil.

Bob :cowboy:

Glolt20-91
07-16-2011, 01:03
I know this is off-topic, but SuperMassive, do you study stars by profession, or is it just a hobby? I have always been fascinated with space. I often wish I had not chosen to pursue medicine, and tried to be an astronaut (I'm too old now, and the space program is sadly being buried). That's not to say I don't like what I'm training for, it's just a hindsight regret.

You can use that discipline and have an adventurous career, my cousin has an MS in Astro-Physics and is a retired Navy F-14 pilot.

Where I live, which is in a high desert valley which means the air is crystal clear and there's a gazillion stars at night . . . sometimes we need to look twice to find the Big Dipper. :supergrin:

Bob :cowboy:

21Carrier
07-16-2011, 01:27
Hornady max load data lists IMR800X/200gr at 8.1grs, what is your source for 9.5grs?

AA #9, 13.0grs (Hornady max is 13.2grs), 200gr XTP/G20/6" produced an MV/1220fps, ES 35fps, SD 11fps

29oz (est) light weight with the 6" barrel;

Recoil calculated using RCBS software;

16.3fpe, 24.0fps (19.23fps bullet - 4.82fps powder)

Yeah, i'd say the .44mag has rather obvious advantages over the G20, with basically the same recoil.

Bob :cowboy:

I actually meant to say 9.3gn of 800-X. My source for the 9.3gn load is my notes. That is actually a pretty common load among the 10mm community from what I gather. And despite it being well over-book, I've fired hundreds without any pressure signs, as have others. Trust me, I know going over-book is dangerous and stupid, but the books stop at 30,000psi for 800-X, which leaves some room to push. The .44Mag loads I stole from LoadData.com, since I don't load .44Mag. I've only fired a .44Mag once, and it was years ago, but I still remember it hurting like hell. The cylinder release button (I don't know revolver terminology) tore a huge hole in my thumb. I have fired a .357Mag pretty extensively, and much more recently, and even it has more recoil than a G20 or G29. I would argue that the capacity of the G20 (damn near 3 times that of the .44Mag) would easily offset the power advantage.

Also, I would imagine that any short barreled .44Mag sized similarly to a G20 would have ferocious recoil/blast. The .44Mag is likely the better gun for woods protection, but the 10mm Glocks are the perfect high-power human defense carry guns.

agtman
07-16-2011, 05:33
Nope, just a hobby. Stellar nucleosynthesis, degenerate matter, stuff that would bore most folks to tears. My specific discipline is more "earthbound" and that is all that I am comfortable sharing on an open forum. Hope you understand.

It is hard for me to accept that we no longer have readily available manned orbital capabilities and must rely on others for transportation.

Hitch-hiking is so undignified. :upeyes:

Isn't it true that we never went back to the moon because, as one astronaut let slip, "we were warned off"? :whistling:

ModGlock17
07-16-2011, 08:09
Here's some Super Massive Truth:

1. Five rounds of .357 on Center of Mass didn't do "diddly squat" where a simple .22 round did.

http://www.odmp.org/officer/420-trooper-mark-hunter-coates



2. Go 10mm. Here's one round of 10mm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSq96T-UrJ0


3. PhDs are degrees given to many who helped professors get GRANTs to pay for their positions in engineering, physics, medical sciences, etc. departments. I've played that game. I wrote things to help professors so that I win their approvals, a game they also and had to play with theirs. Just because it is written and posted on the internet, it is not necessarily true or only true in CERTAIN conditions not specified, conveniently withheld.

People publish things on the internet to get EXPOSURE, not necessarily to further the "truth". Exposure brings money. That's how some people make a living.

Then comes some Rednecks, educated beyond his/her intelligence, read those published baloneys and think it's the next book after the Bible's Revelation.

Master Degrees in Science are designed to replicate the results of previous PhD claims. And no Master students are stupid enough, living on menial income day after day, to go prove something only happens 10% of the time or nebulous. Prove something easy, please the professors, get out of school and make money quickly.

Better information are those confirmed by multiple sources, not by once published trash.

English
07-16-2011, 08:15
Then you are equating the term "stopping power" to being nothing more than a meaningless idiomatic expression?


1.) In the first sentence of your post, you state-

Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
"I am sure that the idea of idea of unitizing stopping power in terms of joules, acceleration and so on is misguided"
and then cause your third paragraph to read-

Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
"Because there are so many different body types, states of health and personality amongst those who might be shot there is no way in which stopping power could be unitized even to the extent that IQ is unitized where the different schemes of measurement only agree on the concept of IQ and not on what the weightings of its components should be"
-supporting your assertion in your first sentence (above) that unitization of the phenomena of "stopping power" is, using your language, "misguided".

