GlockTalk.com
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 02-12-2010, 01:36   #361
mikeflys1
Pastafarian
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,724
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
This is, quite possibly, one of the most fantastic responses I've ever read here.
mikeflys1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 09:46   #362
unit1069
Senior Member
 
unit1069's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: So. Central US
Posts: 8,592
Quote:
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.
Are you saying that when I repeatedly mispronounce "corpsman" as "corpseman" it betrays an immature intellect and/or lack of knowledge?
__________________
Rocket Scientist
unit1069 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 10:07   #363
jwizzl497
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 446
Unsubscribed!
jwizzl497 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 10:17   #364
unit1069
Senior Member
 
unit1069's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: So. Central US
Posts: 8,592
Shane!

Come back!

Come back, Shane!
__________________
Rocket Scientist
unit1069 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 11:13   #365
KenB22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
As you have made such a claim, would you explain the relationship?
English
Everyone who has ever read posts on a bulletin board has struggled with the problem of trying to ascertain whether or not the poster knows what he/she is talking about. True of my posts, true of everyone's posts. Since most do it anonymously, that is a very hard task. One reason why I respect Dr. Roberts’s posts is that he does not post anonymously. I can see who he is and look up his CV and publications and decide for myself whether he is someone who should be listened to. Same when Dr. Courtney posts under his name and not as Pasteur or whoever he is going by these days. I may or may not agree with anyone's analysis but I respect the posting under a real name. In evaluating this theory and its evidence, I am reminded of the Ghost Hunters program on the Sci Fi channel. I have seen digital recorders to capture electronic voice phenomena, electromagnetic field detectors, thermal imaging cameras and white noise generators as a catalyst to draw out paranormal activity all used to prove ghosts exist.

In discussing the OP's post, people here have tried to use physics, ballistics, wounding mechanisms, human anatomy, the circulatory system and mathematical modeling and how they all interrelate to explain why the .357 sig is proving to be an unbelievable manstopper. These are all very precise fields of study. I can't put someone on a witness stand and cross examine them to see who they are, what they do for a living, what publications they have authored and how much they really understand.

Here is what juries are told about witnesses: <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <u1:WordDocument> <u1:View>Normal</u1:View> <u1:Zoom>0</u1:Zoom> <u1:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </u1:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->To weigh the evidence, you must consider the credibility and reliability of the witnesses.
You should apply the tests of truthfulness and reliability that you apply when acting upon the most important of your own affairs. These tests include the appearance of each witness while testifying (can't do that here);

his or her manner of testifying (In trying to determine if someone can think precisely, or understand precise terminology or subject matters, I think it makes sense to see if they can be precise. On a bulletin board, one such piece of evidence is how they write or how they spell. I agree it isn't necessarily true that a bad speller doesn't know physics but I would argue that ability to spell and differentiate between to and two is some evidence of ability to think precisely or interpret precise concepts. When posting here at Glock Talk, posts have spell check in them that underline misspelled words. You can right click on the underlined word to get suggested spellings. To ignore these underlined words and post things with obvious spelling and grammatical errors are some evidence on the issue of whether the poster thinks precisely or can read precise texts. I also think whether or not someone proofreads their posts is a clue if the poster can read things precisely. We are trying to cull out those who really know a subject matter from those who slept at a Holiday Inn Express.
The reasonableness of the testimony;

the opportunity the witness had to see, hear, and know the things about which he or she testified; We won't know that until people start posting résumé’s and publications along with their posts.

The witness’s accuracy of memory; Probably not an issue here.
frankness or lack of it; Hard to evaluate with anonymous postings
intelligence; Hard with no résumé’s or the ability to cross examine. Best I can do on a bulletin board is look at sentence structure, spelling, and grammar to gain potential insight into whether a poster is capable of understanding those topics he/she is discussing. To give an extreme example, lets take a post on nuclear physics. If it was posted using an average 1st grader's sentence structure and spelling and grammar, wouldn't it raise a red flag whether or the poster truly understands the topic.
Interest and bias, if any; hard with anonymous postings. Probably impossible
together with all the facts and circumstances surrounding the testimony. I would argue that certain surrounding circumstances here are important. 1)
Apart from bulletin boards, are there people out there in the real world who should have an interest in this topic. I would say "yes” law enforcement in all of it various branches. I assume they have an interest in putting down bad guys quickly. 2) Has anyone who should have an interest in these theories actually adopted them in any meaningful way? Not to my knowledge. Please correct me if I'm wrong and give me the cite to where ammo choices were made by law enforcement using BPW leading to increased incapacitation as a consideration in ammo procurement. 3-Why not? Is it safe to assume law enforcement doesn't believe it? Look at all the things the FBI did after the perceived ammo failure in Miami. Why would they exhaustively try and find a better round to arm their field agents with in the 1980's and not do the same thing today?

Applying these tests, you will assign to the testimony of each witness such weight as you think proper. YMMV
KenB22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 14:16   #366
swede1945
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 15
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.
Work in this field has been published by military researchers in the United States, China, and Sweden as well as forensic scientists in several countries. Various terms are used to refer to the potential for BPW effects: shock wave, hydrodynamic shock, hydrostatic shock, etc. A number of ammunition designers and suppliers mention ideas related to hydrostatic shock in their patents and marketing literature: Charlie Kelsey (radially dynamic bullets), David Harris, Tom Burczynski (Quik-Shok, Hydra Shok), Bruce McArthur, Federal Cartridge (Hydra Shok), American Ammunition (Quik-Shok), the THV bullet, Hornady (Super Shock Tip, SST), Barnes Bullets (Triple Shock), TC Arms (Shock Wave), and Elite Ammunition. One handgun manufacturer makes the point with a video showing exploding watermelon heads.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
In his book on hostage rescuers, Leroy Thompson discusses the importance of hydrostatic shock in choosing a specific design of .357 Magnum and 9x19mm Parabellum bullets. In “Armed and Female,” Paxton Quigley explains that hydrostatic shock is the real source of “stopping power.” Jim Carmichael, who served as shooting editor for Outdoor life magazine for 25 years, also believes that hydrostatic shock is important to “a more immediate disabling effect” and is a key difference in the performance of .38 Special and .357 Magnum hollow point bullets. In “The search for an effective police handgun,” Allen Bristow describes that police departments recognize the importance of hydrostatic shock when choosing ammunition. A research group at West Point suggests handgun loads with at least 500 ft-lbs of energy and 12 inches of penetration. A number of law enforcement and military agencies have adopted the 5.7x28mm cartridge, which is reputed to cause considerable hydrostatic shock. These agencies include the Navy SEALs, the United States Secret Service, and the Federal Protective Service branch of the ICE.
<o:p></o:p>
Dr. Randall Gilbert describes hydrostatic shock as an important factor in bullet performance on whitetail deer, “When it [a bullet] enters a whitetail’s body, huge accompanying shock waves send vast amounts of energy through nearby organs, sending them into arrest or shut down.” Dave Ehrig expresses the view that hydrostatic shock depends on impact velocities above 1100 feet per second. Sid Evans explains the performance of the Nosler Partition bullet and Federal Cartridge Company’s decision to load this bullet in terms of the large tissue cavitation and hydrostatic shock produced from the frontal diameter of the expanded bullet. The North American Hunting Club also suggests big game cartridges that create enough hydrostatic shock to quickly bring animals down.
<o:p></o:p>
In an article in Outdoor Life, Jim Carmichael describes an experiment in a Cape Buffalo culling operation where 1) Brain hemorrhaging is observed in animals shot in the chest and 2) Animals where hemorrhaging is observed drop immediately whereas, animals with no remote brain hemorrhaging do not drop immediately:
<o:p></o:p>
Whereas virtually all of our opinions about knockdown power are based on isolated examples, the data gathered during the culling operation was taken from a number of animals. Even more important, the animals were then examined and dissected in a scientific manner by professionals.
<o:p></o:p>
Predictably, some of the buffalo dropped where they were shot and some didn't, even though all received near-identical hits in the vital heart-lung area. When the brains of all the buffalo were removed, the researchers discovered that those that had been knocked down instantly had suffered massive rupturing of blood vessels in the brain. The brains of animals that hadn't fallen instantly showed no such damage. <o:p></o:p>
swede1945 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 18:52   #367
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
KenB22 wrote:

Quote:
I also think whether or not someone proofreads their posts is a clue if the poster can read things precisely. We are trying to cull out those who really know a subject matter from those who slept at a Holiday Inn Express.
The work I do requires I be precise, Glocktalk is not a job... so I'm not required too.

