Ballistic Pressure Wave Theory Confirmed in Human Autopsy Results


PDA






Pasteur
October 10, 2009, 10:58 PM
For pressure waves of sufficient magnitude, the ballistic pressure wave theory predicts brain injury from well centered bullet hits to the chest. Critics of the theory pointed out that this prediction had not been confirmed in humans. Recent human autopsy results have demonstrated brain hemorrhaging from fatal hits to the chest, including cases with handgun bullets. (Krajsa, J., Příčiny, Causes of pericapillar brain haemorrhages accompanying a gunshot wounds, Institute of Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic, 2009.) Thirty-three cases of fatal penetrating chest wounds by a single bullet were selected from a much larger set by excluding all other traumatic factors, including past history.



In such meticulously selected cases brain tissue was examined histologically; samples were taken from brain hemispheres, basal ganglia, the pons, the oblongate and from the cerebellum. Cufflike pattern haemorrhages around small brain vessels were found in all specimens. These haemorrhages are caused by sudden changes of the intravascular blood pressure as a result of a compression of intrathoracic great vessels by a shock wave caused by a penetrating bullet. (Krajsa, J., Příčiny, Causes of pericapillar brain haemorrhages accompanying a gunshot wounds, Institute of Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic, 2009.)

If you enjoyed reading about "Ballistic Pressure Wave Theory Confirmed in Human Autopsy Results" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
bullturkey
October 11, 2009, 05:03 AM
I will jump in where angels fear to tread. No mention is made of caliber, energy transfer, etc. Will a 22 to the chest cause this?

Snowdog
October 11, 2009, 05:10 AM
So... does this new moniker equate to on-line Nomex?
Naw c'mon it'll be fine, post this thread under your real handle... I dare you. :D

Friendly, Don't Fire!
October 11, 2009, 05:22 AM
Considering the high volume of water the human body consists of, this doesn't surprise me at all.
In fact I think that it happens to me just from me shooting my S&W 500!

Double Naught Spy
October 11, 2009, 07:08 AM
The work in question is a Ph.D. dissertation. I found the abstract here (http://is.muni.cz/th/132384/lf_d/annotation_english.txt),
but found no mention of handgun/pistol What I did find was this quote that I found interesting and revealing...

Cufflike pattern haemorrhages around small brain vessels were found in all specimens. These haemorrhages are caused by sudden changes of the intravascular blood pressure as a result of a compression of intrathoracic great vessels by a shock wave caused by a penetrating bullet. At the end of work are outlined clinical problems of these types of injuries. It is highlighted in particular the potential impact on the early development of degenerative changes in the brain.

In other words, a sudden increase in blood pressure caused micro bleeds in the brain. My guess is that they occurred elsewhere too. Such as might happen when hit in the body with a baseball or punch to the chest.

Something else of noteworthy origin was this..By monitoring levels of alcohol was found that almost 50% of deceased had a negative finding, another relatively large group of the deceased was at the time of death at the stage of medium and heavy drunkenness (together about 18%).

The population was heavily laden with drinkers such that over half had alcohol in their systems when killed and I would be willing to guess that a large portion of those not imbibing at the time of being shot were drinkers as well. Alcoholism goes hand-in-hand with small subcortical infarcts and primary subcortical haemorrhages. Moderate drinking of alcohol increases risk of both intracerebral and subarachnoid hemorrhage.

With all that said, the big question is, SO WHAT? There is no data that the blood pressure spike did anything to them in terms of incapacitation from the microbleeds that resulted.

For example, see...
http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=67118

Add to this that smoking and alcohol consumption are critical risk factors in causing cerebral microbleeds (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2729822) and given tobacco use in Czechoslovakia, I would be curious as to how the author of the study differentiated between bleeding caused by gunshot versus bleeding caused by tobacco and alcohol use.

So no doubt that if you already have weakened blood vessels due to even moderate drinking of alcohol, then something causing a rapid increase in blood pressure is likely to cause micro bleeds.

I will jump in where angels fear to tread. No mention is made of caliber, energy transfer, etc. Will a 22 to the chest cause this?

Unless our OP reads check and has a copy of the original study, I would be willing to be he doesn't know. This quote..
Recent human autopsy results have demonstrated brain hemorrhaging from fatal hits to the chest, including cases with handgun bullets.
came straight from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock).

Aside from this quote in Wiki, I don't find any other information on the work noting what is or is not caused by particular calibers of handgun ammo. Maybe somebody with more insight or Google-fu can find it.

So... does this new moniker equate to on-line Nomex?
Naw c'mon it'll be fine, post this thread under your real handle... I dare you

Very good, Snowdog. Who is the one person that consistently uses the phrase "Ballsitic Pressure Wave Theory" here most commonly and battling with members over the validity of his research? That would be Michael Courtney. I am sure he would not have broken rule#2 and posted under multiple registrations, LOL, even if such findings as this Czech work would confirm his theory and his vindicate his claims.

Pasteur
October 11, 2009, 10:00 AM
The most commonly reported caliber in the study is 9mm.

Several other studies have shown that pressure wave magnitude is strongly correlated with incapacitation. This study is unique, because it documents the possible mechanism of remote brain injury in humans.

The Hydrostatic Shock Wikipedia page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock ) was an important source for the OP. However, before making the OP, I corrected the English translation of the study title, and I downloaded and reviewed the entire report to confirm that it includes a significant number of handgun cases.

JohnBT
October 11, 2009, 10:36 AM
"Thirty-three cases of fatal penetrating chest wounds by a single bullet were selected"

"I downloaded and reviewed the entire report to confirm that it includes a significant number of handgun cases."

Am I reading this correctly? The number of handgun cases is a subset of the 33 cases originally selected? What part of 33 could even be considered significant? I'm not sure all 33 could be considered significant.

John

Double Naught Spy
October 11, 2009, 09:53 PM
Several other studies have shown that pressure wave magnitude is strongly correlated with incapacitation. This study is unique, because it documents the possible mechanism of remote brain injury in humans.

Nice waffle job. The thread title says that pressure wave theory is confirmed and then you say it is a "possible mechanism."

Once again, so what. Yeah, some micro-bleeds were observed. There is no indication that these were of any significance. As I stated, there were likely other such bleeds elsewhere in the body as well for the same reason. Big deal.

Just curious since you did the Wiki pages and have posted here and on Glocktalk and elsewhere, do you realize that you have improperly spelled the author's name every time? It is Krajsa, not Krasjsa. I mention this because it makes it much harder to try to find the stuff you are supposedly citing only to then have it not turn up because you got the information wrong repeatedly.

Here is the good Dr.s' home page...
http://www.muni.cz/people/132384

Alright, after working through the spelling issue, I was able to find the original work and translate it myself using an online translator. Since you didn't provide the correct information for finding your source or a link, let me do that for you. It can be found near the bottom of the page here...
http://is.muni.cz/th/132384/lf_d/

The most commonly reported caliber in the study is 9mm.
BRAVO! After translating and reading through the study, I believe you are correct. It is the most commonly mentioned caliber. Heck there is even a pick of a "9 mm Luger" cartridge. HOWEVER, 9mm is discussed in all sorts of manners including testing on animal legs, gunshot to the breast (female suicide), gunshots to the head, etc.

Part of what I found interesting was the amount of cases excluded for various reasons. They were excluded when there was any known impacts on the head or body that might have resulted in increased blood pressure such as attempts to revive or other trauma as reflected by such matters as damage to the body. Then, when the brain tissue samples were examined, micro bleeding sometimes could only be ascertained under a microscope because it was so minor, though some was macroscopically visible. It was noted that such bleeding could occur anywhere, but did not necessarily occur everywhere, but was most commonly at the edge of the white matter.

In looking at the histological images at the end, some of the microbleeds are correlated with calibers, such as the suicide to the chest noted above. Of course to see the damage, magnification of 100-250x was needed.

Translated from page 115...
The most likely theory of minor bleeding in the brain gunshot injuries to the chest is spread by blood pressure waves (due to incompressibility of fluid) from the chest vascular system to the point where very thin wall, ie the capillaries, which may not withstand the increased pressure and burst. Given that the research was not possible to completely eliminate the influence of skeletal transmission system, we can obviously ignore his possible involvement in causing brain injury.

Clifford
October 12, 2009, 01:26 AM
Personally I am not suprised with this info. To me it seems logical that a high velocity round could inflict brain damaged by hydralic shock force alone. We are 80% or so water after all.

Cosmoline
October 12, 2009, 02:27 AM
Strong enough to cause problems with the fine mesh of brain cells is one thing. A similar interference with very small blood vessels in another part of the body would yield nothing worse than a mild bruise. To show the true effect of hydrostatic shock you'd need to determine the point beyond which the shockwave is strong enough to tear major blood vessels and organ tissue sufficiently to contribute to shock and death.

Beagle-zebub
October 12, 2009, 05:37 AM
Alright, but how do the effects of these blood-pressure waves compare to those of a solid punch to the head, or any other cause of a concussion?

Shadow 7D
October 12, 2009, 07:06 AM
heres my question, if this is such a huge phenomenon, why hasn't it been confirmed before now, I mean I can just picture my drill with that vein bulging in his forehead telling my it's where you hit em that counts...

Funny thing is, he didn't fall over from that pressure...

Pasteur
October 12, 2009, 11:30 AM
http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/8745/tbipwave.jpg
For a hit to the center of the chest, average time until incapacitation decreases rapidly with pressure wave magnitude as magnitudes approach 500 psi. See: Links between traumatic brain injury and ballistic pressure waves originating in the thoracic cavity and extremities. Brain Injury 21(7): 657-662, 2007.

http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/6550/hydrostatic.jpg
Ballistic pressure waves that were measured with a high speed pressure transducer for the specified loads. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock

Double Naught Spy
October 12, 2009, 11:59 AM
Look Courtney, we see folks shot all the time with handgun calibers who don't get incapacitated. These tiny brain bleeds are inconsequential. You drop a pebble in the pond and the ripple waves make it to the far shore and disturb some of the flotsam, but they don't tear out the dam.

So how come you are posting under a new moniker now?

DAVIDSDIVAD
October 12, 2009, 12:09 PM
Alright, but how do the effects of these blood-pressure waves compare to those of a solid punch to the head, or any other cause of a concussion?


Blood pressure is a tricky thing, in that it's a closed system.


Don't think blood loss; think pressure changes.


I think the only reason this study might be viable is that the sudden spike in blood pressure might cause the body to react by reducing it somehow.