You then state in the sixth paragraph of your post-

Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
"The Drs. Courtney did this for one aspect of wounding, but the same kind of thing could be done for different bullet effect on shots to the liver, shots to the heart, lungs and so on. These results could then be combined in much the same way as an IQ score".
If I'm not mistaken, the BPW model proposed employs psi (pressure units of pounds per square inch) in order to quantify (unitize) the results of the proposed mechanism.

Are you saying that the Courtney's are "misguided" for their use of unitization in quantifying their research results?

This also appears to contradict your statement that follows-

Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
...and that we should be grateful to the Courtneys for their ingenious way round this problem for at least some useful data.
Since the Courtney's elected to unitize their research results; a practice that you've deemed "misguided", can you explain how you justify such self-contradictory statements?


2.) Your suggestion (underlined above and below) of the combination of (and as yet undefined) test results across a wide range of organs and physiological structures will require a common unit of measure to combine those results as you've suggested-

Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
"The Drs. Courtney did this for one aspect of wounding, but the same kind of thing could be done for different bullet effect on shots to the liver, shots to the heart, lungs and so on. These results could then be combined in much the same way as an IQ score".
-otherwise those results will become a meaningless and unrelated assortment of combined unitary values that would then be rendered incomparable against one another.


3.) In your first sentence, you have labeled attempts to unitize the phenomena of "stopping power" as "misguided", only to then suggest a combined set of broad ranging test results (unitized?)-

Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
These results could then be combined in much the same way as an IQ score".
-that would be meaningless if lacking any unit of measure (unitization) and self-confounding if lacking a common unit of measure.


How is it that you can have it both ways?

481,
I see you are back under a different name. If you had paid attention to the posts to which I was responding you would have seen that the poster was asking for unitization in terms of the basic units of physics - time, distance, force acceleration and so on. It was within that context that I was using the term unitization. For a physicist this seems quite a strange thing to have slipped up on but it is consistent with your usual intentional misinterpretation of the words of others!

Within that context, whatever phyisical unit could be applied? Time is the closest, as someone else has suggested, but since the time taken to collapse for different people shot with the same specification round would have a wide range, it would not be compatible with the fine accuracy of measurement characteristic of physical measurement of basic physical units.

In practical terms the basic units of physics are absolute. They do not depend on some individual's choice of how to measure them. They are not scores cobbled together according to some individual's opinion about how their different components should be weighted in order to give a single score or ranking to a multidimensional reality. Yet this is exactly what IQ measurements do and repeated tests of the same individual within a relatively short time are most unlikely to give the same score. As a super genius I would have expected you to understand the structure and nature of IQ tests. I apologise for my inadvertent misuse of the term in the second section that you quote above

Measurements in the social sciences are very different from those in the physical sciences and the score of an IQ test does no more than give an approximate ranking with relatively low predictive power within the real world, as perhaps your career illustrates. Giving a score in some invented and constructed system of measurement from which an approximate ranking can be approximately decided in not unitization in any useful meaning of the term.

Within this context, the Courtneys did not unitize their results but gave a ranking based on their results. They related peak psi figures via a calculation to the probability of rapid collapse but the Courtneys have not claimed that peak psi is in any way a complete determinant of probability of collapse but just a major factor. You are, once again, putting your own words into the mouths of others and misrepresenting, whether by intent or by failure to understand, their work and conclusions. They were not misguided because they did not do what you claimed they had done.

"Stopping Power" in not, in your words, "nothing more than a meaningless idiomatic expression" but a perfectly sensible concept of ranking the effectiveness of different loadings or bullets which is understandable to the great majority of interested people. The fact that we do not have, and are unlikely to have, data or methods which will define it with numerical precision makes no difference to that reality. If we were able to construct an IQ type of score to stopping power it would be no more than a general guide. Some rounds and some bullets will have greater effectiveness than others under some circumstances. That is what stopping power means.

English

ModGlock17
07-16-2011, 08:18
481,
I see you are back under a different name. ...

Precisely my impression as well.

SuperMassive
07-16-2011, 10:46
Isn't it true that we never went back to the moon because, as one astronaut let slip, "we were warned off"? :whistling:

No idea where you are going with this one.