Quote:
Not to my knowledge. Please correct me if I'm wrong and give me the cite to where ammo choices were made by law enforcement using BPW leading to increased incapacitation as a consideration in ammo procurement. 3-Why not?
Here again it is clear you have no idea how LEA work or the military. Budget is first and foremost, then everything else. There are LEAs out there that don't pay for their officer's vests, but somehow you think that they would buy top of the line ammo? You never fail to dissapoint.
__________________
- 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 02-12-2010, 18:54   #368
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
And by the way Ken, spell check doesn't automatically correct your posts, you have to download Iespell to do it.
__________________
- 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 02-12-2010, 19:15   #369
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by unit1069 View Post
Are you saying that when I repeatedly mispronounce "corpsman" as "corpseman" it betrays an immature intellect and/or lack of knowledge?
I would never suspect you of having an immature intellect but all intellects have limits. In this case I don't know the correct pronunciation. it is clearly derived from the French, as in esprit de corps, and therefore English orthography does not apply. I would guess that it should follow the French and should be pronounced cor-man but, if it is, it does seem to be one of the things that bright youngsters get wrong and then take a long time to catch up with because of its rarity in spoken speach.

But now, it seems, you know how it should be pronounced, but continue to pronounce it corpseman. Is this just because it keeps coming out that way or is it because the general American usage is corpseman and you would just not be understood if you started pronouncing it a la francais?

English
English is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 19:43   #370
unit1069
Senior Member
 
unit1069's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: So. Central US
Posts: 8,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
I would never suspect you of having an immature intellect but all intellects have limits. In this case I don't know the correct pronunciation. it is clearly derived from the French, as in esprit de corps, and therefore English orthography does not apply. I would guess that it should follow the French and should be pronounced cor-man but, if it is, it does seem to be one of the things that bright youngsters get wrong and then take a long time to catch up with because of its rarity in spoken speach.

But now, it seems, you know how it should be pronounced, but continue to pronounce it corpseman. Is this just because it keeps coming out that way or is it because the general American usage is corpseman and you would just not be understood if you started pronouncing it a la francais?

English
Thanks, English.

Actually, I know "core-man" is the correct pronunciation but I was asking for a friend of mine who keeps mispronouncing the word and none of his associates will correct him.

He was a visiting lecturer at a college at one time and doesn't take kindly to anyone pointing out he's not perfect.
__________________
Rocket Scientist
unit1069 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 20:15   #371
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,523
KenB22,
A good post but you are looking for secondary characterisers to qualify primary quality. My youngest son has a First Class degree in Physics from one of the World's top 5 institutions but he is dyslexic and does not write at all well. Not too bad but definitely not well! This has not been helped by the fact that the UK educational system specialises at an earlier age than the US system and so the last 6 years of his education have been almost essay free.

I believe that the only way you can judge content is by following the explanation and comparing it to your own base knowledge. The difficulty then is in deciding what amongst the things you know is knowledge and what is authorative sounding clap trap that you have accepted from someone else without sufficient questioning or fundamental knowledge to question.

Certainly there are linguistic clues, but they still depend on base knowledge. One example is the use of the term "hydrostatic" to describe a hydrodynamic phenomenon, but in science it is the experimental result that is king and not the precision of the language used to describe it. The Romans produced a hard, durable, mortar some 2,000 years before we had the knowledge of chemistry to understand it. If you read Gearge Sorros's book on investment it is inpenetratable English but you can't argue with his results.

We are not a jury trying to judge the quality of a witness but people trying to make sense of a large category of wounding phenomena or people trying hard to pretend that the phenomena do not really exist by applying labels like "psychological factors" to it which do not fit the data. The Courtneys' work goes part way to explaining the anomalous data by providing a correlation between the peak pressure of a ballistic pressure wave and the probability of rapid collapse. They show a clear monotonic increase of effect with increase of pressure. They did not profess to have determined the mechanism involved and, as Swede1945 said a few pages back, it could have been one of three things. But it did have to have an effect directly on the brain! Since then a study at a Czech institute has shown the presence of characteristic minor brain trauma from remote gunshot wounds. This is not correlated to type of cartridge or rapidity of collapse but does show damage from remote wounding.

So far this seems to be a convincing tale of the probable existence of a real and useable effect. Almost the only way in which it could be wrong is for the Corneys to have doctored their data and many here have virtually claimed that they and independent Czech researchers have done so. I am not allowed to give my comment on this. In contrast, the opponents of the BPW effect produce a string of non arguments and no contradictory data. People professing a knowledge of scientific method claim that it is up to the Courtneys' to do more work to prove their case although the scientific method is that it is up to others to repeat the experiments or invent experiments to falsify the Courtney's hypothesis. These people claim that a sound hypothesis or theory should be able to stand up to attack. So it should but the attack should come from experimental evidence and not from verbal argument and character assasination. It should make no difference whether Dr. Courtney is really a 105 year old Nazi death camp Doctor in disguise. His work stands or falls on its scientific base and is independent of the scientist who created it.

It is now far too late and I am going to bed.

English
English is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 20:41   #372
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
KenB22,
A good post but you are looking for secondary characterisers to qualify primary quality. My youngest son has a First Class degree in Physics from one of the World's top 5 institutions but he is dyslexic and does not write at all well. Not too bad but definitely not well! This has not been helped by the fact that the UK educational system specialises at an earlier age than the US system and so the last 6 years of his education have been almost essay free.

I believe that the only way you can judge content is by following the explanation and comparing it to your own base knowledge. The difficulty then is in deciding what amongst the things you know is knowledge and what is authorative sounding clap trap that you have accepted from someone else without sufficient questioning or fundamental knowledge to question.

Certainly there are linguistic clues, but they still depend on base knowledge. One example is the use of the term "hydrostatic" to describe a hydrodynamic phenomenon, but in science it is the experimental result that is king and not the precision of the language used to describe it. The Romans produced a hard, durable, mortar some 2,000 years before we had the knowledge of chemistry to understand it. If you read Gearge Sorros's book on investment it is inpenetratable English but you can't argue with his results.

We are not a jury trying to judge the quality of a witness but people trying to make sense of a large category of wounding phenomena or people trying hard to pretend that the phenomena do not really exist by applying labels like "psychological factors" to it which do not fit the data. The Courtneys' work goes part way to explaining the anomalous data by providing a correlation between the peak pressure of a ballistic pressure wave and the probability of rapid collapse. They show a clear monotonic increase of effect with increase of pressure. They did not profess to have determined the mechanism involved and, as Swede1945 said a few pages back, it could have been one of three things. But it did have to have an effect directly on the brain! Since then a study at a Czech institute has shown the presence of characteristic minor brain trauma from remote gunshot wounds. This is not correlated to type of cartridge or rapidity of collapse but does show damage from remote wounding.