The reason you faint when you stand up is due to the baroreceptor reflex.


If a gunshot caused a sudden short in the baroreceptors of the brain, I could definitely see it causing an immediate incapacitation (if only for a few seconds.)

tkopp
October 12, 2009, 12:40 PM
You'd think an effect as obvious and consistent as this would have some anecdotal analogue from individuals in the military or law enforcement. It's not like shooting people is some theoretical concept. Heck, you can ask people who've been shot. A lot of them live!

;)

ArmedBear
October 12, 2009, 12:48 PM
Actually, there's a lot of anecdotal evidence that this CAN happen.

This is what Roy Weatherby postulated was the cause of game that dropped in one shot -- he used relatively small, but really fast loads for game, the Weatherby Magnums. His favorite was apparently the .257, even for large game, with a muzzle velocity of 3400-3800 fps depending on the weight of the bullet.

The other part of the anecdotal evidence is that the same bullet, same shot, on the same game sometimes caused an instant drop, and sometimes didn't.

One hypothesis: if the bullet hits at the peak of systolic blood pressure, it will cause this. Otherwise, it won't. This would make sense.

MCgunner
October 12, 2009, 01:17 PM
I've seen obvious tissue damage well away from rifle caliber wound channels and even around .357 magnum wounds in the proximity, that with the naked, untrained eye. I'm not surprised at all after reading much of the good Doctor Courtney's work. I've had too many bang, flops with rifles not to think that the pressure wave is important and the handgunned deer didin't exactly run 300 yards as if they were bow shot with a Muzzy tri blade and only crush cavity and bleed out mattered. :rolleyes:

Bottom line, though, I am confident in my .38, let alone my 9x19 for carry. Hit 'em hard and hit 'em often until they stop, that's the motto. :D

My criticism of the post, probably should say "supported" and not "confirmed" in the title.

KBintheSLC
October 12, 2009, 01:32 PM
Personally I am not suprised with this info. To me it seems logical that a high velocity round could inflict brain damaged by hydralic shock force alone. We are 80% or so water after all.

I am not sure that a 9mm round out of a handgun is considered "high velocity" though. I wonder what the severity of the so-called hemorrhaging was from this round. Are we talking heavy, potentially fatal bleeding in the brain, or a trickle that requires an SEM imaging device to even see?

I assume that it is theoretically possible for hemorrhaging to occur in parts of the body other than the direct area of the permanent/temporary wound cavity. Excessive spikes in blood pressure could occur when 350+ ft/lbs of energy are delivered to a relatively small portion of mass.

Odd Job
October 12, 2009, 01:35 PM
Well at least Dr Courtney is looking at human cases, he must be encouraged to do so, it is a step in the right direction. I'm sure the researchers will be able to exclude the effects of alcohol or drugs by looking at a similar sample of stab victims with the same criteria as the 33 gunshot cases...and not finding any micro bleeds. Right?
That's what I would do.

The Hydrostatic Shock Wikipedia page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock ) was an important source for the OP.

I'm sure it was important, seeing as though it was the OP who made the relevant entries in the cited Wiki article ;)

DAVIDSDIVAD
October 12, 2009, 02:26 PM
I am not sure that a 9mm round out of a handgun is considered "high velocity" though. I wonder what the severity of the so-called hemorrhaging was from this round. Are we talking heavy, potentially fatal bleeding in the brain, or a trickle that requires an SEM imaging device to even see?

I assume that it is theoretically possible for hemorrhaging to occur in parts of the body other than the direct area of the permanent/temporary wound cavity. Excessive spikes in blood pressure could occur when 350+ ft/lbs of energy are delivered to a relatively small portion of mass.



Blood loss is not the same thing as pressure change.


Think about standing up too quickly; it is possible to faint due to the change in blood pressure.

It's a closed sytem, as well.
no blood is lost.

ArmedBear
October 12, 2009, 02:29 PM
Blood loss is not the same thing as pressure change.

Read his post again, as well as the original post.

Pressure wave can CAUSE internal bleeding. That's the whole point of the thread.

Fainting is from a sudden drop in blood pressure. This would be a sudden and extreme rise in blood pressure, causing the small blood vessels in the brain to pop.

DAVIDSDIVAD
October 12, 2009, 02:37 PM
It's not about bleeding, armedbear.

It's not about brain swelling, caused by hemmorhaging (bleeding.)

It's about pressure breaking neural connections in the brain via blood vessels flexing the brain.

ArmedBear
October 12, 2009, 03:10 PM
Cufflike pattern haemorrhages around small brain vessels were found in all specimens. These haemorrhages are caused by sudden changes of the intravascular blood pressure as a result of a compression of intrathoracic great vessels by a shock wave caused by a penetrating bullet.

Flexing the brain, flooding it, depriving it of O2, or all of the above?

LoneCoon
October 12, 2009, 03:21 PM
Blood pressure is a tricky thing, in that it's a closed system.


Well, yeah, until you go putting bullet holes in it.

9MMare
October 12, 2009, 04:02 PM
So if this is visible in these (small number of) cases, why isnt it indicated in people who have been wounded?

And especially, wouldnt this show up in people who are shot point blank and wearing kevlar/protective vests? The impact is still there, even if no penetration.

Can this only be detected in autopsies? (And is it significant?)

Double Naught Spy
October 12, 2009, 06:23 PM
Well, dissecting the brain is best only done in an autopsy. So I don't know how you would detect such microbleeds otherwise given the magnification most commonly needed to see them, but now read that it can be done with some MRI scans, though I don't know just how microscopic they can go. Obviously, Krajsa didn't do anything other than autopsies, so the issue was not discussed of whether or not it could be determined in living folks by him.

Is this significant? From the aspect that typically shot with handgun rounds in the torso typically don't keel over immediately unless with a CNS shot or sometimes a heart shot, then yeah, it would be significant because this amount of micro damage to the drain isn't something the body has trouble handling. Concussions produce a lot more damage than these microbleeds and they certainly don't always produce incapacitation.

Wouldn't this still show up in people shot point blank and wearing protective vests? Sure. That is why Krajsa excluded people from the study that had any sort of other injuries that might result in blood pressure spikes. I mentioned above about getting hit with a baseball, for example.

For example, head and eye petechiae can occur as a result of a person being given CPR. This are pinpoint ruptures of the capillaries that come with blood pressure spikes.

NMGonzo
October 12, 2009, 06:25 PM
I believe that people are looking too much into something that is not relevant.

Put holes on bad guy.

Bad guy still standing.

Put some more holes.

Repeat till desired effect.

Mandolin
October 12, 2009, 06:31 PM
What's the point? is it that even chest shots damage the brain? Great, now I can claim head shot where I realy hit the chest. If you put multiple rounds of anything intothe chest, brain damage ceases to be relavent. There're dead, and some brain bleding is irelevant. Nobady cares, unless you can get government money to study this.

Friendly, Don't Fire!
October 12, 2009, 06:54 PM
So, now I know :confused: what happened to that woodchuck :eek: that I vaporized. :rolleyes:

gunnie
October 12, 2009, 08:14 PM
..."Blood pressure is a tricky thing, in that it's a closed system."...

yes, a closed system. but unlike a hydraulic system, the "hoses" are VERY flexible. this makes the fact that water [read: blood] will not compress almost a non-issue except right on the wound channel.

gunnie

tipoc
October 12, 2009, 08:52 PM
heres my question, if this is such a huge phenomenon, why hasn't it been confirmed before now, I mean I can just picture my drill with that vein bulging in his forehead telling my it's where you hit em that counts...

The phenomena was observed and studied by the U.S. military following the second world war. It's with rifle rounds and shrapnel that it shows up most consistently.

A good deal has been written about it. But there is also a good deal that is inconclusive. This is because there are many variables to GSWs in general and specifically to the factors that influence "pressure waves" or hydrostatic shock.

tipoc

Double Naught Spy
October 12, 2009, 11:35 PM
And pressure waves or hydrostatic shock should not be confused with blood pressure spikes. There is no indication that hydrostatic shock actually caused brain damage here, and what little of it that there is. The damage was believed to be due to pressure spikes where fluid in one part of the body is put under pressure via the impact of the bullet. It isn't that the pressure wave traveled up to the brain and produced microbleed. You have a closed system and pressure increase in one area wlll produce pressure increases in another.

http://www.allproducts.com/manufacture8/tongming/4.jpg

DAVIDSDIVAD
October 13, 2009, 10:59 AM
I wonder if this pressure could have any effect on the blood Brain barrier

Beagle-zebub
October 13, 2009, 01:37 PM
heres my question, if this is such a huge phenomenon, why hasn't it been confirmed before now, I mean I can just picture my drill with that vein bulging in his forehead telling my it's where you hit em that counts...

Funny thing is, he didn't fall over from that pressure...

Are you TRYING to make milk shoot out of my nose? :D

JTQ
October 13, 2009, 01:58 PM
When you look at these two line graphs, does it appear as if they may been produced by "Double Tap" Ammo.

Apparently, "Double Tap" is the only ammo that is likely to produce a round that would make "brain injury probable", if of course you believe the theory is a legitimate one.

JohnBT
October 13, 2009, 08:33 PM
"These haemorrhages are caused by sudden changes of the intravascular blood pressure as a result of a compression of intrathoracic great vessels by a shock wave caused by a penetrating bullet."

I see no proof that there was a shock wave, much less one caused by a penetrating bullet. Yes, the person was shot, so there was a bullet, but I do not see proof of the cause and effect. It's too easy to assume a relationship where none exists. Just because it seems to make sense doesn't make it a fact.

They could have died from a fright-induced blood pressure spike, for all we know, at the prospect of being shot. Or any number of other scenarios including pre-existing damage.

Just because they were shot doesn't necessarily mean the bullet was responsible for anything or everything found in the autopsy.

And the sample size is insignificant.

Has anybody tried this on goats yet? :eek:

John

MCgunner
October 13, 2009, 10:20 PM
FYI http://www.ballisticstestinggroup.org/ballistics.htm

medmo
October 14, 2009, 05:57 AM
We have "basal ganglias" in our heads? I wonder what that "pons" thing does in there...

JohnBT
October 14, 2009, 07:34 AM
Somebody believes there were goat tests??? I'll have to explore that link later, but I see goat tests referenced.

Google turned this up on the goat tests:

Fackler, Martin L., M.D.:

"The 'Strasbourg Tests:' Another Gunwriter/Bullet Salesman Fraud?" Wound Ballistics Review, 1(4): 10-11; 1994.

