View Single Post
Old 02-09-2010, 01:40   #306
Senior Member
glock20c10mm's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Out West
Posts: 5,244
The reason I'm quoting less than all you posted is simply because I don't take issue with the vast majority of what I didn't quote of your post.
Originally Posted by Bones13 View Post
Roberts trained with Fackler as I understand it. Fackler was the anti-BPW so his stance on this isn't surprising. Fackler was trying to make sure more FBI agents didn't get killed due to bad ammo selection criteria. 10MM wasn't designed with BPW in mind but rather the ability to penetrate and make a big hole.
To my knowledge Fackler has never openly commented toward Dr. Courtney's work which would include anything related to terminology including the phrase ballistic pressure wave. IIRC, what he did take issue with were stuff like: energy dump, hydrostatic shock.....and stuff like that which was really never defined. I believe Dr. Fackler is generally staying out of the public eye.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free Men Don't Need To Ask Permission To Bear Arms

The Glock 29 is the most versatile handgun yet produced.
glock20c10mm is offline   Reply With Quote