So far this seems to be a convincing tale of the probable existence of a real and useable effect. Almost the only way in which it could be wrong is for the Corneys to have doctored their data and many here have virtually claimed that they and independent Czech researchers have done so. I am not allowed to give my comment on this. In contrast, the opponents of the BPW effect produce a string of non arguments and no contradictory data. People professing a knowledge of scientific method claim that it is up to the Courtneys' to do more work to prove their case although the scientific method is that it is up to others to repeat the experiments or invent experiments to falsify the Courtney's hypothesis. These people claim that a sound hypothesis or theory should be able to stand up to attack. So it should but the attack should come from experimental evidence and not from verbal argument and character assasination. It should make no difference whether Dr. Courtney is really a 105 year old Nazi death camp Doctor in disguise. His work stands or falls on its scientific base and is independent of the scientist who created it.

It is now far too late and I am going to bed.

English
Man, Eng... I always enjoy reading your posts!
__________________
- 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 02-12-2010, 22:06   #373
N/Apower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
KenB22,
A good post but you are looking for secondary characterisers to qualify primary quality. My youngest son has a First Class degree in Physics from one of the World's top 5 institutions but he is dyslexic and does not write at all well. Not too bad but definitely not well! This has not been helped by the fact that the UK educational system specialises at an earlier age than the US system and so the last 6 years of his education have been almost essay free.

I believe that the only way you can judge content is by following the explanation and comparing it to your own base knowledge. The difficulty then is in deciding what amongst the things you know is knowledge and what is authorative sounding clap trap that you have accepted from someone else without sufficient questioning or fundamental knowledge to question.

Certainly there are linguistic clues, but they still depend on base knowledge. One example is the use of the term "hydrostatic" to describe a hydrodynamic phenomenon, but in science it is the experimental result that is king and not the precision of the language used to describe it. The Romans produced a hard, durable, mortar some 2,000 years before we had the knowledge of chemistry to understand it. If you read Gearge Sorros's book on investment it is inpenetratable English but you can't argue with his results.

We are not a jury trying to judge the quality of a witness but people trying to make sense of a large category of wounding phenomena or people trying hard to pretend that the phenomena do not really exist by applying labels like "psychological factors" to it which do not fit the data. The Courtneys' work goes part way to explaining the anomalous data by providing a correlation between the peak pressure of a ballistic pressure wave and the probability of rapid collapse. They show a clear monotonic increase of effect with increase of pressure. They did not profess to have determined the mechanism involved and, as Swede1945 said a few pages back, it could have been one of three things. But it did have to have an effect directly on the brain! Since then a study at a Czech institute has shown the presence of characteristic minor brain trauma from remote gunshot wounds. This is not correlated to type of cartridge or rapidity of collapse but does show damage from remote wounding.

So far this seems to be a convincing tale of the probable existence of a real and useable effect. Almost the only way in which it could be wrong is for the Corneys to have doctored their data and many here have virtually claimed that they and independent Czech researchers have done so. I am not allowed to give my comment on this. In contrast, the opponents of the BPW effect produce a string of non arguments and no contradictory data. People professing a knowledge of scientific method claim that it is up to the Courtneys' to do more work to prove their case although the scientific method is that it is up to others to repeat the experiments or invent experiments to falsify the Courtney's hypothesis. These people claim that a sound hypothesis or theory should be able to stand up to attack. So it should but the attack should come from experimental evidence and not from verbal argument and character assasination. It should make no difference whether Dr. Courtney is really a 105 year old Nazi death camp Doctor in disguise. His work stands or falls on its scientific base and is independent of the scientist who created it.

It is now far too late and I am going to bed.

English

Personally, my issue is this:

Dr. Courtney's work suggests that a light, fast, violently fragmenting or expanding JHP is the way to go.

The Courtneys take the position that the more, faster, harder, etc. with kinetic energy transfer, the better--and I agree.

The problem arises when you step out into the real world.

You cannot have a 9mm/.45/357SIG, whatever, that violently fragments/expands and still penetrates 12" through a variety of barriers. It just doesn't work that way.

So what you have now, is a decision to make: Do you want to cause a TBI (assuming you can, which, every study shown shows that even if this IS possible, it is FAR from assured, even with high-powered rifles), or do you want to ensure 12" of penetration in your target?

I think we can all agree that if a bullet could violently expand and fragment and all that and still penetrate 12" after various barriers, that THAT is the round we would want. However, since we can't have that (yet, anyways), we are forced to choose.

C&C would champion the fragmenting or violently expanding bullet.

I would propose that this is a poor decision.

TBI is iffy, even if we accept that it is real. However, there is nothing "iffy" about the fact that numerous people have been killed because they used ammunition that would not penetrate deep enough to kill their assailant.

Officer Coates, FBI Miami shootout, a local cop in dallas using 55gr BST's trying to shoot a perp in a car, the list goes on and on and on.

Therefor, while I think the 357SIG's extra energy on soft tissue is certainly a good thing (how could it not be?), I don't think that one should use 115gr Corbon's, or that one should state that the 357SIG is "far superior" to a 147gr 9mm that expands properly.

*With regards to damage of microvascular structures due to remote injury, if the retinal structures, and other various delicate vessels in the body are not damaged, I do not feel that the brain is at much risk with regard to any immediate effect. Kindof like worrying about blowing up the transmission in a corvette when doing a burn-out on a set of spare tires. When I start hearing about blindness and occular hemmhoraging due to GSW's to other parts of the body, then I will give this phenomina more thought.

Last edited by N/Apower; 02-12-2010 at 22:11..
N/Apower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 22:32   #374
NMGlocker
BOOM headshot
 
NMGlocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 5,957
My .355" dia. hole puncher is better than your .355" hole puncher.
70fps is the difference between a poodle shooter and Thors Hammer!
Don't you people know how ridiculous this argument is?

If you spent as much time training as you do typing... I guarantee your "stopping power" percentages would improve exponentially.
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Last edited by NMGlocker; 02-12-2010 at 22:34..
NMGlocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 23:25   #375
N/Apower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMGlocker View Post
My .355" dia. hole puncher is better than your .355" hole puncher.
70fps is the difference between a poodle shooter and Thors Hammer!
Don't you people know how ridiculous this argument is?

If you spent as much time training as you do typing... I guarantee your "stopping power" percentages would improve exponentially.
More like 150fps, and while I agree with you, I would also remind you that 50fps is all most +P loads gain over non+P loads, yet they seem to be ALL the rage.
N/Apower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2010, 02:00   #376
glock20c10mm
Senior Member
 
glock20c10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Out West
Posts: 5,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by N/Apower View Post
Both cause tissue to be forced away from their path at a 90* angle. Further, we are talking about hydraulic pressure in a system (vessels). A system with a myriad of valves, and weak-points all throughout it. The impact of a projectile on a vessel in the chest would cause plenty of other issues before it ruptured something in the brain.

Further, whether or not one is to accept this, "TBI" as fact, one cannot dispute that it is highly un-reliable. A psychological stop is much more likely than a "TBI" stop, if you will. There are numerous people alive who will attest to that, after having survived a GSW to the thoracic cavity.

Yes, there are things beyond what jello shows us that occur, and I cannot rule out that ruptured vessels in the brain may occur, but I can say that that is the last thing I want to be banking on as a mechanism of "stopping" someone from their course of action.

What accounts for when this doesn't happen? Not every heart/lung-shot deer drops in its tracks. By all logic, this means that TBI is just as likely as it is not, even assuming that is the mechanism at all. Your own example shows the fallacy considering it a quantifiable, reliable wounding mechanism.