Dr. Martin Fackler, IWBA president, reviews the authorless "Strasbourg Tests," a purported study of the reaction of several hundred live unanesthetized "human-sized" goats that were allegedly shot to test the "one-shot stopping power" of various handgun cartridges. Fackler explains the many incongruities, inconsistencies and absurdities which lead him (and most other wound ballistics experts) to conclude that the "Strasbourg Tests" are a hoax.

Fackler concludes: "The only people who believe the 'Strasbourg Tests' are real are the usual crowd of crackpot 'magic' bullet believers and the pathetically incompetent editors of consumer gun magazines like Guns & Ammo.""

Pasteur
October 14, 2009, 09:57 AM
So if this is visible in these (small number of) cases, why isnt it indicated in people who have been wounded?


There have been a few published cases of remote injuries from handgun bullets, including remote neural injuries. One line of thinking on why these reports are not more common is that if remote brain injuries require a hit to the major vessels with an energetic handgun round then most people meeting the selection criteria for remote brain injury are more likely to bleed out and end up at the morgue than in the recovery room. A second line of thinking is related to the difficulty in detecting mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). How many patients with energetic handgun wounds to the center of the chest are thoroughly evaluated for mTBI with the most sensitive available techniques such as diffusion tensor imaging or the military acute concussion evaluation? A third line of thinking is that neurological deficits following a well-placed handgun wound are commonly attributed to ischemia/reperfusion which is known to be a common TBI mechanism.


And especially, wouldnt this show up in people who are shot point blank and wearing kevlar/protective vests? The impact is still there, even if no penetration.


The pressure/stress waves in the thorax are much lower when a bullet is stopped by armor than when it penetrates because most of the impact energy is absorbed by the armor. Studies in pigs have documented remote cerebral effects (even death) in cases of .308 rifle bullets stopped by body armor. Energy transmission (and remote effects) depend on the amount of backface deformation of the armor at impact. Armor that deforms 40mm when hit with a .308 allows much greater injury than armor that deforms 24mm when hit by a .308.


Can this only be detected in autopsies? (And is it significant?)


Dectection of TBI is much easier at autopsy, but in vivo techniques are slowly improving in detection sensitivity with tools like diffusion tensor imaging, the military acute concussion evaluation, and biochemical techniques. For example, a paper by Wang et al. in 2004 detected remote brain injury in dogs shot in the thigh by biochemical analysis of cerebrospinal fluid. The brain injuries were later confirmed at necropsy.


I wonder if this pressure could have any effect on the blood Brain barrier.


Two studies published in J. Trauma in the late 1980’s found blood brain barrier damage to pigs shot in the thigh.

DAVIDSDIVAD
October 14, 2009, 10:33 AM
Two studies published in J. Trauma in the late 1980’s found blood brain barrier damage to pigs shot in the thigh.


This is very interesting.

MCgunner
October 14, 2009, 12:24 PM
Fackler vs. reality, whatever. Yes, there were goat tests. They didn't shoot 'em from black helicopters, either.

Kinda reminds me of the global warming thing. If you believe in big and slow and can't win on the merits of your arguments, just call all the detractors idiots and flat earthers. :rolleyes:

ArmedBear
October 14, 2009, 12:42 PM
There would be NO reason whatsoever for the "goat tests" NOT to exist.

Why?

18 Delta medic course for Green Beret Medics and SEAL Corpsmen, aka "Goat Lab."

Look around for info if you care.

Information is sparse. But let's just say it gets a lot more detailed when you spend an evening at a bar with a retired SEAL corpsman and a lot of booze, and he tells you about his training. Quiet guy, usually, worked civilian EOD at the time. I didn't meet him at the bar; I knew him and what his experiences were. I just didn't know about his training until that night.

The Goat Tests would have been little different from routine, at least at one time, just with different data collection. Don't know what they do now, and with PETA et al. I'm sure they talk about it even less, but the US military has shot a lot of goats.

WRT ballistic pressure wave, the one thing about it that seems to come through is that its effects are not consistent. And the "goat test" report that has surfaced warns that "stopping power is a myth" near the beginning.

MCgunner
October 14, 2009, 04:18 PM
WRT ballistic pressure wave, the one thing about it that seems to come through is that its effects are not consistent. And the "goat test" report that has surfaced warns that "stopping power is a myth" near the beginning.

I think the main argument against pressure wave is from the 1911 .45ACP flag waving Jeff Cooper worshipers that can't see why the military wouldn't use the 1911 on the starship Enterprise. After all, phasers can't kill cause energy doesn't kill. It's mostly a superfluous academic debate, though. What they don't seem to understand, though, is in +P loads, the .45 had over 500 ft lbs of energy! Yeah, it's a good service caliber, but the gun is just too large for every day civilian carry.

In the real world, you carry as much as you can comfortably put up with 24/7. That's why I carry 9x19 and .38 special regularly and not .357 magnum or .45ACP. I don't feel I give much up in "stopping power", whatever that is, and I'll have the gun with me when needed. No, I don't carry a 1911 and sleep with it, hell no. It's 40 plus ounces, it's too big for a pocket, and it ain't much better than a 9x19 in a gun fight, I don't care what Jeff Cooper says. But, if you need to have some mythical reason to carry that beast, go ahead and knock yourself out. There are .44 magnums that don't weigh what a 1911 does. I don't carry one of them, either.

I just find the pressure wave stuff interesting as in terminal ballistics as in how it works. I do like the 9 better than a .380 because there's twice the energy there and both are easy to carry all day long in a pocket. But, I don't need a bigger gun and there aren't any TRUE pocket .45s, don't care much for the Kahr offering. Hell, many millions of cops and soldiers have carried the Smith and Wesson M&P .38 over the years and THAT with the old round nose load! Put a modern +P hollowpoint in a .38 and why do I need anything else, for self defense, anyway?

ArmedBear
October 14, 2009, 04:32 PM
I occasionally carry a 39.5 oz. .44 Magnum, but I don't live in Texas so I can carry it in a comfortable holster where everyone can see it. It's not what I carry when I go to the grocery store, usually, though.:D

I don't buy into the belief that energy is everything, no matter which side of the equation it comes from. Simple math will demonstrate why.

Since energy rises as the square of velocity, it also FALLS as the square of velocity. A leather jacket will eat up a lot of energy, from a fast, light bullet. It won't eat up nearly as much of the energy in a big, slow one, which won't lose as much velocity and therefore won't lose nearly as much energy.

Energy is important, but energy that comes from the bullet weight is "better" energy in this situation.

However, I carry a .38+P most of the time. I'm sure that a 405 grain .45-70 would knock someone down quicker, but a .38 fits in my pocket. Modern .38 will perform adequately (there's plenty of evidence that the old round nose bullets often did not).

In order to make a trade-off, one needn't deny that such a trade-off exists. It does. There's such thing as a SMART trade-off.:) One needn't convince himself that a .380 is "as good as" a .45+P, to decide that a .380 is a good choice for his carry gun, with certain clothing, etc.

(I'm not saying that you are denying it. I think that others do. And I also don't quite "get" the 1911 as a preferred carry gun, due to its weight, manual of arms, and low capacity. It's nice and flat, though.)

Kevin77
October 14, 2009, 06:19 PM
So if I understand the study it basically says that after I shoot someone in the chest there's a good shance they could have a stroke. Why does this matter? If they don't have a stroke and keep coming at me I will shoot them again.

Bluenote
October 14, 2009, 06:32 PM
Look Courtney, we see folks shot all the time with handgun calibers who don't get incapacitated. These tiny brain bleeds are inconsequential. You drop a pebble in the pond and the ripple waves make it to the far shore and disturb some of the flotsam, but they don't tear out the dam.

So how come you are posting under a new moniker now?
And in the context of 'hydrostatic shock , we saw this all the time in the '60 and '70s ( and since) with whatever new super-duper high velocity rifle wildcat or magnum was the 'flavor of the week' , hit 'em in the leg and they'll die of shock ,I've hunted extensively with various magnum rifle calibers and handgun calibers , and with a slew of other folks who utilise them , nor out of a high velocity round such as the .220 swift or .22-250 , how many of you folks have watched a coyote just run on off when hit with a 3700fps .22-250 round too far back?

Want to drop any given target on the spot? The hit it squarely in a vital area. Until I see substantive proof based upon a MUCH larger sample size than 33 incidents I'll continue to view it as a lot of smoke and not much fire. And that is of course without taking into account the other obvious problems with the cited study that folks here have already addressed.

Bluenote
October 14, 2009, 06:39 PM
I think the main argument against pressure wave is from the 1911 .45ACP flag waving Jeff Cooper worshipers that can't see why the military wouldn't use the 1911 on the starship Enterprise. After all, phasers can't kill cause energy doesn't kill. It's mostly a superfluous academic debate, though. What they don't seem to understand, though, is in +P loads, the .45 had over 500 ft lbs of energy! Yeah, it's a good service caliber, but the gun is just too large for every day civilian carry.

In the real world, you carry as much as you can comfortably put up with 24/7. That's why I carry 9x19 and .38 special regularly and not .357 magnum or .45ACP. I don't feel I give much up in "stopping power", whatever that is, and I'll have the gun with me when needed. No, I don't carry a 1911 and sleep with it, hell no. It's 40 plus ounces, it's too big for a pocket, and it ain't much better than a 9x19 in a gun fight, I don't care what Jeff Cooper says. But, if you need to have some mythical reason to carry that beast, go ahead and knock yourself out. There are .44 magnums that don't weigh what a 1911 does. I don't carry one of them, either.

I just find the pressure wave stuff interesting as in terminal ballistics as in how it works. I do like the 9 better than a .380 because there's twice the energy there and both are easy to carry all day long in a pocket. But, I don't need a bigger gun and there aren't any TRUE pocket .45s, don't care much for the Kahr offering. Hell, many millions of cops and soldiers have carried the Smith and Wesson M&P .38 over the years and THAT with the old round nose load! Put a modern +P hollowpoint in a .38 and why do I need anything else, for self defense, anyway?
Some folks need to read what you wrote , and then reread it again , and then again. And I'm both a fan of the 1911s in .45 acp and a Gunsite graduate. But then I'm a curmudgeonly old geezer who deosn't really think that there's any 'magic' bullet either.

And for carry I do favor .45 acp in a semi-auto , or .357 mag or .44 special in a revolver , unless it's backwoods ,backpacking or wilderness work at which time the Redhawk or a much loved 4 5/8s Blackhawk in ( both in .44 mag) is what I utilise.