:)

SuperMassive
07-16-2011, 12:24
Here's some Super Massive Truth:

1. Five rounds of .357 on Center of Mass didn't do "diddly squat" where a simple .22 round did.

http://www.odmp.org/officer/420-trooper-mark-hunter-coates



2. Go 10mm. Here's one round of 10mm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSq96T-UrJ0


3. PhDs are degrees given to many who helped professors get GRANTs to pay for their positions in engineering, physics, medical sciences, etc. departments. I've played that game. I wrote things to help professors so that I win their approvals, a game they also and had to play with theirs. Just because it is written and posted on the internet, it is not necessarily true or only true in CERTAIN conditions not specified, conveniently withheld.

People publish things on the internet to get EXPOSURE, not necessarily to further the "truth". Exposure brings money. That's how some people make a living.

Then comes some Rednecks, educated beyond his/her intelligence, read those published baloneys and think it's the next book after the Bible's Revelation.

Master Degrees in Science are designed to replicate the results of previous PhD claims. And no Master students are stupid enough, living on menial income day after day, to go prove something only happens 10% of the time or nebulous. Prove something easy, please the professors, get out of school and make money quickly.

Better information are those confirmed by multiple sources, not by once published trash.

481,
I see you are back under a different name. If you had paid attention to the posts to which I was responding you would have seen that the poster was asking for unitization in terms of the basic units of physics - time, distance, force acceleration and so on. It was within that context that I was using the term unitization. For a physicist this seems quite a strange thing to have slipped up on but it is consistent with your usual intentional misinterpretation of the words of others!

Within that context, whatever phyisical unit could be applied? Time is the closest, as someone else has suggested, but since the time taken to collapse for different people shot with the same specification round would have a wide range, it would not be compatible with the fine accuracy of measurement characteristic of physical measurement of basic physical units.

In practical terms the basic units of physics are absolute. They do not depend on some individual's choice of how to measure them. They are not scores cobbled together according to some individual's opinion about how their different components should be weighted in order to give a single score or ranking to a multidimensional reality. Yet this is exactly what IQ measurements do and repeated tests of the same individual within a relatively short time are most unlikely to give the same score. As a super genius I would have expected you to understand the structure and nature of IQ tests. I apologise for my inadvertent misuse of the term in the second section that you quote above

Measurements in the social sciences are very different from those in the physical sciences and the score of an IQ test does no more than give an approximate ranking with relatively low predictive power within the real world, as perhaps your career illustrates. Giving a score in some invented and constructed system of measurement from which an approximate ranking can be approximately decided in not unitization in any useful meaning of the term.

Within this context, the Courtneys did not unitize their results but gave a ranking based on their results. They related peak psi figures via a calculation to the probability of rapid collapse but the Courtneys have not claimed that peak psi is in any way a complete determinant of probability of collapse but just a major factor. You are, once again, putting your own words into the mouths of others and misrepresenting, whether by intent or by failure to understand, their work and conclusions. They were not misguided because they did not do what you claimed they had done.

"Stopping Power" in not, in your words, "nothing more than a meaningless idiomatic expression" but a perfectly sensible concept of ranking the effectiveness of different loadings or bullets which is understandable to the great majority of interested people. The fact that we do not have, and are unlikely to have, data or methods which will define it with numerical precision makes no difference to that reality. If we were able to construct an IQ type of score to stopping power it would be no more than a general guide. Some rounds and some bullets will have greater effectiveness than others under some circumstances. That is what stopping power means.

English

Guys,

Upon reading a few of these threads, it seems that the behavior (attacks) that you are particpating in (deriding people's professional and educational backgrounds and intelligence, portraying them as being incompetent, accusing them of being someone else and general namecalling) is routine fare here.

I have neither the time nor the desire to enage in that sort of behavior, so I'll not return the misdeed.

You (English) have also managed to level a very subtle insult towards another member (and anyone else) by calling those who would find valid the unitization of the phenomena of stopping power, "misguided".

Spin it anyway that you'd like; you can't "explain away" your rude behavior and unkind remark towards him and such misconduct is a violation of the CoC.

You owe him an apology and I hope that he gets it.

As much as I would have enjoyed debating further with either of you many of the points that have been touched upon, I get the distinct impression that direct questions are perceived by many here as being acts of hostility and insult which are responded to with a provocative response that borders on an invitation to engage in that continued behavior.

No thanks.

uz2bUSMC
07-16-2011, 12:35
1. Five rounds of .357 on Center of Mass didn't do "diddly squat" where a simple .22 round did.

http://www.odmp.org/officer/420-troo...-hunter-coates



Those rounds didn't hit center mass, brotha. Just letting you know.

English
07-16-2011, 14:15
Guys,

Upon reading a few of these threads, it seems that the behavior (attacks) that you are particpating in (deriding people's professional and educational backgrounds and intelligence, portraying them as being incompetent, accusing them of being someone else and general namecalling) is routine fare here.