You think Courtney and Courtney and Dr. Roberts aren't peddaling their own kool-aid? Everyone is selling something. Everyone has an agenda. It's just life.

The fact that there is a debate at all shows that there are things we do not understand. Some scientists stick to measurable, or more easily quantifiable outcomes more strictly than others. Considering the myriad of responses animals and humans have in response to piercing trauma, it is impractical to try to credit the external force with 100% of the outcome. Therefor, I feel that very tangible tests are best when measuring ammunition against ammunition.

That which produces the largest permanent hole, has better effect than that which produces the smallest, with regard to cessation of target action. As the disparity narrows, so does the effectiveness difference, to the point to where a smaller permanent cavity producing projectile, in a certain circumstance, may do better than a different one, because of immeasurable phenomina, or phenomina that is so numerous and inter-related as to be immesurable.

At what point does TC outweigh CC? To what extent? Does it ever?

These are all intangibles.

If I have a choice between equal CC and TC, and equal CC and larger TC, Obviously I want the equal CC and larger TC, but what if it were reversed?

Beyond blood volume loss, expansion, and penetration, and tissue crushed, this is a science of grays. The "gello shooters" are not ignoring this, rather they are choosing not to try to measure that which cannot be quantified and sticking with what can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by N/Apower View Post
Personally, my issue is this:

Dr. Courtney's work suggests that a light, fast, violently fragmenting or expanding JHP is the way to go.

The Courtneys take the position that the more, faster, harder, etc. with kinetic energy transfer, the better--and I agree.

The problem arises when you step out into the real world.

You cannot have a 9mm/.45/357SIG, whatever, that violently fragments/expands and still penetrates 12" through a variety of barriers. It just doesn't work that way.

So what you have now, is a decision to make: Do you want to cause a TBI (assuming you can, which, every study shown shows that even if this IS possible, it is FAR from assured, even with high-powered rifles), or do you want to ensure 12" of penetration in your target?

I think we can all agree that if a bullet could violently expand and fragment and all that and still penetrate 12" after various barriers, that THAT is the round we would want. However, since we can't have that (yet, anyways), we are forced to choose.

C&C would champion the fragmenting or violently expanding bullet.

I would propose that this is a poor decision.

TBI is iffy, even if we accept that it is real. However, there is nothing "iffy" about the fact that numerous people have been killed because they used ammunition that would not penetrate deep enough to kill their assailant.

Officer Coates, FBI Miami shootout, a local cop in dallas using 55gr BST's trying to shoot a perp in a car, the list goes on and on and on.

Therefor, while I think the 357SIG's extra energy on soft tissue is certainly a good thing (how could it not be?), I don't think that one should use 115gr Corbon's, or that one should state that the 357SIG is "far superior" to a 147gr 9mm that expands properly.

*With regards to damage of microvascular structures due to remote injury, if the retinal structures, and other various delicate vessels in the body are not damaged, I do not feel that the brain is at much risk with regard to any immediate effect. Kindof like worrying about blowing up the transmission in a corvette when doing a burn-out on a set of spare tires. When I start hearing about blindness and occular hemmhoraging due to GSW's to other parts of the body, then I will give this phenomina more thought.
I don't know what your job title is but I'ld bet quite a bit of money it ain't "Doctor". I've never been in the medical profession and it seems I know more than you. Some of what you post is just plain think-you-know but you just plain don't. I'm not saying this to ridicule you, it's just a fact.

As for what you seem to think is required toward diagnosing mild to moderate TBI, how about I just explain a few things to you.

In the sense of objectivity and comprehensive thought (whether one chooses to consider it or not), I think the following is important to keep in mind toward Dr. Courtney's scientific study of BPW and it's possible attributes of quicker incapacitation some percentage of the time (not to mention among quite a bit of other supporting scientific study), in reguard to actually finding symptoms.

With reguard to brain trauma, how can those that treat gunshot wound victims know if there was remote brain damage or not? MRIs and CT scans don't usually even tell doctors if someone has a concussion.

Much of mild traumatic brain injury is far from being understood, let alone they don't know how to diagnose much of it. Yet mild to moderate TBI still clearly exists even though they have trouble with the explanation part.

The defense dept has been throwing out grant money to study all kinds of forms of brain injury for years now.

The same mild TBI that they don't fully know how to diagnose or treat yet, sometimes the symptoms go away by themselves. So far as they know right now, the effects of mild TBI can disappear in seconds to years, after whatever happened to happen to cause it to happen.

All the doctors can do is see if the patient has symptoms of being mentally screwed up in any way, physical or mental. Brain injury does not necessarily mean brain damage.

Grade 1 concussion is defined as mild, very brief, neurological disturbance such as confusion, without loss of consciousness. And therefore anyone treating a gunshot wound victim may very well NOT know the person had a grade 1 concussion, as the symptoms for it may very well have subsided by the time the vitim was seen by anyone with a medical background.

A concussion is a traumatically induced transient loss of normal brain function. Who knows if they (doctors and such) can even explain a fraction of what diagnosing the brain all actually entails?

So what about the shootees on the good side paying attention to what happens to the BGs after they are shot by whatever round? Much of the time they can't remember what they did themselves.

They (doctors and such) already know that anatomical imaging such as computerized tomography (CT scans) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) don't always tell them much of anything in relation to obvious signs of mild TBI. Contrast-enhanced CT scans help a little, but still leave some to be desired.

So now a days studies and testing are being done with functional imaging like: Functional MRI (fMRI), Positron emission tomography (PET scanning), Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT scan), and ELECTRO-PHYSIOLOGICAL STUDIES (EEG, evoked potentials, and 'brain mapping'). And thats besides Neuro-psychological (NP) testing.

Brain injury can simply be trivial, and completely reversible by natural healing processes, again, taking anywhere from seconds to years. The symptoms of concussion alone, limited to what they know so far are varying degrees of impairment of limb movement, vision, speech, and cognitive function, not to mention coma.

Another thing to keep in mind is if there isn't a symptom, they don't look for a cause or vis versa. Especially symtoms that may subside before the GSW victim gets to the folks meant to treat the GSW.

In a way, this leaves believers and nonbelievers in a predicament as to who's right or wrong. All I know is we have a more than fair amount of supporting evidence (IMO), with zero evidence going against it. Problem at this point and time is, both sides still need "proof" which will require further scientific analysis/study which neither has, and doesn't seem to be available to us either way if any does exist somewhere.

That said, I don't feel there probably have to be ruptured vessels in the brain for mild to moderate TBI to have occured. And BTW, who here was claiming mild to moderate TBI being a quantifiable, reliable wounding mechanism. You made that up in your own mind!

And who is trying to credit what external force with 100% of what outcome??? What are you talking about?

To say; "That which produces the largest permanent hole, has better effect than that which produces the smallest, with regard to cessation of target action.", would be akin to saying all 45 Auto loads are better than any 9mm Luger loads in terms of quickest to incapacitate a BG. Are you saying that?

You said; "Beyond blood volume loss, expansion, and penetration, and tissue crushed, this is a science of grays. The "gello shooters" are not ignoring this, rather they are choosing not to try to measure that which cannot be quantified and sticking with what can." That said, what are they sticking with that can, be measured?

As for what you think the Courtney's work tells you to do, you are dead wrong!!! The position the Courtney's actually take is that proper penetration depth must be met for any personal risk assessment one deems neccessary before the amount of BPW is taken into account. That is explicitly stated in their paper on the deer incapacitation study.

This is a fraction of the reason why uz2bUSMC tells you you don't know what you're talking about because you clearly don't.