And perhaps it's all in what you're used to and have an affinity for. I like all the above ,I reload for them and I'm just hidebound enough to stick with what has worked for me.

Folks need to learn that there is *no* panacea as regards a given caliber or type of firearm.

Bluenote
October 14, 2009, 06:42 PM
So, now I know :confused: what happened to that woodchuck :eek: that I vaporized. :rolleyes:
well that will teach me to drink coffee while I'm reading this forum , at least the monitor screen is clean now.

MCgunner
October 14, 2009, 07:00 PM
I don't buy into the belief that energy is everything, no matter which side of the equation it comes from. Simple math will demonstrate why.

NO, but neither do I think that crush cavity and bleeding is everything either else a 1 1/4" diameter muzzy 3 blade broadhead would be deadlier than my .257 Roberts and lay 'em out quicker, which simply doesn't happen at all. Be prepared to blood trail with a bow, very few bang/flops...or "twang/flops".

I think the answer lies in a combination and the lower the energy of the round, the less important is the pressure wave, or at least that's how I see it. I worry about penetration with expansion in the .380, why I'm a little shy on carrying that. The 9 or the .38, I know they will penetrate, expand, and do the job and if the first shot don't, they're danged fast and accurate on the second round, all the while they're there if I need 'em. Actually, I've shot a lot of game, but never a human. I could say..."I stick with 'em because they've never let me down", but that would imply I go out looking for gun fights. Such is not the case. I have used both to pop hogs in the trap with and I've shot rabbits with a .38, and a few deer and a Javelina with a .357, but no humans.

tipoc
October 14, 2009, 08:43 PM
A couple of folks have asked what the utility of these reports and studies and the whole discussion are given that a shooter cannot count on pressure waves to bring an attacker (or a deer) down. The point is this: It can and has already led to improvements in bullet design. Two; it can lead to more effective treatment of wounds from bullets and shrapnel. It has already helped there as well.

This is an old discussion, meaning 80 or more years old. When smokeless powders first appeared wildcatters and ammo companies began experimenting on smaller and faster bullets (the 30-06 resulted from this by the way along with many smaller and faster rounds) anyway a debate began among rifle hunters. Many complained that some of the faster rounds ruined too much meat on deer and other game animals. They argued that a good clean entry and exit wound was the best way to take a deer, elk or whatever, "You can eat right up to the hole" was the saying. These fellas argued that the faster rounds spoiled meat by liquefying sections of the meat and sometimes blowing big holes out the exit wound. They observed that some rounds, some times, turned good eat meat to jelly. "Liquefying" they said...What did that? They called it hydrostatic shock and a few other things over the years.

Now only a well placed shot can help to bring something down but a "pressure wave" has been observed for along time now. Tests by Col. Frank Chamberlain and others showed that the effects varied with conditions. How well fed and hydrated cattle and goats were showed a difference. Temperature made a difference. Where the animal was hit made a difference etc., etc.

tipoc

KyJim
October 15, 2009, 08:40 PM
Yeah, it's a good service caliber, but the gun is just too large for every day civilian carry.
Yikes! I guess I'll have to switch carry guns. My CCO is too big and I didn't know it.

Hell, many millions of cops and soldiers have carried the Smith and Wesson M&P .38 over the years and THAT with the old round nose load!
That was also the gun and load combination called the "Widow Maker" because it made widows out of the cops carrying them.

Having said that, I do carry smaller calibers, including .38 spl and even .380 when the occasion and clothes require it.

And, FWIW, I think it is possible that wave pressure/hydrostatic sock can cause damage other than at the point of the wound in rifle velocities. I remain unconvinced it is of any significance at handgun velocities. The most significant aspect of the report is the lack of detail regarding significant injury. If I blow my nose too hard, I can suffer small amounts of bleeding in my eyes and, presumably, my brain. It is a totally insignificant injury.

Added: a link (http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-152481.html)re the "Widow Maker" round. See Dfariswheel's post.

Double Naught Spy
October 16, 2009, 09:20 AM
So if I understand the study it basically says that after I shoot someone in the chest there's a good shance they could have a stroke. Why does this matter? If they don't have a stroke and keep coming at me I will shoot them again.

Right. The microbleeds being described are produced are so tiny that they are less than or no worse than what might happen if the person suffered the ordeal of going through CPR or had been hit in the body with a baseball bat. How many people hit with a baseball bat in the body are rendered immediately or quickly mentally incapacitated as a result of the impact?

freakshow10mm
October 16, 2009, 09:47 AM
FYI, Pasteur is Doctor Michael Courtney. He's over on GT and the other forums spreading this crap science.

DAVIDSDIVAD
October 16, 2009, 10:48 AM
I'm sure you have the credentials to determine if any science is "crap", freakshow.

His studies need to at least be considered.

There's a lot more of an interaction between the nervous system and blood than most realize.

tipoc
October 16, 2009, 10:51 AM
FYI, Pasteur is Doctor Michael Courtney. He's over on GT and the other forums spreading this crap science.

Since Courtney has posted on this forum as Courtney under his own name (see the search function under Michael Courtney) and advocating his position I'm not so sure that Pasteur is the same fella. Neither do they write the same.

Pasteur could clear this up of course.

tipoc

Pasteur
October 16, 2009, 03:13 PM
I'm sure you have the credentials to determine if any science is "crap", freakshow.

His studies need to at least be considered.

There's a lot more of an interaction between the nervous system and blood than most realize.

Recent ballistic pressure wave studies have been cited favorably a number of times in the peer-reviewed literature. In contrast, Fackler's position has been portrayed unfavorably in a summary of the debate that was published in 2009 as part of a ''Historical Overview of Wound Ballistics Research.''

Fackler [10, 13] however, disputed the shock wave theory, claiming there is no physical evidence to support it, although some support for this theory had already been provided by Harvey [20, 21], Kolsky [31], Suneson et. al. [42, 43], and Crucq [5]. Since that time, other authors also suggest there is increasing evidence to support the theory that shock waves from high velocity bullets can cause tissue related damage and damage to the nervous system. This has been shown in various experiments using simulant models [24, 48]. One of the most interesting is a study by Courtney and Courtney [4] who showed a link between traumatic brain injury and pressure waves originating in the thoracic cavity and extremities.(Historical Overview of Wound Ballistics Research, Forensic Sci Med Pathol (2009) 5:85–89)

freakshow10mm
October 16, 2009, 04:47 PM
I'm sure you have the credentials to determine if any science is "crap", freakshow.

His studies need to at least be considered.
They have been considered and many others in his field have deemed it junk science, using kind words.

Since Courtney has posted on this forum as Courtney under his own name (see the search function under Michael Courtney) and advocating his position I'm not so sure that Pasteur is the same fella. Neither do they write the same.

Pasteur could clear this up of course.
Same thing on GT. He won't admit it nor deny it.

Double Naught Spy
October 16, 2009, 07:14 PM
Well, I will help you out with that. This will change as soon as he logs on and reads the message and then updates things.

Michael Courtney last entered here under his name on April 30 according to his profile page.

Michael Courtney
Member
Send Message User Lists
Last Activity: April 30, 2009 02:20 PM

Pasteur just happened to have joined on the exact same day according to his profile page.

Pasteur
Member
Send Message User Lists
Last Activity: Today 02:51 PM
StatisticsContact Info
Total Posts
Total Posts: 5
Posts Per Day: 0.03
Find all posts by Pasteur
Find all threads started by Pasteur
General Information
Last Activity: Today 02:51 PM
Join Date: April 30, 2009

Now it would be an incredible coincidence that MC's last and Pasteur's first days happened to be the exact same and that Pasteur happens to have the exact same passion as MC on this very topic for the two to not be the same person. It would seem odd that MC's and Pasteur's days coincide and that there had been no activity from either one until the start of this thread. In other words, on MC's last day of activity (at least until he reads this and logs on anew), it just happened to be Pasteur's first day and then Pasteur never posted a thing until this thread.

Maybe Pasteur is MC's wife, but since she hasn't been in the fight before, that would seem odd. It would seem odd that she would pick up the fight on multiple boards at the same time. It is a possibility, but not one I see as being all that likely.

Then again, why would MC's wife strangely register on the forum on the last day MC had activity and then never post anything?

I find it very odd that Pasteur is not answering any of the challenges about being MC. If I was Pasteur and not MC and people were making accusations that I was, I would find that troubling, especially given much of the negative response MC has received on the forum from members. I would want to distant myself as much as possible from MC and would want to lay to rest that garbage so that I could make my points on pressure wave theory. Otherwise, my message is being lost in all the noise of accusations. Just my own epistemological pressure wave theory...

freakshow10mm
October 16, 2009, 07:38 PM
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1129308

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1079383&highlight=courtney

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=858870&highlight=courtney

Asked directly:

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1080400&highlight=courtney

MCgunner
October 16, 2009, 08:18 PM
Whether he's Dr. Courtney or not, I find the work very interesting and I cannot agree with a strict crush cavity theory. My beliefs do not affect you, however. You're free to believe what you want, much as with religion.

Without getting too political, it's common practice in politics that when you're getting beaten on the issues, you attack the character of your opponent.

JohnBT
October 16, 2009, 08:40 PM
"There's a lot more of an interaction between the nervous system and blood than most realize."

Well no, a lot of us realize that. We were talking about it in grad school in 1972 and 1973. The crucial point is whether it makes any practical difference to the daily handgun user shooting typical ammo. Okay, any given shot MIGHT set off a chain of events leading to immediate incapacitation and the saving of the shooter's bacon. Don't count on it, it's not predictable. If it happens it's a lucky shot, but don't stand around waiting to see your first shot is one of the lucky ones.

"you attack the character of your opponent"

Never met him. I have, on the other hand, seen a lot of badly constructed experiments and so-called research studies in my life. I'm long past the point where I can be BS's with statistics and big words.

John

Double Naught Spy
October 16, 2009, 08:52 PM
Without getting too political, it's common practice in politics that when you're getting beaten on the issues, you attack the character of your opponent.

I am not sure what issues you are referring to. If it is the thread's OP that ballistic pressure wave theory is confirmed, then Pasteur has failed to make his point because Krajsa's own work does not point to a known cause for the microbleeds and he theorizes that it was due to "blood pressure waves" (see post#8). So the fact that Krajsa theorizes about a theory is hardly a confirmation. Since Krajsa theorizes as to the cause of the microbleeds, he obviously did not determine with any certainty as to the actual origin of the micro bleeds and whether the bleeds were due to "blood pressure waves" or hydraulic pressure spikes, or some other cause. Nor does Krajsa indicate how he would determine if the microbleeds were from waves or some other cause.

