Handgun Energy: Interesting Paper

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kleanbore said:
That assertion shows a complete misunderstanding on your part of what is involved in the "handling" of a handgun in rapidly unfolding defensive encountesr, and of the underlying physics that impacts the rapidity of controlled fire for anyone.
Click to expand...

No. It really doesn't. But thanks for the condescension. More marginalizing. The FBI had agents passing quals with the .40, and then suddenly they were having people fail them. Did the qualification parameters change, or the ability of incoming agents?

And again, I'm not going to reply to every point you made, because I think we both know how pointless that would be.
 
CapnMac said:
Ok, let's consider this in the specific rather than the abstract.

Let's examine the human corpus. Where, precisely are we likely to see a temporary wound cavity.. The torso is unlikely as the ribs introduce mitigating factors (constraining the tissue for one). The other issue being that the primary "filling" of the torso are the lungs, which are 80% air. Air is unlikely to create much of a temporary cavity.

The limbs are generally not going to have enough tissue mass to have much of a temporary cavity,either, as they are primarily muscle tissue encapsulating solid bone. There's that distance to CNS, issue, too.

What that leaves us with is the abdomen. Which as any examination of a gut pile will tell a person is a mass of varying density tissue. Now, hit one of the major arteries, and you'll get incapacitation--but through exsanguination.
The distance of the abdomen to the CNS is probably the crux of the delay noted in the report. But, if we look at specific organs of the abdomen, liver, pancreas, spleen, those are dense, glandular things that are not going to stretch uniformly into temporary cavities. And direct hits to those are like to to cause exsanguination, not neurological trauma. Which leaves us, really only with the intestines and stomach--and there's plenty of air in those, too. But they are going to be the one organ most likely to have a temporary cavity.

Shooting people in the guts is probably sub-ideal on several levels.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, they have measured substantial pressure waves close to the brain in animals from gun shots in the thigh. Then there's the part about large blood vessels carrying pressure waves. And also the part of remote trauma to the spinal column.
 
I found both papers ver informative. I have been researching ballistics for several years as an academic pursuit. I had not come across either of the two papers. I did learn from each of them.

There was one statement on Page 1 of Scientific Evidence for Hydrostatic Shock that particularly interests me it was this conclusion.

“……..liquids are put in motion by ‘shock
waves’ or hydraulic effects . . . with liquid
filled tissues, the effects and destruction of
tissues extend in all directions far beyond
the wound axis.”​

This is the principle on which the Lehigh Defense Extreme Defense and Penetrator ammo operates. Those bullets are used in Underwood ammo too. They operate on a principle of fluid transfer. The bullet design employs lateral forces from high sped rotation to transfer the fluid energy into surrounding tissue thus creating a substantial wound channel without expansion. The above citation shows that science says that happens.
 
1942bull said:
I found both papers ver informative. I have been researching ballistics for several years as an academic pursuit. I had not come across either of the two papers. I did learn from each of them.

There was one statement on Page 1 of Scientific Evidence for Hydrostatic Shock that particularly interests me it was this conclusion.

“……..liquids are put in motion by ‘shock
waves’ or hydraulic effects . . . with liquid
filled tissues, the effects and destruction of
tissues extend in all directions far beyond
the wound axis.”​

This is the principle on which the Lehigh Defense Extreme Defense and Penetrator ammo operates. Those bullets are used in Underwood ammo too. They operate on a principle of fluid transfer. The bullet design employs lateral forces from high sped rotation to transfer the fluid energy into surrounding tissue thus creating a substantial wound channel without expansion. The above citation shows that science says that happens.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, Lehigh also developed the R.I.P. bullets, which are designed to fracture upon impact. Terrible for any real mechanically wounding, but based on one of the papers, superior for the energy transfer dump needed to create the peak pressure of the wave. Of course they go on to say that chasing this effect by using projectiles that do not meet minimum FBI penetration criteria (and a whole bunch of other criteria) is a bad idea. But perhaps that's where Lehigh got the idea from for the fracturing projectiles.
 