I have run the numbers for various common SD loads where I could get the pertinent apples to apples comparison data so we can see how different loads stack up against each other. The list is as follows -

The kinetic energy is listed after "KE", penetration depth is listed after "P" and is based on clothed gel for ALL rounds, expanded bullet diameter is listed after "E", wound volume is listed in cubic inches(ci) and is based on 12" penetration for ALL rounds unless a specific round couldn't manage 12" penetration, and in the last column in pounds per square inch(psi) is the peak ballistic pressure wave. Please note - for PBPW, for any round that fragmented to any extent, the PBPW is actually higher than what's shown. All PBPW numbers assume zero fragmentation. Very generally, for the PERCENTAGE a round fragments, that same percentage would be added to the PBPW in psi.

Most of the HST #s and Speer Gold Dot #s are based on averages from the ATK workshop results with various police departments. Those that aren't based on an average were tested only 1 time. Those workshop results can be viewed in their entirety here - http://www.le.atk.com/general/irl/woundballistics.aspx

Win 380auto T Series, 95gr, 1000fps, KE=211, P=7.95, E=.64, 2.6ci, 507psi

Speer 38special+P GD, 135gr, 860fps, KE=222, P=11.75, E=.59, 3.2ci, 361psi
Win 38spcl T Series+P, 130gr, 925fps, KE=247, P=12.00, E=.67, 4.2ci, 393psi

Win 9mm+P+ Ranger, 115gr, 1335fps, KE=455, P=8.50, E=.81, 4.4ci, 1023psi
DT 9mm+P Gold Dot, 115gr, 1415fps, KE=511, P=12.00, E=.70, 4.6ci, 813psi
DT 9mm+P Gold Dot, 124gr, 1310fps, KE=472, P=13.25, E=.70, 4.6ci, 684psi
Federal 9mm+P HST, 124gr, 1200fps, KE=396, P=12.50, E=.66, 4.1ci, 605psi
Federal 9mm HST,,,, 124gr, 1150fps, KE=364, P=13.90, E=.64, 3.9ci, 501psi
Win9mm+P T Series, 124gr, 1180fps, KE=383, P=13.90, E=.67, 4.2ci, 526psi
Win9mm +P Bonded, 124gr, 1180fps, KE=383, P=18.70, E=.54, 2.7ci, 392psi
Win9mm+P+TSeries, 127gr, 1250fps, KE=441, P=12.20, E=.68, 4.4ci, 691psi
DT 9mm+P Gold Dot, 147gr, 1125fps, KE=413, P=14.00, E=.66, 4.1ci, 563psi
Federal 9mm HST,,,, 147gr, 1000fps, KE=326, P=14.40, E=.66, 4.1ci, 433psi
Speer 9mm GD,,,,,,,, 147gr,, 990fps, KE=320, P=15.25, E=.58, 3.2ci, 401psi
Win 9mm T Series,,,, 147gr,, 990fps, KE=320, P=14.50, E=.66, 4.1ci, 422psi
Win 9mm Bonded,,,,, 147gr,, 995fps, KE=323, P=16.50, E=.59, 3.3ci, 374psi

DT 357SIG Gold Dot, 115gr, 1550fps, KE=613, P=12.12, E=.71, 4.8ci, 955psi
DT 357SIG Gold Dot, 125gr, 1450fps, KE=584, P=14.50, E=.66, 4.1ci, 770psi
Win357SIG T Series, 125gr, 1350fps, KE=506, P=12.10, E=.66, 4.1ci, 798psi
Win357SIG Bonded,, 125gr, 1350fps, KE=506, P=15.90, E=.57, 3.1ci, 608psi
DT 357SIG Gold Dot, 147gr, 1250fps, KE=510, P=14.75, E=.73, 5.0ci, 661psi

DT 357mag Gold Dot, 125gr, 1600fps, KE=710, P=12.75, E=.69, 4.5ci, 1063psi
Speer SB 357magGD, 125gr,,, 990fps, KE=294, P=14.50, E=.65, 4.0ci, 388psi
Win 357magSilvertip, 145gr, 1290fps,, KE=536, P=12.50, E=.59, 3.3ci, 819psi
DT 357mag Gold Dot, 158gr, 1400fps, KE=688, P=19.00, E=.56, 3.0ci, 692psi

DT 9X25 Gold Dot, 115gr, 1800fps, KE=827, P=10.00, E=.64, 3.2ci, 1579psi
DT 9X25 Gold Dot, 125gr, 1725fps, KE=826, P=15.00, E=.74, 5.2ci, 1051psi
DT 9X25 Gold Dot, 147gr, 1550fps, KE=784, P=17.50, E=.68, 4.4ci,, 856psi

DT 40S&W Nosler,,,, 135gr, 1375fps, KE=567, P=12.10, E=.72, 4.9ci, 894psi
DT 40S&W Gold Dot, 155gr, 1275fps, KE=559, P=13.00, E=.76, 5.4ci, 825psi
DT 40S&W Gold Dot, 165gr, 1200fps, KE=528, P=14.00, E=.70, 4.6ci, 721psi
Rem Golden Saber,,, 165gr, 1150fps, KE=485, P=14.00, E=.67, 4.2ci, 662psi
Federal 40S&W HST, 165gr, 1130fps, KE=468, P=14.00, E=.75, 5.3ci, 637psi
Win40S&W T Series, 165gr, 1140fps, KE=476, P=13.20, E=.70, 4.6ci, 690psi
Win 40S&W Bonded, 165gr, 1140fps, KE=476, P=19.00, E=.55, 2.9ci, 479psi
Speer 40S&W GD,,,, 180gr. 1025fps, KE=420, P=11.75, E=.72, 4.9ci, 683psi
DT 40S&W Gold Dot, 180gr, 1100fps, KE=484, P=14.75, E=.68, 4.4ci, 626psi
Federal 40S&W HST, 180gr, 1010fps, KE=408, P=13.40, E=.77, 5.6ci, 582psi
Rem JHP (not GS),,,, 180gr, 1015fps, KE=412, P=13.25, E=.69, 4.5ci, 594psi
Win40S&W T Series, 180gr,,, 990fps, KE=392, P=14.30, E=.70, 4.6ci, 524psi
Win 40S&W Bonded, 180gr,, 1070fps, KE=458, P=21.80, E=.51, 2.5ci, 402psi

DT 10mm Nosler,,,, 135gr, 1600fps, KE=767, P=11.00, E=.70, 4.2ci, 1332psi
DT 10mm Gold Dot, 155gr, 1475fps, KE=749, P=13.50, E=.88, 7.3ci, 1061psi
DT 10mm G. Saber, 165gr, 1425fps, KE=744, P=14.75, E=.82, 6.3ci, 964psi
DT 10mm Gold Dot, 165gr, 1400psi, KE=718, P=14.25, E=1.02, 9.8ci, 962psi
DT 10mm Gold Dot, 180gr, 1300fps, KE=675, P=15.25, E=.96, 8.7ci, 846psi
DT 10mm G. Saber, 180gr, 1330fps, KE=707, P=16.00, E=.85, 6.8ci, 844psi
DT 10mm Hor. XTP, 180gr, 1350fps, KE=728, P=17.25, E=.77, 5.6ci, 808psi
DT 10mm Hor. XTP, 200gr, 1250fps, KE=694, P=19.50, E=.72, 4.9ci, 680psi