So no, the ballistic pressure wave/white matter microbleeds issue hasn't been resolved and so the issue hasn't been won in any form or fashion. If anything, the misdirection of words by claiming confirmation when the source of the alleged confirmation clearly indicates none would strongly suggest there is a problem with the claim.

DAVIDSDIVAD
October 16, 2009, 09:38 PM
You kind of have to use "big words" when dealing with physiology, double naught.

Double Naught Spy
October 18, 2009, 11:18 AM
You kind of have to use "big words" when dealing with physiology, double naught.

All of those "big words" have common word explanations, but I never said a thing about "big words" DAVIDSDAVID. Physiology is no different than any other field. You don't have to use particularly large words if you don't want to use them, though the endeavor may require many more words.

Of course, if you explain a topic in words that your target audience does not readily understand, be the words too large or more critically the words too unfamiliar, then you will get a failure in communication and the point(s) being made will be lost to much of the target audience.

MCgunner
October 18, 2009, 11:46 AM
I've had physiology classes. I'm no doctor, but I understood the jargon and, once again, I find the research interesting. Practical? Well, no, but interesting. I'm not real sure why anyone would get so worked up over it except that perhaps they think they know it all and the .45 is the end all of any discussion. :rolleyes: Whatever, you carry yours, I'll carry mine. Today, it's a .38 special.

NMGonzo
October 18, 2009, 02:21 PM
38 special makes pretty big holes.

DAVIDSDIVAD
October 18, 2009, 08:28 PM
All of those "big words" have common word explanations, but I never said a thing about "big words" DAVIDSDAVID. Physiology is no different than any other field. You don't have to use particularly large words if you don't want to use them, though the endeavor may require many more words.

Of course, if you explain a topic in words that your target audience does not readily understand, be the words too large or more critically the words too unfamiliar, then you will get a failure in communication and the point(s) being made will be lost to much of the target audience.

Whoops, my brain said "Type, JohnBT" but my fingers heard "Type Double Naught"

Sorry about that :)

dom1104
October 18, 2009, 09:59 PM
and now, we are all doctors.

I love how every gun owner is an expert in all things related to his gun, including practicing medicine without a liscense. :)

/grabs his popcorn and continues to read crazy medical theories.

DAVIDSDIVAD
October 18, 2009, 10:20 PM
Lol, I can't speak for anyone else, and I'm not a doctor, but I will be in less than 4 years

Pasteur
October 19, 2009, 09:06 AM
There have been many claims made since the early 1980’s that permanent and temporary cavitation are the “sole wounding mechanisms” along with repeated assertions that findings related to remote neural effects of ballistic pressure waves are a “myth”, “grossly inaccurate”, ”completely unsupported”, “discredited”, etc. Since the early 1990’s the published support for remote wounding effects has continued to increase, and those repeating negative claims have retreated from the scientific journals (where they would be easily embarrassed by the weight of supporting evidence) to internet venues where they hide behind appeals authority and other logical fallacies.

Can BPW effects make a difference to the typical handgun user? A number of studies have provided evidence that, on average, bullets that produce larger pressure waves incapacitate more quickly than bullets producing smaller pressure waves. These studies have shown this trend is consistent in smaller live animal models, human-sized animal models, and an epidemiological-type study in humans. Within the range of pressure waves available in handguns, there is a strong correlation between pressure wave magnitude and quantitative measures of incapacitation.

It has also been shown in a number of experiments in animal models that remote injury to the central nervous system occurs and can be ascribed to a remotely originating pressure wave and that remote injury is more likely/more severe with a larger pressure wave. One group of studies even implanted pressure sensors in the brains of test animals and confirmed transmission of the pressure wave to the brain and resulting neural injury. One paper used previous studies showing remote CNS injury in animal models and increased incapacitation in animal models and humans to predict that well-placed handgun wounds to the chest would produce brain injuries in humans, for sufficiently large pressure waves. This is the specific prediction confirmed in the recent study finding brain hemorrhages in humans shot in the chest.

JohnBT
October 19, 2009, 11:02 AM
A well placed shot to the chest will stop the heart. A shot to the spine may or may not incapacitate the target suddenly. Everything else falls under the heading of keep shooting until they stop being a threat.

John

tipoc
October 21, 2009, 08:01 PM
Well I can't think of a single reason that Dr. Courtney would not post under his own name since he has in the past. I also can't think of a good reason that Pasteur does not clarify the issue. Even so...

A number of studies have provided evidence that, on average, bullets that produce larger pressure waves incapacitate more quickly than bullets producing smaller pressure waves.

This is true but also another way of saying that bullets that are faster and/or larger and heavier have more potential for creating direct and indirect damage because it is these rounds that create the most damage of any type.

The real question is not whether a pressure wave exists, it does. The real challenge is understanding the nature of the damage done, recognizing it and how to treat it in the field.

The damage done by the pressure wave, or hydrostatic shock, is variable and is not uniformly severe from one person to another even if shot by the same round. Meaning that any two people shot by a 158 gr. jhp round at 1300 fps on a cold Jan morning will not necessarily react the same to being shot or show the same damage from the wound.

tipoc

DAVIDSDIVAD
October 22, 2009, 11:13 AM
+10 Tipoc.



I don't think people are understanding the variation in individuals, or the significance of tiny bleeding in-brain

tipoc
October 22, 2009, 12:32 PM
There have been many claims made since the early 1980’s that permanent and temporary cavitation are the “sole wounding mechanisms”

Many have asserted this. Dr. Fackler bent the stick in this direction. Some went so far as to maintain that the temporary stretch cavity has no significant effect on wounding or stopping. This is a mistake I believe.

There has been ample evidence over the decades that both the temporary stretch cavity and any "pressure wave" or "hydro static" shock can and do cause damage.

What is true is that only the permanent wound cavity (the hole caused by the bullets course in the body) can be relied on to stop anyone or anything (deer, hog, etc.). This is because of the many variables involved in bullets striking a body.

Leave us suppose that we have a good bullet design in a good caliber for the job and look at what effects how a bullet performs. Leave aside things like body type, weight, sex etc. all of which will themselves greatly effect how a bullet performs and the outcome (effect of a 30-30 round at 75 yards on a 6'4" 300 pound 24 year old male versus a 60 yr. old, 5'4", 140 pd female for example). Suppose also that we strike an area which is not the CNS.

Col. Frank Chamberlain's work decades back showed us a variety of things which determine the effects of "pressure waves" as well as varying factors in wounding. For example; how soon after a meal someone is shot. Gunshot wounds are more damaging within the first one to three hours after a meal, depending on shot placement of course. Hydration makes a difference. Wounds tend to be less severe in a dehydrated man or animal. Temperature makes a difference. When a person is cold and shivering wounds tend to be less damaging. A relaxed person will tend to show more damage from a wound than will a tense expectant one (all other factors being equal).

These things and others, are true. But even here there are individual variations. This is especially true when it comes to pressure waves and their effect. Shot placement is what determines the outcome and is what can be relied on. The better the shot placement the more likely we'll get the out come we're looking for.

tipoc

Pasteur
October 23, 2009, 12:16 PM
Let’s summarize the facts about the supporting evidence for remote BPW effects in published data:
1) Pressure pulses inducing incapacitation and brain injury in laboratory animals.
2) Ballistic pressure waves originating remotely from the brain causing measurable brain injury in pigs and dogs.
3) Remote ballistic impacts producing rapid EEG suppression in animal experiments where the probability of EEG suppression and death increases with pressure magnitude.
4) Experiments in animals showing the probability of rapid incapacitation increases with peak pressure wave magnitude.
5) Epidemiological data showing that the probability of incapacitation increases with the peak pressure wave magnitude.
6) A variety of remote injuries attributed to stress/pressure waves in ballistic injuries in the Vietnam War.
7) Brain damage occurring without a penetrating brain injury in human case studies.
8) Ballistic pressure waves causing spinal cord injuries in human case studies.

Shawn Dodson
October 23, 2009, 12:32 PM
Let's summarize the facts about the supporting evidence for reliable BPW effects in producing reliable, rapid incapacitation of a determined attacker, an attacker high on drugs, or an attacker that's psychotic:
1)
2)
3)

DAVIDSDIVAD
October 23, 2009, 03:26 PM
Good point, Shawn; most people don't know that drugs are magic, and allow a human body to ignore chemistry.

Double Naught Spy
October 23, 2009, 03:34 PM
Pasteur, I still don't see where you have shown the difference between BPW and simple hydraulic pressure spikes. What is the evidence separating the two?

Also, you seem awfully gung-ho to convince people about BPW effectiveness, even from handguns. Why? Why is it that you feel it is so important people believe your theory?

Pasteur
October 24, 2009, 10:15 AM
Let's summarize the facts about the supporting evidence for reliable BPW effects in producing reliable, rapid incapacitation of a determined attacker, an attacker high on drugs, or an attacker that's psychotic:
1)
2)
3)


Good to hear from you, Shawn. I hope you’ve been well. Thanks for bringing this up. It would be a fallacy to assert that BPW is 100% effective at the power levels available in handgun loads. That is not the point. No mechanism is 100% reliable at producing incapacitation within the short time span of most gunfights with the levels of power available in handguns.

The question is whether loads with higher BPW give a tangible advantage in producing more rapid incapacitation, on average. Considerable published data says that loads with higher BPW confer a tangible advantage. If a loved one is sick, would you ignore a treatment option because it did not guarantee 100% chance of success? In a life and death situation, who would not be interested in options offering a higher probability of success simply because there was no 100% guarantee?


Pasteur, I still don't see where you have shown the difference between BPW and simple hydraulic pressure spikes. What is the evidence separating the two?

Also, you seem awfully gung-ho to convince people about BPW effectiveness, even from handguns. Why? Why is it that you feel it is so important people believe your theory?


The ballistic pressure wave is defined as the force per unit area caused by a ballistic impact that can be measured with a high-speed pressure gauge. Some examples were posted earlier in this thread, and a number of the published papers discuss readings from pressure sensors used in laboratory studies. Ballistic pressure waves have fast rise times (microseconds), short durations (milliseconds) and very large local magnitudes (100-2000 psi). Systemic vascular pressure spikes such as those that might be caused by chest compression during CPR or a vehicle accident have much longer rise times and much smaller magnitudes (< 10 psi).