I have neither the time nor the desire to enage in that sort of behavior, so I'll not return the misdeed.

You (English) have also managed to level a very subtle insult towards another member (and anyone else) by calling those who would find valid the unitization of the phenomena of stopping power, "misguided".

Spin it anyway that you'd like; you can't "explain away" your rude behavior and unkind remark towards him and such misconduct is a violation of the CoC.

You owe him an apology and I hope that he gets it.

As much as I would have enjoyed debating further with either of you many of the points that have been touched upon, I get the distinct impression that direct questions are perceived by many here as being acts of hostility and insult which are responded to with a provocative response that borders on an invitation to engage in that continued behavior.

No thanks.

481,
This is another of your typical attempts at distortion or intentional misrepresentation of what someone else says. I don't know how you understand the term "misguided" but as far as I am concerned no insult is meant or implied beyond that involved, inevitably, in saying I think somone is wrong. I could hardly say that in a more gentle manner and have no animosity towards the poster what so ever. Would you think that "mistaken" or "lacking understanding of the problem" was better? But why would I consider your opinion in the matter as having any validity?

English

LEAD
07-16-2011, 14:39
Horse ****, the 45's basic ballistics have been killing things 2 and 4 legged since the 1870's, still doing it today. All the whizbang velocity in a handgun does not guarantee expansion, so a bigger bullet makes more sense to me. You wanna rock a 9mm feel free, it'll work but i'll stick with my old school 45 ACP thanks. Ask some African guides which works better Weatherby's super high velocity stuff or just regular rounds, see what you find out.

If you're sticking with your old shcool 45 ACP why is your forum name 9mm +p+ isn't that kind of a contradiction? Not only is your name suggestive of use of 9mm but also that you prefer it at higher velocities as the original post suggests is helpful in incapacitation.

I forget where it says that 45ACP is not a good round, care to point that out for me?

Glolt20-91
07-16-2011, 14:41
481,
This is another of your typical attempts at distortion or intentional misrepresentation of what someone else says. I don't know how you understand the term "misguided" but as far as I am concerned no insult is meant or implied beyond that involved, inevitably, in saying I think somone is wrong. I could hardly say that in a more gentle manner and have no animosity towards the poster what so ever. Would you think that "mistaken" or "lacking understanding of the problem" was better? But why would I consider your opinion in the matter as having any validity?

English

Hey engli (from the Mohawk, pronounced ON glay), wishful thinking on your part, but . . . SuperMassive is not 481 . . . that means 481 is not SuperMassive.

What a pathetic individual you are to insult a new forum member the way you just did. Welcome to my ignore list. :wavey:

Bob :cowboy:

SuperMassive
07-16-2011, 15:05
481,
This is another of your typical attempts at distortion or intentional misrepresentation of what someone else says. I don't know how you understand the term "misguided" but as far as I am concerned no insult is meant or implied beyond that involved, inevitably, in saying I think somone is wrong. I could hardly say that in a more gentle manner and have no animosity towards the poster what so ever. Would you think that "mistaken" or "lacking understanding of the problem" was better? But why would I consider your opinion in the matter as having any validity?

English

There is no need to explain yourself to me again, since I have no power to grant anyone absolution when it comes to continued violations (derision of other's professional and educational backgrounds and intelligence, portraying them as being incompetent, accusing them of being someone else and general namecalling) of the GT CoC.

Spin it any way that you'd like- anyone and everyone following this thread can see for themselves how you have behaved and your persistent desperate accusations and protests speak volumes to those behaviors.

I refuse to exchange invective with you.

SuperMassive
07-16-2011, 15:20
Glolt,

I respectfully urge you not to engage this member further.

As is evidenced by his continued provocations and accusations, it is becoming increasingly obvious that this member is looking for nothing more than a fight.

No point in giving it to him.

Angry Fist
07-16-2011, 15:37
These threads always end up like this. No biggie.

SuperMassive
07-16-2011, 15:47
These threads always end up like this. No biggie.

Understood.

Hafta admit, your signature line caught me unprepared. :laughabove:

Very funny. Messed up, but very funny. :laughing:

uz2bUSMC
07-16-2011, 15:55
Hey engli (from the Mohawk, pronounced ON glay), wishful thinking on your part, but . . . SuperMassive is not 481 . . . that means 481 is not SuperMassive.

What a pathetic individual you are to insult a new forum member the way you just did. Welcome to my ignore list. :wavey:

Bob :cowboy:

Hmmm, I don't think you are as good at this kinda stuff as you might think you are... you kinda just gave it away. Good job.