Win 45GAP T Series, 230gr, 905fps, KE=418, P=12.70, E=.72, 4.9ci, 630psi

DT 45auto Gold Dot, 185gr, 1225fps, KE=616, P=12.75, E=.82, 6.3ci, 923psi
Rem45auto G Saber, 185gr, 1140fps, KE=534, P=14.25, E=.70, 4.6ci, 716psi
Win45auto Silvertip, 185gr, 1000fps, KE=411, P=13.25, E=.70, 4.6ci, 593psi
DT 45auto Gold Dot, 200gr, 1125fps, KE=562, P=14.25, E=.88, 7.3ci, 753psi
DT 45auto Gold Dot, 230gr, 1010fps, KE=521, P=15.25, E=.95, 8.5ci, 653psi
Federal45auto+P HST,230gr, 950fps, KE=461, P=14.60, E=.85, 6.8ci, 603psi
Federal 45auto HST, 230gr,, 890fps, KE=405, P=14.40, E=.86, 7.0ci, 537psi
Speer 45auto G Dot, 230gr,, 890fps, KE=405, P=13.50, E=.70, 4.6ci, 573psi
Rem45auto G Saber, 230gr,, 875fps, KE=391, P=14.00, E=.74, 5.2ci, 534psi
Win 45auto T Series, 230gr, 905fps, KE=418, P=12.70, E=.72, 4.9ci, 630psi
Win45auto+PTSeries, 230gr, 990fps, KE=500, P=15.20, E=.78, 5.7ci, 628psi
Win 45 auto Bonded, 230gr, 905fps, KE=418, P=15.80, E=.67, 4.2ci, 506psi


So what you consider to be a "poor decision", doesn't have to be.

You said; "However, there is nothing "iffy" about the fact that numerous people have been killed because they used ammunition that would not penetrate deep enough to kill their assailant." So what about the old 158gr 38 Special load that used to be popular among LE that they finally dubbed the "Widow Maker" for that exact reason EXCEPT that it did penetrate far enough?

What about where you say; "Therefor, while I think the 357SIG's extra energy on soft tissue is certainly a good thing (how could it not be?), I don't think that one should use 115gr Corbon's, or that one should state that the 357SIG is "far superior" to a 147gr 9mm that expands properly."???

In what way do you suggest the 357SIG's extra energy on soft tissue is certainly a good thing to the extent of suggesting is must be? Not to mention that everyone's definition of far superior probably varies by quite a bit.

As for sticking up for 9mm, at least from the standpoint of you suggesting the 357SIG is not far superior to it, consider what SSA Urey Patrick of the Firearms Training Unit, FBI Academy, Quantico, VA, when asked; "Are you saying the 9mm is no good?" , replied;

"No, we are saying it is as good as the 38 Special, which has served us for a long time. It has severe limitations, which we are not willing to accept. It is woefully inadequate for shooting at people in cars, for example, and over half of our shootings involve vehicles. It is a marginally adequate wounding agent. We have had a number of 9mm shootings over the past couple of years, and if you define a good shooting as one in which the subject stops whatever he was doing when he gets shot, we have yet to have a good one, and we are hitting our adversaries multiple times. We have shot half a dozen dogs in the past year and have not killed one yet, although we have run up a significant veteranary bill. The 9mm with proper ammunition is not a bad round. It is just no where near as effective as the 10mm and 45 offerings and the disparity between it and the larger calibers has remained a constant throughout all the testing we have done over the past two years."

Yet many of us have learned just how superior the 357SIG is according to those who have used both against humans and animals. Texas DPS alone has praised it.

Much of your comentary ranges from far reaching to plain absurd at best. Have you ever actually read Dr. Courtney's paper on the deer study?
__________________
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
Old 02-13-2010, 02:06   #377
glock20c10mm
Senior Member
 
glock20c10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Out West
Posts: 5,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenB22 View Post
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.
Wow! Somebody is definately out of the loop. And he goes by the name of KenB22. I'ld explain, but others have touched on it quite knowledgeably already.
__________________
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
Old 02-13-2010, 02:15   #378
N/Apower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by glock20c10mm View Post
I don't know what your job title is but I'ld bet quite a bit of money it ain't "Doctor". I've never been in the medical profession and it seems I know more than you. Some of what you post is just plain think-you-know but you just plain don't. I'm not saying this to ridicule you, it's just a fact.

As for what you seem to think is required toward diagnosing mild to moderate TBI, how about I just explain a few things to you.

In the sense of objectivity and comprehensive thought (whether one chooses to consider it or not), I think the following is important to keep in mind toward Dr. Courtney's scientific study of BPW and it's possible attributes of quicker incapacitation some percentage of the time (not to mention among quite a bit of other supporting scientific study), in reguard to actually finding symptoms.

With reguard to brain trauma, how can those that treat gunshot wound victims know if there was remote brain damage or not? MRIs and CT scans don't usually even tell doctors if someone has a concussion.

Much of mild traumatic brain injury is far from being understood, let alone they don't know how to diagnose much of it. Yet mild to moderate TBI still clearly exists even though they have trouble with the explanation part.

The defense dept has been throwing out grant money to study all kinds of forms of brain injury for years now.

The same mild TBI that they don't fully know how to diagnose or treat yet, sometimes the symptoms go away by themselves. So far as they know right now, the effects of mild TBI can disappear in seconds to years, after whatever happened to happen to cause it to happen.

All the doctors can do is see if the patient has symptoms of being mentally screwed up in any way, physical or mental. Brain injury does not necessarily mean brain damage.

Grade 1 concussion is defined as mild, very brief, neurological disturbance such as confusion, without loss of consciousness. And therefore anyone treating a gunshot wound victim may very well NOT know the person had a grade 1 concussion, as the symptoms for it may very well have subsided by the time the vitim was seen by anyone with a medical background.

A concussion is a traumatically induced transient loss of normal brain function. Who knows if they (doctors and such) can even explain a fraction of what diagnosing the brain all actually entails?

So what about the shootees on the good side paying attention to what happens to the BGs after they are shot by whatever round? Much of the time they can't remember what they did themselves.

They (doctors and such) already know that anatomical imaging such as computerized tomography (CT scans) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) don't always tell them much of anything in relation to obvious signs of mild TBI. Contrast-enhanced CT scans help a little, but still leave some to be desired.

So now a days studies and testing are being done with functional imaging like: Functional MRI (fMRI), Positron emission tomography (PET scanning), Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT scan), and ELECTRO-PHYSIOLOGICAL STUDIES (EEG, evoked potentials, and 'brain mapping'). And thats besides Neuro-psychological (NP) testing.

Brain injury can simply be trivial, and completely reversible by natural healing processes, again, taking anywhere from seconds to years. The symptoms of concussion alone, limited to what they know so far are varying degrees of impairment of limb movement, vision, speech, and cognitive function, not to mention coma.

Another thing to keep in mind is if there isn't a symptom, they don't look for a cause or vis versa. Especially symtoms that may subside before the GSW victim gets to the folks meant to treat the GSW.

In a way, this leaves believers and nonbelievers in a predicament as to who's right or wrong. All I know is we have a more than fair amount of supporting evidence (IMO), with zero evidence going against it. Problem at this point and time is, both sides still need "proof" which will require further scientific analysis/study which neither has, and doesn't seem to be available to us either way if any does exist somewhere.

That said, I don't feel there probably have to be ruptured vessels in the brain for mild to moderate TBI to have occured. And BTW, who here was claiming mild to moderate TBI being a quantifiable, reliable wounding mechanism. You made that up in your own mind!

And who is trying to credit what external force with 100% of what outcome??? What are you talking about?

To say; "That which produces the largest permanent hole, has better effect than that which produces the smallest, with regard to cessation of target action.", would be akin to saying all 45 Auto loads are better than any 9mm Luger loads in terms of quickest to incapacitate a BG. Are you saying that?

You said; "Beyond blood volume loss, expansion, and penetration, and tissue crushed, this is a science of grays. The "gello shooters" are not ignoring this, rather they are choosing not to try to measure that which cannot be quantified and sticking with what can." That said, what are they sticking with that can, be measured?

