Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-10-2010, 22:21   #341
N/Apower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by uz2bUSMC View Post
Yes , if you do not understand why a fmj is not a good example of BPW then there is certainly nothing you can impart.

Good day to you aswell.

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

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

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksd...s/chapter3.htm

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

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

I try to keep an open mind, but I am selective about what I keep in that mind.
N/Apower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2010, 22:35   #342
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by N/Apower View Post
The FMJ is indeed inferior with regards to BPW, but disruption of nerve conductivity has been observed and documented using high-velocity steel spheres on animal tissue. Ergo, the relevance of my former roommate's GSW to the thigh with a flat-point projectile, which we can both agree, I am sure, is superior to a spherical object.

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

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

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

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksd...s/chapter3.htm

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

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

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

I try to keep an open mind, but I am selective about what I keep in that mind.
I've also done some testing and witnessed a few things that would be attributed to this "wave".
__________________
- Without idiots, there would be no baseline for common sense.

- "Our country went through a transition during the last election where the parasites came together and outnumbered the hosts." -jdavionic
uz2bUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 08:38   #343
FerFAL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 514
There's nothing "special" about the 357 SIG, its just a bit better than all other handgun cartidges in every aspect except price.

FerFAL
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
FerFAL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 10:24   #344
KenB22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by uz2bUSMC View Post
Look man, I have a good understanding of anatomy and other things.
If its OK with you, I'll make up my own mind about that. I can only evaluate someone's credibility by what I read here since people post anonymously. I see your post #256 "...less penetration between to equally waited bullets..." For the record, its two equally weighted bullets. In you post #334 you say "..Making long ass posts doesn't solve the problem or make you sound more believable or knoledgable" For the record, its knowledgeable.

I figure someone who wanted to us to think he was knowledgeable about statistical modeling, physics, ballistics, anatomy and medicine (all at the same time) would learn how to spell. I would like to hear from people who have first hand knowledge actually researching this topic chime in.
KenB22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 10:30   #345
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenB22 View Post
If its OK with you, I'll make up my own mind about that. I can only evaluate someone's credibility by what I read here since people post anonymously. I see your post #256 "...less penetration between to equally waited bullets..." For the record, its two equally weighted bullets. In you post #334 you say "..Making long ass posts doesn't solve the problem or make you sound more believable or knoledgable" For the record, its knowledgeable.

I figure someone who wanted to us to think he was knowledgeable about statistical modeling, physics, ballistics, anatomy and medicine (all at the same time) would learn how to spell. I would like to hear from people who have first hand knowledge actually researching this topic chime in.
Good job Ken, you little spell check ninja. Just so you know, I don't really care 'bout my spelling on here. Everybody makes mistakes and I don't care if I do. If you spent more time learning as apposed to spell checking CC might be an easier place for you.
__________________
- Without idiots, there would be no baseline for common sense.

- "Our country went through a transition during the last election where the parasites came together and outnumbered the hosts." -jdavionic
uz2bUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 10:58   #346
SDDL-UP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,043
Again...

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

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

The 357 Sig is a fine round, but it's a 9mm +P+ really, you give up some capacity to gain 50 to 75 FPS over 9mm +P rounds. It's a fine round, but there isn't anything magical about it.
__________________
"Arm yourself, arm a friend!"
SDDL-UP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 12:03   #347
KenB22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by uz2bUSMC View Post
Good job Ken, you little spell check ninja. Just so you know, I don't really care 'bout my spelling on here. Everybody makes mistakes and I don't care if I do. If you spent more time learning as apposed to spell checking CC might be an easier place for you.
For the record, its "opposed" not apposed. I am just saying that in trying to evaluate the credibility of an anonymous someone who claims to have expertise and understanding in as many fields as you claim to have, I find it telling that you have no idea how to spell. May not make a difference to others but it does make me question just how much "knoledge" of physics, mathematical modeling, medicine, ballistics and anatomy you really do have. Others mileage may vary.
KenB22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 12:30   #348
greyeyezz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cleveland OH
Posts: 267
Quote:
The 357 Sig does not have a "flat trajectory" it's a mortar round like anything else you would carry. Difference between a 357 Sig and 230gr. 45 ACP is something like 2" at 100 yards. Myth busted.
Cartridge (Wb@MV) 25 yds. 50 yds. 100 yds.
357 SIG (125 at 1350) +1.7" +2.9" +0.4"
.45 ACP (230 at 850) +2.6" +2.5" -6.9"