It’s quite a stretch to suggest that the ballistic pressure wave theory originated with anyone this decade. The earliest scientific references I’ve found are from a WWII trauma surgeon, Frank Chamberlin, and publications from the WWII era laboratory of Harvey et al. at Princeton University. There is also significant published support for remote wounding effects in a Vietnam era study published by R.F. Bellamy, an Army trauma surgeon. Significant support was published by scientists with the Swedish Armed Forces in a series of papers from 1987-1990. These were the first studies that demonstrated remote wounding effects were possible with handgun levels of energy transfer. A neurologist named Dennis Tobin also published work in the 1990’s suggesting remote neurological effects were possible for handgun bullets. In the 1990’s a shock wave scientist at Cal Tech attributed remote spinal wounding to a handgun bullet in a case study of a 9mm injury and a team of military doctors published a paper attributing remote cerebral effects to a 9mm Makarov bullet in a case study. In 2004, ballistic researchers at the Third Military Medical University in China published a study supporting that remote cerebral injury was possible with energy transfer as low as 200J.

My personal interest is both as an educator – that sound science be based on published findings rather than “expert” opinions that are not backed up by published data AND as a certified self-defense trainer – that ammo selection should reasonably consider BPW magnitude along with other commonly accepted selection criteria including reliable expansion, penetration, ergonomics, etc.

armsmaster270
October 24, 2009, 02:46 PM
I shot a man in the chest with a 38spl +P+ 110gr JHP, The coroner stated it literally blew the heart to shreds but there was no mention of bleeds in the Autopsy Report. If there was enough H. Shock to blow the heart to shreds I would think that should affect the circulatory system. Or could it have been stopped by all the one way valves in the system.

Note Subj drinking Tequila and huffing Toluene

Taniwha
October 25, 2009, 02:31 AM
I`m sure it would be possible. Similar physics to barking a squirrel i`d guess

Pasteur
October 26, 2009, 11:04 AM
I shot a man in the chest with a 38spl +P+ 110gr JHP, The coroner stated it literally blew the heart to shreds but there was no mention of bleeds in the Autopsy Report. If there was enough H. Shock to blow the heart to shreds I would think that should affect the circulatory system. Or could it have been stopped by all the one way valves in the system.


Handgun loads to the chest do not produce brain hemorrhaging that is visible to the naked eye, so detection depends on the sensitivity level of the histology to mild TBI. Forensic autopsies tend to be focused on the cause of death. How can we know for sure if the 1984 autopsy of a rapist who died of a GSW to the chest would have included brain histology of sufficient sensitivity to detect mild TBI?

The available data suggests that detecting distant wounding effects in the brain require the use of advanced techniques such as specific stains in high-power light microscopy, electron microscopy, and biochemical analysis. Even so, damage is often detected in some regions of the brain but not in others. Damage that is easily visible upon cursory inspection requires much larger pressure waves than produced by handgun bullets. A study by Knudsen and Oen suggests that 30g of penthrite exploding in the thoracic cavity often produces easily detectable damage in the brain (of whales).


I`m sure it would be possible. Similar physics to barking a squirrel i`d guess


I always wondered if it was a pressure/stress wave that did in the squirrels or the bullet/bark fragments produced by the impact. I lean toward the fragments in this case.

makarovnik
October 28, 2009, 05:34 AM
My head hurts.

Double Naught Spy
October 28, 2009, 08:14 AM
The ballistic pressure wave is defined as the force per unit area caused by a ballistic impact that can be measured with a high-speed pressure gauge. Some examples were posted earlier in this thread, and a number of the published papers discuss readings from pressure sensors used in laboratory studies. Ballistic pressure waves have fast rise times (microseconds), short durations (milliseconds) and very large local magnitudes (100-2000 psi). Systemic vascular pressure spikes such as those that might be caused by chest compression during CPR or a vehicle accident have much longer rise times and much smaller magnitudes (< 10 psi).

Even if true, how has it been determined that the micro bleeds in the study cited in the OP are from pressure waves versus being from vascular pressure (hydraulic) pressure spikes? You claim the study confirms BPW theory, but in no place of that study was there any proof given that the damage caused was by BPW and not vascular spikes. About half the subjects were drunk which can also produce micro bleeds. The author theorized that the bleeds could be from BPW, but in no way could prove this of separate it from a hydraulic spike produced by ballistic impact.

My personal interest is both as an educator – that sound science be based on published findings rather than “expert” opinions that are not backed up by published data AND as a certified self-defense trainer – that ammo selection should reasonably consider BPW magnitude along with other commonly accepted selection criteria including reliable expansion, penetration, ergonomics, etc.

Okay, why are you so gung ho on trying to convince people of this on gun forums of all places? How is this supposed to be helping us? How does misrepresenting the OP study as supporting your conclusions (the claimed confirmation) actually serve to educate us?

dom1104
October 28, 2009, 08:36 AM
We think we are so smart.


We dont know nothin in the end.


Just shoot people with bullets and stop thinkifiyin it.

MCgunner
October 28, 2009, 11:38 AM
Just shoot people with bullets and stop thinkifiyin it.

God gave me a brain, that's why I think....:D Besides, it can be fun and profitable to think.

Pasteur
October 30, 2009, 09:32 AM
how has it been determined that the micro bleeds in the study cited in the OP are from pressure waves versus being from vascular pressure (hydraulic) pressure spikes?


What is your basis for excluding “a hydraulic spike produced by ballistic impact” from the ballistic pressure wave, which is defined as every force per unit area produced by a ballistic impact? The rise time and the time scale of the pressure transient reaching the brain does not exclude a “hydraulic pressure spike” from the definition.

Without implanting pressure transducers in the brain, which cannot be done in humans, we cannot know with 100% certainty whether the observed brain trauma is due to the high-speed fast rise time component of the BPW or to a slower, longer vascular component of the BPW that originates with temporary cavitation. However, several animal studies have used pressure transducers implanted in the brain, and these have uniformly shown that a high-speed, fast rising, short duration ballistic pressure wave reaches the brain and causes neural damage.

Consider the work sponsored by the Swedish Defense Forces carried out by doctors in the departments of Neurosurgery, Histology, and Surgery at the University of Gothenburg and published in the Journal of Trauma (Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 782ff):

The kinetic energy from a high velocity projectile which strikes the body and moves through it, is to some extent transferred to the adjacent tissue as a pressure wave which moves radially out from the trajectory with a velocity of sound in tissue (3,4,8). These pressure waves have been recorded, e.g., in the stomach of cats (3), in the aortic arch of dogs (1), and in the abdominal cavity of pigs (15) after the animals have been hit in the thigh by high-velocity missiles.

We attempted to test the hypothesis (1,10) that pressure waves may induce damage to the nervous system. To test this hypothesis, pressure waves were recorded in the abdomen and in the brain of pigs injured by a high-energy missile hitting a hind leg. Circulatory and respiratory parameters were simultaneously recorded. Evaluations of the blood-brain and blood-nerve barriers were carried out. . .

The blood-brain damage demonstratable in small vessels was noticed primarily in the brainstem and basal ganglia.

You claim the study confirms BPW theory, but in no place of that study was there any proof given that the damage caused was by BPW and not vascular spikes.


A paper published in the journal Brain Injury specifically predicted remote brain injury in humans shot in the chest. This prediction was based on the prior observations of pressure wave transmission and concomitant injury in animal studies such as those quoted above, as well as incapacitation studies showing a strong relationship between rapid incapacitation and pressure wave magnitude. In humans, the only realistic observable is the distant brain injury, and this predicted observation has been confirmed. Since the remote brain injury occurred in 33 of 33 cases that met the selection criteria and was not observed in a control group that included stabbing and other deaths by exsanguination, the conclusion that the observed brain injury was caused by the bullet impact is reasonable.


How is this supposed to be helping us?


The science of wounding mechanisms is usually considered relevant to parties interested in ammunition selection. There is a lot of published evidence showing that, on average, bullets that produce larger pressure waves incapacitate more quickly than bullets producing smaller pressure waves (other factors being equal).

tipoc
October 30, 2009, 09:51 AM
The ballistic pressure wave is defined as the force per unit area caused by a ballistic impact that can be measured with a high-speed pressure gauge... Ballistic pressure waves have fast rise times (microseconds), short durations (milliseconds) and very large local magnitudes (100-2000 psi). Systemic vascular pressure spikes such as those that might be caused by chest compression during CPR or a vehicle accident have much longer rise times and much smaller magnitudes (< 10 psi).

What is the origin of this definition?

Pasteur, is there a reason that you have ducked the question asked you earlier about a connection between you and Dr. Courtney?

tipoc

NMGonzo
October 30, 2009, 12:36 PM
I want to see the raw data.

I want to see the MRI's

Balog
October 31, 2009, 05:38 AM
Two good ways to tell if something is valid or "junk" science.

Does the proponent of the theory take a flawed test (sample size, correlation vs causality, signifigance of micro-bleeds in incapacitation etc), misrepresent the findings, then claim it as "zomg proof!!1!1!!eleventyone!!" of their pet theory?

Does the proponent of the theory use deceptive practices (faking a different user account) to attempt to gain credibility?

DAVIDSDIVAD
October 31, 2009, 02:19 PM
I see a lot of unwarranted butt hurt in this thread.

It's not like any of you are scientists, and care about the scientific method, so what gives?

Why would Courtney's study being correct, in any way, shape, or form, cause you discomfort?


Is Dr. Courtney selling anything to you guys?


Why the butthurt?

Pasteur
November 1, 2009, 08:57 AM
What is the origin of this definition?


Measuring ballistic pressure waves with high-speed pressure transducers has a long history including the studies at Princeton in the 1940’s by Harvey et al. Dr. Karl Sellier at the Institute of Legal Medicine in Bonn also performed some experiments of this type. In work funded by the Swedish Defense Forces, Suneson et al. implanted pressure sensors in live animals and also recorded ballistic pressure waves reaching the brain and brain injury. Lee et al. also consider the “ballistic wave” to be the force per unit area created by a ballistic impact in their 1997 paper on ballistic waves. Harvey et al. wrote:

It is not generally recognized that when a high velocity missile strikes the body and moves through soft tissues, pressures develop which are measured in thousands of atmospheres. Actually, three different types of pressure change appear: (1) shock wave pressures or sharp, high pressure pulses, formed when the missile hits the body surface; (2) very high pressure regions immediately in front and to each side of the moving missile; (3) relatively slow, low pressure changes connected with the behavior of the large explosive temporary cavity, formed behind the missile. Such pressure changes appear to be responsible for what is known to hunters as hydraulic shock--a hydraulic transmission of energy which is believed to cause instant death of animals hit by high velocity bullets (Powell (1)). The magnitude and time relations of these pressures have recently been recorded by the Princeton Biology Group, using tourmaline piezoelectric crystal gauges (Harvey et al. (2)). The part they play in wounding has also been analyzed (Harvey et al. (3)).