Last edited:
Kleanbore said:
Where did you hear that?

What they said was, agenta and officers can shoot the 9 more effectively than the .40.
Click to expand...

All over the place. Probably including right here on THR. Apparently, before the switch they even let people who couldn't pass with the .40 Glock take the quals with a 9mm instead. Or so I read in an article. Minimum standards don't apply apparently. I also heard something about a law suit from recruits who couldn't pass with a .40. But who knows.

It doesn't matter to me one fig what they said. Or what conclusions they came up with, or what information they want to ignore. Or whether the agents really wanted the P320, so Glock made a frame without finger grooves, or any of the rest of it. They are not a transparent agency. Getting the whole truth out of them isn't going to happen.
 
WrongHanded said:
On the other hand, they have measured substantial pressure waves close to the brain in animals from gun shots in the thigh. Then there's the part about large blood vessels carrying pressure waves. And also the part of remote trauma to the spinal column.
Click to expand...
You are getting into even trickier territory there.

The hormonal system operates at ridiculous speed and in an interlocking fashion, too. Adrenaline--produced near the kidneys--starts effecting the pituitary--in the brain--far more rapidly than current research adequately explains. All while blood pressure spikes (both dilation and constriction--althero and vasal--occur in flight/fight reflexes).

It's a huge amount of data to index and correlate in a useful fashion. The nervous system is running in parallel to the endocrine one (possibly linked--the data is not decisive). So, how much is which/what is still conjecture at this point.

Anatomy is intricate and "messy" in the sense of not always being one thing or another.

This is a large reason we use analogs and the like--it's to provide repeatable test conditions. And, real, living, creatures are not very repeatable--they have this annoying habit of being individual. Which can make reading anything biological annoyingly like Graduate Statistics* for needing to wader though not merely percentage trends, but the plus/minus variations thereof (and having to track that versus statistical validity, too).

We humans prefer to have what we believe reinforced--that bias is a kick in the teeth, too. (Been knocked down by that kick a time or two, too.)

___________________
*For the record, I did not hate STAT 610 at the time as much as I do now--but it was a horrible A to earn.
 
CapnMac said:
You are getting into even trickier territory there.

The hormonal system operates at ridiculous speed and in an interlocking fashion, too. Adrenaline--produced near the kidneys--starts effecting the pituitary--in the brain--far more rapidly than current research adequately explains. All while blood pressure spikes (both dilation and constriction--althero and vasal--occur in flight/fight reflexes).

It's a huge amount of data to index and correlate in a useful fashion. The nervous system is running in parallel to the endocrine one (possibly linked--the data is not decisive). So, how much is which/what is still conjecture at this point.

Anatomy is intricate and "messy" in the sense of not always being one thing or another.

This is a large reason we use analogs and the like--it's to provide repeatable test conditions. And, real, living, creatures are not very repeatable--they have this annoying habit of being individual. Which can make reading anything biological annoyingly like Graduate Statistics* for needing to wader though not merely percentage trends, but the plus/minus variations thereof (and having to track that versus statistical validity, too).

We humans prefer to have what we believe reinforced--that bias is a kick in the teeth, too. (Been knocked down by that kick a time or two, too.)

___________________
*For the record, I did not hate STAT 610 at the time as much as I do now--but it was a horrible A to earn.
Click to expand...

Just so we're not misunderstanding each other Mac, I'm not suggestion this effect should be sought out (neither are the authors). This isn't some kind of idea to fundamentally change the way we use handguns for self defense or LE work. It's not a suggestion that someone should get a gun that dispenses higher KE or aim for a different area of the body.

It's just saying this effect is a thing, and it can happen. More energy makes it more likely. There's nothing wrong with that, is there?
 