http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_trajectory_table.htm
greyeyezz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 12:54   #349
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenB22 View Post
For the record, its "opposed" not apposed. I am just saying that in trying to evaluate the credibility of an anonymous someone who claims to have expertise and understanding in as many fields as you claim to have, I find it telling that you have no idea how to spell. May not make a difference to others but it does make me question just how much "knoledge" of physics, mathematical modeling, medicine, ballistics and anatomy you really do have. Others mileage may vary.
Slow down smoky, I said I have a good understanding, not expertise. Don't put words in my mouth. And what you don't understand is I don't care. If you don't like or trust what I post, I promise it is no loss of sleep to me. I spend no part of my day worrying if KenB22 likes/doesn't like or even reads my posts. And just so YOU know, posting stuff like this...

Quote:
I'll never buy this BPW stuff. With all of the people getting shot in wars for the last 100 years, anyone from the army ever pay any attention to possible BPW effect? Are there any government agencies that pay attention to this BPW? You'd think the agencies might like their employees to come home safely at night and to have as much edge as possible. Think how much profit the gun makers or ammo makers could make if they could just market their product as taking advantage of this BPW. Yet...the army never discusses it, the FBI and all police departments ignore it and no gun maker or ammo maker is paying any attention to this. Mr. Courtney needs a better agent. He should be inviting the FBI and sky marshals and remington and speer to his home on a daily basis and redoing his tests for them so they can "learn" and take advantage of his superior analysis. Yet they don't. Wonder why??
,,,shows that you are only limited to being my personal spell check and have no real understanding of terminal ballistics and lack the ability to identify someone who does.
__________________
- Without idiots, there would be no baseline for common sense.

- "Our country went through a transition during the last election where the parasites came together and outnumbered the hosts." -jdavionic
uz2bUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 14:53   #350
N/Apower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by greyeyezz View Post
Cartridge (Wb@MV) 25 yds. 50 yds. 100 yds.
357 SIG (125 at 1350) +1.7" +2.9" +0.4"
.45 ACP (230 at 850) +2.6" +2.5" -6.9"


http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_trajectory_table.htm
At 100 yards are you capable of placing your shots in a 7" circle using a 4" barreled service-pistol? Does this difference really matter a hill of beans? If you are capable of this level of accuracy using these tools, then I would wager that 7" of hold-over is cake.
N/Apower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 15:30   #351
KenB22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by uz2bUSMC View Post
Slow down smoky, I said I have a good understanding, not expertise. Don't put words in my mouth. And what you don't understand is I don't care. If you don't like or trust what I post, I promise it is no loss of sleep to me. I spend no part of my day worrying if KenB22 likes/doesn't like or even reads my posts. And just so YOU know, posting stuff like this...



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

No. I think my point is clear. Nobody in law enforcement, nobody who makes handguns and none of the ammo companies care one whit about ballistic pressure waves. None of them consider BPW at all. It's a non-issue to them. Only people talking about BPW are people on bulletin boards trying to convince others how smart they are and that BPW exists. When people who have to put down bad guys pay attention to this stuff, I will too.
KenB22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 15:44   #352
N/Apower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenB22 View Post
No. I think my point is clear. Nobody in law enforcement, nobody who makes handguns and none of the ammo companies care one whit about ballistic pressure waves. None of them consider BPW at all. It's a non-issue to them. Only people talking about BPW are people on bulletin boards trying to convince others how smart they are and that BPW exists. When people who have to put down bad guys pay attention to this stuff, I will too.