As for what you think the Courtney's work tells you to do, you are dead wrong!!! The position the Courtney's actually take is that proper penetration depth must be met for any personal risk assessment one deems neccessary before the amount of BPW is taken into account. That is explicitly stated in their paper on the deer incapacitation study.

This is a fraction of the reason why uz2bUSMC tells you you don't know what you're talking about because you clearly don't.

I have run the numbers for various common SD loads where I could get the pertinent apples to apples comparison data so we can see how different loads stack up against each other. The list is as follows -

The kinetic energy is listed after "KE", penetration depth is listed after "P" and is based on clothed gel for ALL rounds, expanded bullet diameter is listed after "E", wound volume is listed in cubic inches(ci) and is based on 12" penetration for ALL rounds unless a specific round couldn't manage 12" penetration, and in the last column in pounds per square inch(psi) is the peak ballistic pressure wave. Please note - for PBPW, for any round that fragmented to any extent, the PBPW is actually higher than what's shown. All PBPW numbers assume zero fragmentation. Very generally, for the PERCENTAGE a round fragments, that same percentage would be added to the PBPW in psi.

Most of the HST #s and Speer Gold Dot #s are based on averages from the ATK workshop results with various police departments. Those that aren't based on an average were tested only 1 time. Those workshop results can be viewed in their entirety here - http://www.le.atk.com/general/irl/woundballistics.aspx

Win 380auto T Series, 95gr, 1000fps, KE=211, P=7.95, E=.64, 2.6ci, 507psi

Speer 38special+P GD, 135gr, 860fps, KE=222, P=11.75, E=.59, 3.2ci, 361psi
Win 38spcl T Series+P, 130gr, 925fps, KE=247, P=12.00, E=.67, 4.2ci, 393psi

Win 9mm+P+ Ranger, 115gr, 1335fps, KE=455, P=8.50, E=.81, 4.4ci, 1023psi
DT 9mm+P Gold Dot, 115gr, 1415fps, KE=511, P=12.00, E=.70, 4.6ci, 813psi
DT 9mm+P Gold Dot, 124gr, 1310fps, KE=472, P=13.25, E=.70, 4.6ci, 684psi
Federal 9mm+P HST, 124gr, 1200fps, KE=396, P=12.50, E=.66, 4.1ci, 605psi
Federal 9mm HST,,,, 124gr, 1150fps, KE=364, P=13.90, E=.64, 3.9ci, 501psi
Win9mm+P T Series, 124gr, 1180fps, KE=383, P=13.90, E=.67, 4.2ci, 526psi
Win9mm +P Bonded, 124gr, 1180fps, KE=383, P=18.70, E=.54, 2.7ci, 392psi
Win9mm+P+TSeries, 127gr, 1250fps, KE=441, P=12.20, E=.68, 4.4ci, 691psi
DT 9mm+P Gold Dot, 147gr, 1125fps, KE=413, P=14.00, E=.66, 4.1ci, 563psi
Federal 9mm HST,,,, 147gr, 1000fps, KE=326, P=14.40, E=.66, 4.1ci, 433psi
Speer 9mm GD,,,,,,,, 147gr,, 990fps, KE=320, P=15.25, E=.58, 3.2ci, 401psi
Win 9mm T Series,,,, 147gr,, 990fps, KE=320, P=14.50, E=.66, 4.1ci, 422psi
Win 9mm Bonded,,,,, 147gr,, 995fps, KE=323, P=16.50, E=.59, 3.3ci, 374psi

DT 357SIG Gold Dot, 115gr, 1550fps, KE=613, P=12.12, E=.71, 4.8ci, 955psi
DT 357SIG Gold Dot, 125gr, 1450fps, KE=584, P=14.50, E=.66, 4.1ci, 770psi
Win357SIG T Series, 125gr, 1350fps, KE=506, P=12.10, E=.66, 4.1ci, 798psi
Win357SIG Bonded,, 125gr, 1350fps, KE=506, P=15.90, E=.57, 3.1ci, 608psi
DT 357SIG Gold Dot, 147gr, 1250fps, KE=510, P=14.75, E=.73, 5.0ci, 661psi

DT 357mag Gold Dot, 125gr, 1600fps, KE=710, P=12.75, E=.69, 4.5ci, 1063psi
Speer SB 357magGD, 125gr,,, 990fps, KE=294, P=14.50, E=.65, 4.0ci, 388psi
Win 357magSilvertip, 145gr, 1290fps,, KE=536, P=12.50, E=.59, 3.3ci, 819psi
DT 357mag Gold Dot, 158gr, 1400fps, KE=688, P=19.00, E=.56, 3.0ci, 692psi

DT 9X25 Gold Dot, 115gr, 1800fps, KE=827, P=10.00, E=.64, 3.2ci, 1579psi
DT 9X25 Gold Dot, 125gr, 1725fps, KE=826, P=15.00, E=.74, 5.2ci, 1051psi
DT 9X25 Gold Dot, 147gr, 1550fps, KE=784, P=17.50, E=.68, 4.4ci,, 856psi

DT 40S&W Nosler,,,, 135gr, 1375fps, KE=567, P=12.10, E=.72, 4.9ci, 894psi
DT 40S&W Gold Dot, 155gr, 1275fps, KE=559, P=13.00, E=.76, 5.4ci, 825psi
DT 40S&W Gold Dot, 165gr, 1200fps, KE=528, P=14.00, E=.70, 4.6ci, 721psi
Rem Golden Saber,,, 165gr, 1150fps, KE=485, P=14.00, E=.67, 4.2ci, 662psi
Federal 40S&W HST, 165gr, 1130fps, KE=468, P=14.00, E=.75, 5.3ci, 637psi
Win40S&W T Series, 165gr, 1140fps, KE=476, P=13.20, E=.70, 4.6ci, 690psi
Win 40S&W Bonded, 165gr, 1140fps, KE=476, P=19.00, E=.55, 2.9ci, 479psi
Speer 40S&W GD,,,, 180gr. 1025fps, KE=420, P=11.75, E=.72, 4.9ci, 683psi
DT 40S&W Gold Dot, 180gr, 1100fps, KE=484, P=14.75, E=.68, 4.4ci, 626psi
Federal 40S&W HST, 180gr, 1010fps, KE=408, P=13.40, E=.77, 5.6ci, 582psi
Rem JHP (not GS),,,, 180gr, 1015fps, KE=412, P=13.25, E=.69, 4.5ci, 594psi
Win40S&W T Series, 180gr,,, 990fps, KE=392, P=14.30, E=.70, 4.6ci, 524psi
Win 40S&W Bonded, 180gr,, 1070fps, KE=458, P=21.80, E=.51, 2.5ci, 402psi

DT 10mm Nosler,,,, 135gr, 1600fps, KE=767, P=11.00, E=.70, 4.2ci, 1332psi
DT 10mm Gold Dot, 155gr, 1475fps, KE=749, P=13.50, E=.88, 7.3ci, 1061psi
DT 10mm G. Saber, 165gr, 1425fps, KE=744, P=14.75, E=.82, 6.3ci, 964psi
DT 10mm Gold Dot, 165gr, 1400psi, KE=718, P=14.25, E=1.02, 9.8ci, 962psi
DT 10mm Gold Dot, 180gr, 1300fps, KE=675, P=15.25, E=.96, 8.7ci, 846psi
DT 10mm G. Saber, 180gr, 1330fps, KE=707, P=16.00, E=.85, 6.8ci, 844psi
DT 10mm Hor. XTP, 180gr, 1350fps, KE=728, P=17.25, E=.77, 5.6ci, 808psi
DT 10mm Hor. XTP, 200gr, 1250fps, KE=694, P=19.50, E=.72, 4.9ci, 680psi