Last edited:
WrongHanded said:
All over the place. Probably including right here on THR. ....Or so I read in an article...But who knows.
Click to expand...
Now, that's a citation for you!

Look: that mo t agents , officers, trainees, and students can shoot more effectively than with the 9 than with the .40 is incontrovertible.

That is not the sane as saying that veteran officers who once qualified with the .40 have ceased being able to do so.

What caused the change against recommending the .40 was that, with the development of advanced premium ammunition, the .40 was no longer materially superior in terminal effectiveness to the 9, which can be fired more effectively.

WrongHanded said:
It doesn't matter to me one fig what they said. Or what conclusions they came up with,
Click to expand...
It apparenlty does matter to departments who employ about 600 000 sworn officers in this country.

The DHS uses the same ammo, and a whole lot of it.
 
Kleanbore said:
Now, that's a citation for you!

Look: that mo t agents , officers, trainees, and students can shoot more effectively than with the 9 than with the .40 is incontrovertible.

That is not the sane as saying that veteran officers who once qualified with the .40 have ceased being able to do so.

What caused the change against recommending the .40 was that, with the development of advanced premium ammunition, the .40 was no longer materially superior in terminal effectiveness to the 9, which can be fired more effectively.

It apparenlty does matter to departments who employ about 600 000 sworn officers in this country.

The DHS uses the same ammo, and a whole lot of it.
Click to expand...

Nah. You've moved the goal posts too far on this thread. Totally different topic and I'm not interested in entertaining you.

You want to talk about this ballistic wave theory or not?
 
WrongHanded said:
It's just saying this effect is a thing, and it can happen. More energy makes it more likely. There's nothing wrong with that, is there?
Click to expand...
Sure, we use all the qualifiers and remember how speculative it all is, then, civil conversation might follow.

The other issue here, in this present discussion, is that we are focused on handguns. And, virtually by definition, handguns are an order of magnitude less-able than long arms.
And, this vexes no small end in that, where we look at "the real world" (for want of a better term), humans are more often shot with handguns than rifles; and the reverse holds true in animals. So, "we" end up with two skewed datatsets (subjective or objective).

A skewed dataset will give skewed results.

Which is hugely vexing. If we ask urban ER docs, and poll their results, we get even more skewed results. Like how 5 of 6 GSW victims reaching the ER live to tell about it. (ER Surgeons generally can only tell if a round is "bigger" than around 1/3 inch or "smaller" and that's with the damaged tissue, if you will pardon the expression, in hand.)
Now, why has no one asked all these GSW victims about their impressions on being shot?
Well, there's a long list of reasons.
Veracity of testimony; status as evidence; stress/trauma-related amnesia.
And, statistically, it's hard to group GSW victims--number of shots, shot placement, and the whole lot of it all. (Also, there's the issue of defensive reflexes, so shots often pass through hands and arms and the like. The thing won't stick to just fruit as in apples to oranges, but gets wobbly and is apples to artichokes.
 
WrongHanded said:
Nah. You've moved the goal posts too far on this thread. Totally different topic....
Click to expand...
That was on the topic of your conversation about the FBI, qualification, and "cartridges powerful enough to come close to reliable creating incapacitation".

WrongHanded said:
...and I'm not interested in entertaining you.
Click to expand...
You are not---not at all.

WrongHanded said:
You want to talk about this ballistic wave theory or not?
Click to expand...
Not until someone presents something substantive that is worth discussing.

Look: anyone who has conducted any kinds of experiments involving mechanically generated waves knows the theory. Anyone who has studied the writings of P. O. Ackley, Jack O'Connor, Roy Weatherby , and some of the authors cited in the footnotes of the FBI study, knows that, with high-intensity rifles, it is an important subject in the taking of game. Anyone who understands wave theory knows that in some media, waves of some pressure will propagate from the sites of a lower velocity entry wounds.