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

I refuse to say it is impossible, but I once again assert that to count on it or plan for it, is like a school child in the South wishing for a snow-day in April.
N/Apower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 16:13   #353
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenB22 View Post
No. I think my point is clear. Nobody in law enforcement, nobody who makes handguns and none of the ammo companies care one whit about ballistic pressure waves. None of them consider BPW at all. It's a non-issue to them. Only people talking about BPW are people on bulletin boards trying to convince others how smart they are and that BPW exists. When people who have to put down bad guys pay attention to this stuff, I will too.
Here again, you know nothing of Law Enforcement or Government agencies, obviously. Pay attention to them all you like, they will teach you nothing. This of course falls right in line with what you already know... nothing.
__________________
- Without idiots, there would be no baseline for common sense.

- "Our country went through a transition during the last election where the parasites came together and outnumbered the hosts." -jdavionic
uz2bUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 16:27   #354
greyeyezz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cleveland OH
Posts: 267
Quote:
At 100 yards are you capable of placing your shots in a 7" circle using a 4" barreled service-pistol?
Didn't say I was capable, was correcting his myth busted statement.
greyeyezz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 16:36   #355
N/Apower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by greyeyezz View Post
Didn't say I was capable, was correcting his myth busted statement.
Ah, gotcha. I am just saying that at 100 yards, the topic is moot.
N/Apower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 19:20   #356
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenB22 View Post
....
I figure someone who wanted to us to think he was knowledgeable about statistical modeling, physics, ballistics, anatomy and medicine (all at the same time) would learn how to spell. I would like to hear from people who have first hand knowledge actually researching this topic chime in.
This is a really interesting means of verifying depth of knowledge. Spelling is a fascinating branch of learning. How did you learn to spell? Do you even know how you did it or did it just happen? English English and American English orthograpies have some very interesting rules but very few children or adults know more than a few of them. We could say that this knowledge is an intellectual knowledge of how to spell, but, in fact, most people who can spell well do so without thought of any intellectual kind. That is, their skill is not learning at an intellectual level but a kind of training process of the memory which has no connection to intellectual knowledge or ability and has little significance to core knowledge beyond vocabulary or jargon related to that particular core knowledge.

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

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

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

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

English
English is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 19:44   #357
N/Apower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
This is a really interesting means of verifying depth of knowledge. Spelling is a fascinating branch of learning. How did you learn to spell? Do you even know how you did it or did it just happen? English English and American English orthograpies have some very interesting rules but very few children or adults know more than a few of them. We could say that this knowledge is an intellectual knowledge of how to spell, but, in fact, most people who can spell well do so without thought of any intellectual kind. That is, their skill is not learning at an intellectual level but a kind of training process of the memory which has no connection to intellectual knowledge or ability and has little significance to core knowledge beyond vocabulary or jargon related to that particular core knowledge.

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

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

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

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

English

In summary, can I provide the observation that the IQ of the man whos fist smashes anothers face is irrelevant?
N/Apower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 19:57   #358
GVFlyer
Senior Member
 
GVFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Somewhere in the air.
Posts: 7,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by N/Apower View Post
In summary, can I provide the observation that the IQ of the man whos fist smashes anothers face is irrelevant?

The arena here is formed by the limits of intellect and the weapons are words not fists.
__________________
The Truth Only Hurts If It Should.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
GVFlyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 20:22   #359
N/Apower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by GVFlyer View Post
The arena here is formed by the limits of intellect and the weapons are words not fists.

If it is intellect that is to be championed, then words should be used as tools instead of weapons.
N/Apower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 21:50   #360
GVFlyer
Senior Member
 
GVFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Somewhere in the air.
Posts: 7,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by N/Apower View Post
If it is intellect that is to be championed, then words should be used as tools instead of weapons.
Mixed metaphors. Try to stay consistent.
__________________
The Truth Only Hurts If It Should.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
GVFlyer is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 21:18.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,434
442 Members
992 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31