Pudge
Member
Why not, could it?
I read your responses and I didn't really see you asking a question about WHY the officer ended up disoriented and on his back. I only saw you suggest that his disorientation and fall was due to energy transfer -- as nothing else made sense to you.Pudge said:No, I'm questioning why the officer ended up disoriented and on his back.
Did you watch the video? He didn't know he was in a gunfight until he was on his back. It wasn't a psychological reaction. In any case what put him on his back and disoriented him was not the destruction of tissue caused by the projectile. I believe it is fairly obvious that the officer was concussed. I also believe that the severity of the concussion would be affected by the power of the round and the energy it delivered. I also believe that Dudedog's temporary loss of control of his leg was not due to physical destruction of tissue or psychological trauma, but a disruption of function due to the energy delivered to his body, and varying the amount of energy would change the level of disruption. I think that equating the disabling effect of the energy delivered to the officer's head with the recoil experienced by the shooter is unrealistic, and that the energy of a round can have a profound effect on a gunfight in addition to how deep it drives a projectile. Just because that effect is not easily quantifiable or demonstrated in a gel test does not mean that it does not exist.
You cannot say that unequivocally. You have already said that you do not know the reason, and speculated that it cannot be known.
Did you watch the video of the officer's account? There are some who have responded to my questions about that video, who's responses make me suspicious that they are willing to judge conclusions drawn from the testimony without listening to the officer's account. Did you watch it?
You're saying that being shot point blank in the face with a 230 grain .45acp cannot cause a concussion?
That was not the position of those who developed it, nor was that their objective.The best explanation regarding gel testing is that gel is just a target media to compare the characteristics of different cartridges. The gel itself is somewhat irrelevant.
Double Naught Spy said:thought this was a great quote and quite relevant to this thread...
"Gelatin testing and the results from it are only tools to be used. If you consider either anything more than an indication of terminal performance or lethality potential, you might be a Jell-O junkie—Don’t be a Jell-O junkie."
If you mean using Ballistic Gelatin as a testing medium doesn't really tell us much about how a particular round will perform in human/animal tissue, I agree. (And that's what I thought you were saying.) If you mean something else, then you'll have to explain.
Gelatin isn't resilient and does not stretch (and sometimes return to it's original position) like tissue; it also doesn't have hard bones like human or animal bodies. It was designed to be a proxy for porcine tissue, which is similar to human tissue -- muscle, ligaments, etc. Not bone or internal organs. How a round disrupts gelatin is nothing like how that same round will disrupt tissue -- especially tissue of a living animal/human.
.
Tell us how the inclusion of bones matters?
Shawn Dodson said:Bone? The FBI windshield glass test has shown to also reasonably represent terminal performance when a bullet hits bone.
Ballistic gelatin simulates only the density of human muscle tissue. There are many other properties of muscle tissue that are pertinent to terminal ballistics that are not simulated.
My interpretation of his comment is that the massive disruption of ballistic gel seen in various Ballistic Gel studies will almost never have a similar effect in animal/human tissue.
Ballistic gelatin does not have the tensile strength, nor the elasticity of muscle tissue. It is homogenous in density whereas muscle tissue bundles are invariably invested by fascial tissue of significantly greater density that a projectile must pass through. And ballistic gelatin is isotropic. It doesn't care what direction it gets shot at. Human tissue, including muscle, is anisotropic. Density and tensile strength are significantly dependent on the angle at which a projectile strikes the tissue.
I have personally seen 38 Special and 9 mm projectiles deviated completely off course when they struck the fascia of the anterior abdominal wall of the investing fascia of the lateral thigh musculature. Try simulating that with ballistic gelatin.
These results can be replicated in ordnance gelatin. Fackler showed that when the exact circumstances are replicated the results in ordnance gelatin are virtually the same.