At least to this lay person, it would seem that here might be some interruption of neural impulses in some cases. But for wounds close enough to the DNS to have a likely impact, it would seem likely that physical tissue destruction would eliminate evidence of that.

It's an interesting topic of discussion, bu it requires more medical knowledge than most people have.

Besides, handgun bullets are so notoriously ineffective anyway that spending much time studying the least significant aspects of their workings does not seem very worthwhile
 
CapnMac said:
Sure, we use all the qualifiers and remember how speculative it all is, then, civil conversation might follow.

The other issue here, in this present discussion, is that we are focused on handguns. And, virtually by definition, handguns are an order of magnitude less-able than long arms.
And, this vexes no small end in that, where we look at "the real world" (for want of a better term), humans are more often shot with handguns than rifles; and the reverse holds true in animals. So, "we" end up with two skewed datatsets (subjective or objective).

A skewed dataset will give skewed results.

Which is hugely vexing. If we ask urban ER docs, and poll their results, we get even more skewed results. Like how 5 of 6 GSW victims reaching the ER live to tell about it. (ER Surgeons generally can only tell if a round is "bigger" than around 1/3 inch or "smaller" and that's with the damaged tissue, if you will pardon the expression, in hand.)
Now, why has no one asked all these GSW victims about their impressions on being shot?
Well, there's a long list of reasons.
Veracity of testimony; status as evidence; stress/trauma-related amnesia.
And, statistically, it's hard to group GSW victims--number of shots, shot placement, and the whole lot of it all. (Also, there's the issue of defensive reflexes, so shots often pass through hands and arms and the like. The thing won't stick to just fruit as in apples to oranges, but gets wobbly and is apples to artichokes.
Click to expand...

Handguns are indeed magnitudes less powerful than rifles. But I did not notice mention of the use of any specific firearm in (for example) the testing on goats. I would agree it seems reasonable to assume most animals are shot with rifles and most humans shot with handguns. But is that true for the data sets? I've noticed a reference to a military hospital, where it's likely most gunshot wounds were inflicted via rifle. And in controlled studies of animals, it seems entirely possible that handguns could have been used. Possibly intentional so. Is the rifles vs handguns from animals to humans something you noticed in any of the referenced studies, or is it just a presumption based on what we typically see in the real world? I confess I have not read the studies referenced as of yet, and so have no information about the type of gun used for the controlled testing on animals. Did you find any?

I complete understand why collecting qualitative data from shooting victims about their experience could produce poor data sets. Perhaps that information could have some use, but probably not much that would be reliable.

As far as ER surgeons not being able to easily quantify bullet wound channels, I understand the frustration there too. Though I'm not sure that information would have any direct correlation to this concept of remote neurological trauma via an internal pressure wave. It's been established that the temporary stretch cavity commonly caused by bullets at handgun velocities does not exceed the elasticity of most human tissue. But that is also not a defining factor with regards to this type of trauma.
 
Last edited:
@WrongHanded

How many ft lbs does the 357 mag have?



Links between traumatic brain injury and the ballistic pressure wave suggest that brain injury begins to be possible for pressures above 500 PSI applied inside the chest and brain injury becomes probable with 1000 PSI [COC07b]. These are probably reasonable estimates for the pressures associated with incapacitation.
Click to expand...
 
I haven't seen this BPW theory surface for quite a number of years. It was making the rounds with some occasional fervor among some of the internet gun enthusiast forums maybe 12+ years ago. It was enthusiastically embraced by some folks, even though just a theory, seemingly because it basically gave new theoretical support to the believers of hydrostatic shock. If I remember right, Michael Courtney was even posting over on one of the other gun forums back then, trying to stimulate interest in the theory. Then, there was another poster using the same last name (unknown if related) who liked to use a wiki page devoted to BPW as a source to support his promotion of the theory.

Nothing particularly definitive was ever reported to have come of the theory, and it's not something heard discussed in many training circles, even among those folks who have a background in the medical field and who have an interest that overlaps firearms training, GSW trauma mechanisms, self defense, etc.

