TBI is one of three (not necessarily mutually exclusive) proposed physiological mechanisms for the rapidly incapacitating effects of ballistic waves. It has garnered the most attention, because there is considerable published evidence showing brain injury resulting from bullet impacts distant from the brain. The second physiological mechanism is remote spinal injury, which has been documented by a shock wave expert at Cal Tech, and strongly suggested in case studies by others, including the US Army. The third physiological mechanism was described as “neurogenic shock” by neurologist Dennis Tobin, and is basically an overload of the neural system from internal effects of the wave leading to temporary shutdown and collapse. This effect also has some support in experiments that demonstrate reduced remote cerebral effects in animal studies where the vagus nerve is disconnected.
The statistical confidence of any scientific finding increases with sample size. Proponents of the causal relationship between ballistic waves and rapid incapacitation have cited much more data than detractors. How much published incapacitation data is cited by Urey Patrick’s “Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness” or Dr. Roberts’ published advocacy of the 6.8x43mm SPC over the 5.56x45mm NATO? If zero published incapacitation data is cited, the statistical confidence is zero.
It has been correctly pointed out that while there is sufficient data for confidence in the conclusion that increasing the energy transfer from 400J (147 grain 9mm subsonic) to 700J (125 grain .357 Sig) over 30 cm of penetration confers a significant advantage with equivalent shot placement, this advantage has not been quantified with sufficient accuracy to make a well-informed decision in cases where recoil tolerance creates significantly less accuracy or slower shot times with the more powerful load. Each shooter should practice sufficiently to understand the recoil levels where their accuracy degrades, and take care to choose a combination of gun and load that functions well, performs well, and does not significantly degrade accuracy or shot times. However, the published data is sufficient to support choosing a load with larger ballistic wave, other factors being equal (if one shoots that load as well as loads with smaller ballistic waves.) Is there any ammo recommendation based on more published incapacitation data than this one?