Many participants in internet forums maintain their privacy and the privacy of their colleagues by using login names that preserve their privacy and by maintaining their privacy when asked invasive questions.


then claim it as "zomg proof!!1!1!!eleventyone!!"


The OP reasonably asserts “confirmation” (rather then “proof”) because an important published prediction (brain injury in human GSW patients shot in the chest) has been observed in 33 of 33 autopsy cases that met the selection criteria for inclusion. Such brain injury was not observed in the control group. When considered along with the volume of literature demonstrating remote CNS effects in live animal studies, case studies, and an epidemiological-type study in humans, the totality of the published evidence is compelling. The fact of many published studies with positive findings, but not a single published data set with a negative finding, makes it clear that all the published data and the majority of the published authors support the validity of the view that ballistic pressure waves can produce remote damage in the CNS.

Consider, for example, the pressure wave findings of Karl G. Sellier. The International Journal of Legal Medicine describes Dr. Sellier as “recognized internationally as a leading scientific expert” in wound ballistics. He served as a professor at the Institute of Legal Medicine in Bonn and is widely published in wound ballistics. In the book, Wound Ballistics and the Scientific Background, Sellier describes “Cell damage and histological damage in tissue caused by shock waves.”

A generalized consideration is that the degree of cell damage will depend upon the amplitude. Thus, a low shock wave amplitude will only disturb cell functions (reversibly), while a high shock wave amplitudes can destroy cells and their functions. There probably is a threshold below which no cell reaction will take place (analogous to the threshold of shock-wave-induced nerve stimulation). Pressure measurements made by Suneson et al. (1987, 1989, 1990 a-c) on the upper thighs, abdomens and brains of pigs after firing at the left upper thigh have already been described in Section 7.2.2.2. Along with these tests, histological studies were also made to determine eventual changes or damage to cell structure caused by shock waves. These results will now be presented, using some medical expressions. For the non-medical layman we can summarize by saying that according to the intensity (amplitude) of the shock wave, reversible functional disturbances or irreversible changes in the cell structure could be observed.

tipoc
November 3, 2009, 11:16 PM
Pasteur,

I believe you misinterpreted my question. In a previous post you offered what appears to be a new definition of "ballistic pressure wave" when you said...

The ballistic pressure wave is defined as the force per unit area caused by a ballistic impact that can be measured with a high-speed pressure gauge... Ballistic pressure waves have fast rise times (microseconds), short durations (milliseconds) and very large local magnitudes (100-2000 psi). Systemic vascular pressure spikes such as those that might be caused by chest compression during CPR or a vehicle accident have much longer rise times and much smaller magnitudes (< 10 psi).

This is in contradiction to Harvey's description of a variety of trauma generally considered to be the result of "pressure waves" which you quoted above...


It is not generally recognized that when a high velocity missile strikes the body and moves through soft tissues, pressures develop which are measured in thousands of atmospheres. Actually, three different types of pressure change appear: (1) shock wave pressures or sharp, high pressure pulses, formed when the missile hits the body surface; (2) very high pressure regions immediately in front and to each side of the moving missile; (3) relatively slow, low pressure changes connected with the behavior of the large explosive temporary cavity, formed behind the missile. Such pressure changes appear to be responsible for what is known to hunters as hydraulic shock--a hydraulic transmission of energy which is believed to cause instant death of animals hit by high velocity bullets (Powell (1)). The magnitude and time relations of these pressures have recently been recorded by the Princeton Biology Group, using tourmaline piezoelectric crystal gauges (Harvey et al. (2)). The part they play in wounding has also been analyzed (Harvey et al. (3)).

Your new definition limits the injury to a specific type only indentifiable by a specific measurement with specific tools.

If you did not mean to insert a new definition of what "pressure wave" injury is, and one contrary to Harvey, Chamberlain, Courtney, etc. please clarify. If you do have a new definition clarify that as well. If you do I can ignore it.

To those who asked, I said before that I believe that Pastuer is not Courtney. I still believe that, more so now.

tipoc

Double Naught Spy
November 4, 2009, 05:22 AM
Why the butthurt?

Because the original misattributed and linkless claim that the Krajsa study confirmed BPW theory was completely bogus. It did not confirm it as Krajsa didn't have the tools or methodology or controls to test for it. Krajsa himself theorized as to the cause of the bleeds only. When one theory is made in support of another theory, it is not confirmation of the latter theory. It is not part of the scientific method.

DAVIDSDIVAD
November 4, 2009, 12:51 PM
That's the what, Double Naught.

I'm wondering why people are so offended by Pasteur.


Also, in before various "I'm objective, not butthurt, etc..."

Pasteur
November 6, 2009, 08:38 AM
I believe you misinterpreted my question. In a previous post you offered what appears to be a new definition of "ballistic pressure wave" when you said...


I apologize for any confusion. It was not my intent to offer a different definition from published researchers, but rather to paraphrase published consensus and describe how ballistic pressure waves differ from other pressure transients. A reasonable definition of ballistic pressure wave includes any pressure transient produced by a ballistic impact, and this seems to agree with Harvey and other publications. I added the bit about being measurable with a high speed pressure transducer to emphasize the fact that these can and have been measured. For example, Figure 13 of the Harvey paper, THE MECHANISM OF WOUNDING BY HIGH VELOCITY MISSILES (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3143359) , shows a BPW measurement that includes the fast component as well as the relatively slow component associated with temporary cavitation. Even the slower component associated with temporary cavitation is much faster and larger than pressure transients associated with chest compression in CPR or auto accidents; this is a point of description, not a definition. Blunt ballistic impacts (less lethal projectiles) may produce ballistic pressure waves more comparable with pressure transients caused by chest compression during auto accidents. Many published graphs, such as the one on the Wikipedia page for “Hydrostatic Shock” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock ) and the ones in the Suneson et al. papers and the Lee et al. paper zoom in on the fast part of the BPW.

Different authors describe ballistic pressure waves differently, but I don’t think any really have differing definitions in view. For example, Martin Fackler describes a “sonic” or “shock” component and a “transverse” component associated with the temporary cavity. Harvey’s description (my favorite, quoted above) also includes both. Here is a definition and description offered by Courtney and Courtney, which seems to follow the reasoning of Lee et al.:

The ballistic pressure wave is the force per unit area created by a ballistic impact that could be measured with a high-speed pressure transducer. The bullet slows down in tissue due to the retarding force the tissue applies to the bullet. In accordance with Newton’s third law, the bullet exerts an equal and opposite force on the tissue. The average pressure on the front of a bullet is the retarding force divided by the frontal area of the bullet. The pressure exerted by the medium on the bullet is equal to the pressure exerted by the bullet on the medium. Because the frontal area of a bullet is small, the pressure at the front of the bullet is large. Once created, this pressure front travels outward in all directions in a viscous or viscoelastic medium such as soft tissue or ballistic gelatin. Propagating outward, the wave’s decreasing magnitude results from the increasing total area the pressure wave covers.


...the original ... claim that the Krajsa study confirmed BPW theory was completely bogus ... Krajsa didn't have the tools or methodology or controls to test for it. Krajsa himself theorized as to the cause of the bleeds only.


Short of implanting pressure sensors in human brains, what kind of confirmation would be more convincing to you? Animal studies with pressure sensors implanted in the brain? Confirmation by third parties? Publication in a peer reviewed journal?

The previously published prediction of handgun bullet hits to the chest producing brain injury was confirmed by the fact of observed hemorrhaging 33 of 33 cases that met the selection criteria and by the absence of similar observations in the control group. Krasja’s interpretation is not a necessary component of the confirmation of the prediction of the theory. (Of course it doesn’t hurt that the author cited references discussing the BPW debate, and describes the data as supporting the theory.)

Odd Job
November 6, 2009, 06:10 PM
The previously published prediction of handgun bullet hits to the chest producing brain injury was confirmed by the fact of observed hemorrhaging 33 of 33 cases that met the selection criteria and by the absence of similar observations in the control group.

I have been trying to get that information from the Czech researcher but I get no reply. It's not like I asked any awkward questions, such as why he cited your Wikipedia article on hydrostatic shock in his dissertation ;)

If all 33 of the cases exhibit these microbleeds, then you have a problem since the likelihood of all those cases just happening to match your 1000psi criterion for handgun BPW effects is really slim. There will definitely be cases in there where the pressures involved are not adequate to match your threshold for BPW requirements.
There may well be a microbleed component of ANY thoracic GSW but the problem we have in that case, is that you can't then offer the microbleeds in support of your BPW theory, because they will be present even in low psi impacts (which therefore means that those microbleeds can't be associated with the <5 sec incapacitation that your BPW claims) and they won't have any significance clinically.

That's the problem.

Anyway you have specified that a positive finding on the Military Acute Concussion Evaluation (MACE) in the presence of a GSW to the chest is indicative of mild traumatic brain injury which (in the absence of other factors) has to be from the BPW. That's fine, let's go with that.
Why don't you get a sample of those also? It is an attractive study because it is low cost, doesn't involve equipment or drugs and will be well tolerated by the patients. You've spoken about specialist magnetic resonance imaging: well you can't use it in live GSW patients who have any projectile fragments in situ, or who have ferrous equipment attached to them that can't easily be swapped in the acute phase (unacceptable costs and risks).

MACE is the way to go, in my opinion.

Odd Job
November 6, 2009, 06:31 PM
Pasteur, is there a reason that you have ducked the question asked you earlier about a connection between you and Dr. Courtney?