At least it has some foundation in actual science as a proposed theory, unlike the mythical goat tests.

Still a stretch, though. (No pun intended. :) )
 
danez71 said:
@WrongHanded

How many ft lbs does the 357 mag have?
Click to expand...

That would depend on the specific load, and not just barrel length but also the specific gun. I'm sure manufacturers like Buffalo Bore and Underwood have such figures readily available. Otherwise it would need to be calculated, the formula for that is quite simple.
 
WrongHanded said:
That would depend on the specific load, and not just barrel length but also the specific gun. I'm sure manufacturers like Buffalo Bore and Underwood have such figures readily available. Otherwise it would need to be calculated, the formula for that is quite simple.
Click to expand...

So this chart indicates several above 500 ft-lb out of a 4" barrel... most on he chart hovering around 600 ft-lb.

Correct?

357mag.png


And according to this article, which looks to be out of a >= 4" barrel, can we fairly assume that most of the ammo on the chart would still be over 500 @ 25 yards?

https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/tested-hsm-pro-pistol-hunter-ammuntion/


Looking at the energy numbers, this load produces roughly 598 ft.-lbs. at the muzzle, and according to Hornady’s ballistic calculator, the 158-gr. flat nose will impart 532 ft.-lbs. of energy into the target at 25 yards.
Click to expand...
 
WrongHanded said:
I'd agree with that, looking at what you've presented.
Click to expand...

Ok.

So wouldn't that mean that, according to this quote, that hand gun (not just rifle) could be capable of what the thread is about?....

Links between traumatic brain injury and the ballistic pressure wave suggest that brain injury begins to be possible for pressures above 500 PSI applied inside the chest and brain injury becomes probable with 1000 PSI [COC07b]. These are probably reasonable estimates for the pressures associated with incapacitation.
Click to expand...
 
fastbolt said:
I haven't seen this BPW theory surface for quite a number of years. It was making the rounds with some occasional fervor among some of the internet gun enthusiast forums maybe 12+ years ago. It was enthusiastically embraced by some folks, even though just a theory, seemingly because it basically gave new theoretical support to the believers of hydrostatic shock. If I remember right, Michael Courtney was even posting over on one of the other gun forums back then, trying to stimulate interest in the theory. Then, there was another poster using the same last name (unknown if related) who liked to use a wiki page devoted to BPW as a source to support his promotion of the theory.

Nothing particularly definitive was ever reported to have come of the theory, and it's not something heard discussed in many training circles, even among those folks who have a background in the medical field and who have an interest that overlaps firearms training, GSW trauma mechanisms, self defense, etc.

At least it has some foundation in actual science as a proposed theory, unlike the mythical goat tests.

Still a stretch, though. (No pun intended. :) )
Click to expand...

12+ years ago would be right around the 2008 mark that one if the papers is dated. I guess it caused a big stir back then huh?

I'd assume that the problem with actually proving this concept in a definitive way is that it would either require extensive testing on animals in a controlled environment with carefully calibrated equipment, or require the same but with testing on humans. I'm not sure how PETA would feel about the latter, but they'd be outraged by the former.

To put on my tin foil hat for a moment, if any western government had performed this kind of testing on animals (nevermind people) it's probably not something that will easily become public knowledge. I'm actually somewhat amazed that even the level of testing referred to in the papers has been conducted and is publicly available. Although, some countries do have far less interest in animal rights than others.

I'm not defending a lack of conclusive evidence, but I think there's a good reason why we don't have ballistic experts at Speer/CCI shooting live pigs with sensors implanted in their brain stems.

I think if it were as simple as performing these experiments, we'd have pretty conclusive evidence at this point. But when it comes to the intention suffering of live animals, things get messy.
 
danez71 said:
Ok.

So wouldn't that mean that, according to this quote, that hand gun (not just rifle) could be capable of what the thread is about?....
Click to expand...