Win 45GAP T Series, 230gr, 905fps, KE=418, P=12.70, E=.72, 4.9ci, 630psi

DT 45auto Gold Dot, 185gr, 1225fps, KE=616, P=12.75, E=.82, 6.3ci, 923psi
Rem45auto G Saber, 185gr, 1140fps, KE=534, P=14.25, E=.70, 4.6ci, 716psi
Win45auto Silvertip, 185gr, 1000fps, KE=411, P=13.25, E=.70, 4.6ci, 593psi
DT 45auto Gold Dot, 200gr, 1125fps, KE=562, P=14.25, E=.88, 7.3ci, 753psi
DT 45auto Gold Dot, 230gr, 1010fps, KE=521, P=15.25, E=.95, 8.5ci, 653psi
Federal45auto+P HST,230gr, 950fps, KE=461, P=14.60, E=.85, 6.8ci, 603psi
Federal 45auto HST, 230gr,, 890fps, KE=405, P=14.40, E=.86, 7.0ci, 537psi
Speer 45auto G Dot, 230gr,, 890fps, KE=405, P=13.50, E=.70, 4.6ci, 573psi
Rem45auto G Saber, 230gr,, 875fps, KE=391, P=14.00, E=.74, 5.2ci, 534psi
Win 45auto T Series, 230gr, 905fps, KE=418, P=12.70, E=.72, 4.9ci, 630psi
Win45auto+PTSeries, 230gr, 990fps, KE=500, P=15.20, E=.78, 5.7ci, 628psi
Win 45 auto Bonded, 230gr, 905fps, KE=418, P=15.80, E=.67, 4.2ci, 506psi

So what you consider to be a "poor decision", doesn't have to be.

You said; "However, there is nothing "iffy" about the fact that numerous people have been killed because they used ammunition that would not penetrate deep enough to kill their assailant." So what about the old 158gr 38 Special load that used to be popular among LE that they finally dubbed the "Widow Maker" for that exact reason EXCEPT that it did penetrate far enough?

What about where you say; "Therefor, while I think the 357SIG's extra energy on soft tissue is certainly a good thing (how could it not be?), I don't think that one should use 115gr Corbon's, or that one should state that the 357SIG is "far superior" to a 147gr 9mm that expands properly."???

In what way do you suggest the 357SIG's extra energy on soft tissue is certainly a good thing to the extent of suggesting is must be? Not to mention that everyone's definition of far superior probably varies by quite a bit.

As for sticking up for 9mm, at least from the standpoint of you suggesting the 357SIG is not far superior to it, consider what SSA Urey Patrick of the Firearms Training Unit, FBI Academy, Quantico, VA, when asked; "Are you saying the 9mm is no good?" , replied;

"No, we are saying it is as good as the 38 Special, which has served us for a long time. It has severe limitations, which we are not willing to accept. It is woefully inadequate for shooting at people in cars, for example, and over half of our shootings involve vehicles. It is a marginally adequate wounding agent. We have had a number of 9mm shootings over the past couple of years, and if you define a good shooting as one in which the subject stops whatever he was doing when he gets shot, we have yet to have a good one, and we are hitting our adversaries multiple times. We have shot half a dozen dogs in the past year and have not killed one yet, although we have run up a significant veteranary bill. The 9mm with proper ammunition is not a bad round. It is just no where near as effective as the 10mm and 45 offerings and the disparity between it and the larger calibers has remained a constant throughout all the testing we have done over the past two years."

Yet many of us have learned just how superior the 357SIG is according to those who have used both against humans and animals. Texas DPS alone has praised it.

Much of your comentary ranges from far reaching to plain absurd at best. Have you ever actually read Dr. Courtney's paper on the deer study?

So what you are saying, after all of that, is that the old "1-shot-stop" data is going to track right along with Courtney's data. Right?

I will have to go and look at the correlation, but that would be a logical assumption. I mean, if 10 deer are a study, then hundreds of OIS's, etc. are as well.

I am going to go look at the data and see if it tracks. I have not looked at it yet, but am curious.

I still see nothing other than mental ************, with regards to BPW. I am not interested in theory, or proof/disproof, or semantics. I am interested in what puts a target down, and BPW seems to be rather sketchy in doing it.

Last edited by N/Apower; 02-13-2010 at 02:32..
N/Apower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2010, 02:32   #379
glock20c10mm
Senior Member
 
glock20c10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Out West
Posts: 5,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by uz2bUSMC View Post
I have to say (in reguard to N/Apower ) that I do not believe that you possess the knowledge of retarding forces that you believe you do. If you did, you would EASILY understand how a fmj would not impart it's energy towards the retarding forces the way an expanding projectile would, period. It's not even a discussion point but yet, here we are.
You're right, he doesn't get it. Maybe now he will. My fingers are crossed. Now I see he's posted back as I've quoted you.



N/Apower,

Here is some info that should help you understand and answer to your curiousness -

The equation for JHP handgun bullets with 100% mass retention is -
p = (5*E)/(pi*d)

p is the peak pressure wave magnatude on the surphase of a 1" diameter cylinder centered on the wound channel (in psi). E is the impact energy (in ft-lbs) and d is the penetration depth (in feet).

If a JHP bullet fragments then generally whatever % the bullet fragments is the same % you need to add to the PBPW originally figured for nonfragmentation.

For FMJ handgun bullets the equation changes to a reasonable approximation of -
p = (3*E)/(pi*d)

For FMJ rifle bullets there is much more variation because some tumble deep and some tumble at shallow depths and some fragment. The retarding force profile (the more retarding force the greater the PBPW) is dominated by the depth at which a FMJ rifle bullet tumbles.

An FMJ rifle bullet which does not fragment and tumbles late in the penetration (10" or more) will have a peak pressure wave comparable to the formula for FMJ pistol bullets.

An FMJ rifle bullet which does not fragment and tumbles early (first 4") will have a peak pressure wave comparable to the formula for JHP handgun bullets.

You might wonder why PBPW goes up with bullet fragmentation. This involves a bunch more math which I can post if you like, but I don't see that it's necessary. What I do understand is the basic principal which I believe will be simple for you also once you simply basically understand the basic equations above for equating PBPW.

If it is necessary for you, maybe this will help, and it's about as far into as I'ld prefer to get. If kinetic energy and penetration depth are equal, bullets that fragment create a larger pressure wave than bullets that retain 100% of their mass because the average penetration depth is shorter than the maximum penetration depth. Less penetration depth with equal kinetic energy = higher PBPW.


Also, not to rush you, but I did ask you specific questions you haven't answered in your last post. I'm hoping to hear from you on them unless you're simply acknowledging you were wrong by ignoring them.


Good Shooting,
Craig
__________________
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
Old 02-13-2010, 02:46   #380
glock20c10mm
Senior Member
 
glock20c10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Out West
Posts: 5,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by N/Apower View Post
I am interested in what puts a target down, and BPW seems to be rather sketchy in doing it.
If you expect to see it at all from most any load in, 9mm, 40S&W, or 45 Auto, you'ld be looking in the wrong place!

Are you still of the belief there have to be ruptured blood vessels in the brain for incapacitation by BPW to have occured?
__________________
Free Men Don't Need To Ask Permission To Bear Arms

The Glock 29 is the most versatile handgun yet produced.

Last edited by glock20c10mm; 02-13-2010 at 02:48..
glock20c10mm 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 12:04.




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


Users Currently Online: 1,187
312 Members
875 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 16:42