It's quite understandable. The Michael Courtney web persona has to be buried because of some very rash and unfortunate postings made under that name in years gone by. They don't help his research, so a neutral alias is needed.
The other thing is that his (Michael Courtney's) angle on this research is continuously changing. Rather than have a tortuous trail of endless debates and incarnations of his theory attached to his name directly it makes more sense to have a neutral alias instead of something that Google can pin directly to his forehead. Can't blame him for doing that, he wants as clean a slate as possible in the lead-up to a commercial proposition.
That is all there is to it. He probably asked the moderators if he could cease posting under Michael Courtney and continue with Pasteur. He can neither confirm nor deny that Pasteur IS Courtney, of course.
The two of them are alike in their posting styles, grammar and points of view and the circumstances under which Courtney disappeared and Pasteur was born gives this whole situation a comical slant. It reminds me of a typical Columbo episode: the suspect knows that Columbo knows, and Columbo knows that the suspect knows that he knows, but the charade is continued nonetheless.

Pasteur
November 7, 2009, 09:08 AM
If all 33 of the cases exhibit these microbleeds, then you have a problem since the likelihood of all those cases just happening to match your 1000psi criterion for handgun BPW effects is really slim. There will definitely be cases in there where the pressures involved are not adequate to match your threshold for BPW requirements.


Credible criticism of a published theory should at least demonstrate a working understanding of the theory. Does the published theory predict that GSWs to the chest below 1000 psi will not exhibit distant wounding effects, or that distant effects above 1000 psi will be more likely and easier to see? Your reasoning is analogous to claiming that a published analysis predicting broken legs are more likely for falls above 5 feet is contradicted by reports of broken legs from lower heights. Your reasoning is analogous to claimimg that a published study predicting lung cancer is more likely for smokers of two packs a day is contradicted by findings of lung cancer in smokers of one pack a day.


Anyway you have specified that a positive finding on the Military Acute Concussion Evaluation (MACE) in the presence of a GSW to the chest is indicative of mild traumatic brain injury which (in the absence of other factors) has to be from the BPW. That's fine, let's go with that.


MACE can be useful tool for helping to diagnose mTBI, but I don’t think it can provide solid confirmation of remote brain injury due to ballistic pressure waves from well-centered chest hits, because in nearly all cases of center chest hits with large enough BPW to expect mTBI, ischemia/reperfusion will be a confounding factor in surviving patients. The simplest way to eliminate ischemia/reperfusion as a confounding factor is to focus on cases where the GSW caused rapid death as in the human autopsy study and your suggested approach to a deer study. MACE might be useful in telling us whether GSWs to the chest can cause mTBI, how can it distinguish the BPW mechanism from ischemia/reperfusion?

Odd Job
November 7, 2009, 07:04 PM
Credible criticism of a published theory should at least demonstrate a working understanding of the theory. Does the published theory predict that GSWs to the chest below 1000 psi will not exhibit distant wounding effects, or that distant effects above 1000 psi will be more likely and easier to see? Your reasoning is analogous to claiming that a published analysis predicting broken legs are more likely for falls above 5 feet is contradicted by reports of broken legs from lower heights. Your reasoning is analogous to claimimg that a published study predicting lung cancer is more likely for smokers of two packs a day is contradicted by findings of lung cancer in smokers of one pack a day.


Reading comprehension is key here.
As you can see from the paragraph immediately after the one you have selectively quoted, the issue is about BPW as a means of incapacitating humans within 5 seconds. That's what your main selling point has been all along. The summary is that microscopic effects without clinical symptoms AND without the ability to incapacitate within 5 seconds puts this Czech research in the 'not relevant' category as far as your claims are concerned. Unless of course, you are changing your claims...

but I don’t think it can provide solid confirmation of remote brain injury due to ballistic pressure waves from well-centered chest hits, because in nearly all cases of center chest hits with large enough BPW to expect mTBI, ischemia/reperfusion will be a confounding factor in surviving patients.

How do you know that?
Care to specify what sort of ischaemic event you are talking about?

Pasteur
November 8, 2009, 09:18 AM
the issue is about BPW as a means of incapacitating humans within 5 seconds. That's what your main selling point has been all along.


Neither this thread, nor the Brain Injury paper predicting remote brain injury in humans shot in the chest has talked much about “incapacitating humans within 5 seconds.” This thread is about the confirmation of this prediction (first published in 2007) of remote brain injury for humans shot in the chest in an autopsy study that documented the predicted distant brain injury. There are a number of published papers related to BPW. Some papers concentrate on documentation of remote injury mechanisms as a medical issue. Others concentrate on rapid incapacitation, which is more directly related to ammunition selection. The issues are related, but not exactly the same. Some have claimed that since remote wounding mechanisms do not exist, that BPW cannot possibly contribute to rapid incapacitation. Therefore, studies documenting remote injuries are an important refutation of the errant viewpoint of "sole wounding mechanisms."

You are right that the human autopsy study does not directly address the issue of rapid incapacitation; it addresses the issue of remote injury without suggesting whether the observed level of remote injury is sufficient to contribute to rapid incapacitation. Other studies address what BPW levels are necessary to contribute to rapid incapacitation. A published deer study shows that a high BPW handgun bullet incapacitated deer much more rapidly than a low BPW handgun bullet. Other papers have shown EEG suppression and correlation between BPW magnitude and rapid incapacitation. One might criticize these papers for not including brain histology, but these papers focused on rapid incapacitation rather than distant injury.

Previously published studies suggested that distant brain damage is possible at levels that might not contribute to rapid incapacitation. The 2008 paper, “Scientific Evidence for Hydrostatic Shock” explains:

Energy Transfer Required for Remote Neural Effects
… handgun levels of energy transfer can produce pressure waves leading to incapacitation and injury.[29][30][26][31][32] The work of Suneson et al. also suggests that remote neural effects can occur with levels of energy transfer possible with handguns (roughly 500 ft lbs/700 joules).

Using sensitive biochemical techniques, the work of Wang et al. suggests even lower impact energy thresholds for remote neural injury to the brain. In analysis of experiments of dogs shot in the thigh they report highly significant neural effects in the hypothalamus and hippocampus (regions of the brain) with energy transfer levels close to 150 ft-lbs. They also report less significant remote neural effects in the hypothalamus with energy transfer just under 100 ft-lbs.[19]

Even though Wang et al. document remote neural damage for low levels of energy transfer, these levels of neural damage are probably too small to contribute to rapid incapacitation. Courtney and Courtney suggest that remote neural effects only begin to make significant contributions to rapid incapacitation for ballistic pressure wave levels above 500 PSI (corresponds to transferring roughly 300 ft-lbs in 12 inches of penetration) and become easily observable above 1000 PSI (corresponds to transferring roughly 600 ft-lbs in 1 foot of penetration).[29] Incapacitating effects in this range of energy transfer are consistent with observations of remote spinal injuries,[15] observations of suppressed EEGs and breathing interruptions in pigs,[27][33] and with observations of incapacitating effects of ballistic pressure waves without a wound channel.[34]


Unless of course, you are changing your claims...


This thread began discussing the prediction of remote brain injury in humans shot in the chest, first published in 2007, and its confirmation in a human autopsy study, published in 2009. How can you suggest that this is a new claim?

2zulu1
November 19, 2012, 12:15 AM
I have been trying to get that information from the Czech researcher but I get no reply. It's not like I asked any awkward questions, such as why he cited your Wikipedia article on hydrostatic shock in his dissertation ;)

If all 33 of the cases exhibit these microbleeds, then you have a problem since the likelihood of all those cases just happening to match your 1000psi criterion for handgun BPW effects is really slim. There will definitely be cases in there where the pressures involved are not adequate to match your threshold for BPW requirements.
There may well be a microbleed component of ANY thoracic GSW but the problem we have in that case, is that you can't then offer the microbleeds in support of your BPW theory, because they will be present even in low psi impacts (which therefore means that those microbleeds can't be associated with the <5 sec incapacitation that your BPW claims) and they won't have any significance clinically.

That's the problem.

Anyway you have specified that a positive finding on the Military Acute Concussion Evaluation (MACE) in the presence of a GSW to the chest is indicative of mild traumatic brain injury which (in the absence of other factors) has to be from the BPW. That's fine, let's go with that.
Why don't you get a sample of those also? It is an attractive study because it is low cost, doesn't involve equipment or drugs and will be well tolerated by the patients. You've spoken about specialist magnetic resonance imaging: well you can't use it in live GSW patients who have any projectile fragments in situ, or who have ferrous equipment attached to them that can't easily be swapped in the acute phase (unacceptable costs and risks).

MACE is the way to go, in my opinion.
How does alcohol in the blood system effect microbleeds?

It seems that a population sample of 33 is extremely low to confirm any type of phenomenon, more so if half of the sample had high levels of alcohol in their systems.

tipoc
November 19, 2012, 02:21 AM
2zulu1,

Did you notice that this thread is 3 years old?
It's sometimes difficult to revive a discussion that ended 3 years ago. If it needs reviving a new thread might work best.

tipoc

45_auto
November 19, 2012, 10:54 AM
must be zombie thread day!

Third one i've seen this morning!

2zulu1
November 19, 2012, 01:32 PM
2zulu1,

Did you notice that this thread is 3 years old?
It's sometimes difficult to revive a discussion that ended 3 years ago. If it needs reviving a new thread might work best.

tipoc
I'm aware this is a three year old thread and I debated whether or not to reopen it.

Forum member Odd Job still posts on this forum and has medical experiential knowledge regarding gun shot wounds and has shared some of those experiences on other threads. Odd Job took the initiative to contact the Czech researcher regarding the 33 GSW bodies that Courtney/pasteur referenced in his opening post, but the Czech researcher had not replied as of 2009.

A number of good posts regarding hydrostatic shock/ballistic pressure waves have been written by forum members, both for and against this theory. While this thread is dated, the BPW subject matter isn't, as evidenced by recent closed threads.

There is no practical way to recreate the abundance of BPW subject matter written on this thread by starting a new thread IMHO.

Odd Job
November 19, 2012, 01:55 PM
I must make a small disclaimer: I am not a doctor, but a radiographer. I just happen to have X-rayed more than 2000 gunshot patients and I have a sizeable research database on another 150. My main interests are the forensic aspects of gunshot imaging and the identification of potentially harmful retained fragments in the clinical setting.

Anyway, one thing I said before still holds true now: Michael Courtney has an objective which does not rely on a static hypothesis. I could never tease out of him what the finale "sale" was going to be - ammunition with better (advertised) potential to incapacitate, or treatment for traumatic brain injury from projectiles not involving the CNS or its immediate vascular architecture.

He has made a more recent post here:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=612982

He has been quiet on this board since then. I think it is best to await the sale, anything else will just end up in a heated thread with bickering. As Danny Glover said, "I am getting too old for this s..."

If you enjoyed reading about "Ballistic Pressure Wave Theory Confirmed in Human Autopsy Results" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!