That actually depends on another factor. The kinetic energy of a .357 magnum may be in excess of 500ftlbs at 25 yards (or whatever distance), but the 500PSI and 1000PSI are measurements of pressure, not kinetic energy. And more accurately, is the pressure of the wave created by the temporary cavity.

This is based on not just the KE of the projectile, but on how quickly it imparts that energy into the medium (and also the density of the medium). They do have a chart which has 6 lines on it. 3 for frangmentary projectile, and 3 for non-fragmentary projectiles. With penetration depths of 10", 12", and 14". The farther the projectile penetrates, the slow it loses its energy to the medium, and the lower the value of the resulting pressure wave.

I believe that chart is in the Ballistic Wave Theory of Handgun Bullet Incapacitation. So you would also need to know how deep the bullet penetrates (presumable ballistic gelatin was their test medium there) to be able to find the pressure value in PSI on the graph.

But the short answer to your question is, yes. Given the information they have presented, if you had a rapidly expanding .357 magnum projectile that had the required KE, the numbers can line up and you can potentially hit that 500PSI. At which point they claim the effect described takes place.

The actual medium the temporary cavity is created in would matter also. Lung tissue (as mention by @CapnMac earlier) as an example, would likely diffuse some of that pressure wave because it is not primarily liquid and has a high air content (air being far more compressible than water).

But the gist of what they are hypothesizing is that 500ftlbs or more of KE in a projectile that will stop within (I think they said..) 12", can create enough of a pressure wave to create incapacitation.

It's obviously not simple or straight forward, which is why there's a debate about it. There are also a great number of variables, many presented by the human body. But they're claiming it's possible, and I at least believe based on the information I've read that it is possible. But I'm not hanging my hat on it. It might just be a nice potential bonus to cartridges with higher KE.
 
Last edited:
WrongHanded said:
That actually depends on another factor. The kinetic energy of a .357 magnum may be in excess of 500ftlbs at 25 yards (or whatever distance), but the 500PSI and 1000PSI are measurements of pressure, not kinetic energy. And more accurately, is the pressure of the wave created by the temporary cavity.

This is based on not just the KE of the projectile, but on how quickly it imparts that energy into the medium (and also the density of the medium). They do have a chart which has 6 lines on it. 3 for frangmentary projectile, and 3 for non-fragmentary projectiles. With penetration depths of 10", 12", and 14". The farther the projectile penetrates, the slow it loses its energy to the medium, and the lower the value of the resulting pressure wave.

I believe that chart is in the Ballistic Wave Theory of Handgun Bullet Incapacitation. So you would also need to know how deep the bullet penetrates (presumable ballistic gelatin was their test medium there) to be able to find the pressure value in PSI on the graph.

But the short answer to your question is, yes. Given the information they have presented, if you had a rapidly expanding .357 magnum projectile that had the required KE, the numbers can line up and you can potentially hit that 500PSI. At which point they claim the effect described takes place.

The actual medium the temporary cavity is created in would matter also. Lung tissue (as mention by @CapnMac earlier) as an example, would likely diffuse some of that pressure wave because it is not primarily liquid and has a high air content (air being far more compressible than water).

But the gist of what they are hypothesizing is that 500ftlbs or more of KE in a projectile that will stop within (I think they said..) 12", can create enough of a pressure wave to create incapacitation.

It's obviously not simple or straight forward, which is why there's a debate about it. There are also a great number of variables, many presented by the human body. But they're claiming it's possible, and I at least believe based on the information I've read that it is possible. But I'm not hanging my hat on it. It might just be a nice potential bonus to cartridges with higher KE.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks.

That actually came from a source that kleanbore has referenced before

FIREARMS TRAINING UNIT FBI ACADEMY QUANTICO, VIRGINIA July 14, 1989

http://gundata.org/images/fbi-handgun-ballistics.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top