Handgun Energy: Interesting Paper

Status
Not open for further replies.
At the risk of getting flames for interjecting another real world human human wound body of work, I've found this paper very interesting if a bit dated:
http://www.gunthorp.com/Terminal Ballistics as viewed in a morgue.htm
Terminal Ballistics as Viewed in a Morgue

I remember when that series of postings was making the rounds of the gun enthusiast forums, too. The more the anonymous poster posted the info, the more questions arose and it's credibility seemed on uncertain ground.

The language and terms were, to put it charitably, a bit colorful, melodramatic and oddly emphatic for someone with a scientific background, let alone someone who claims his "Ph.D. is from the University of Tennessee in Anthropology". Phrases like "Gloriously effective", "Mozambique drill is fabulous!!!", "ventilated our BG (sniff)", etc.

He stated at one point, "my job is WORKING on skeletal remains or decomposed bodies, but I often OBSERVE autopsies of the newly-dead."

The anonymous author states he doesn't perform autopsies, but claims to observe them (when he wasn't working on mass graves in Bosnia).

Then, there's this little gem ... "I see an average of 8.2 autopsies per day/365 days per year ...". The fellow must not take any time off, and who knew where he found the time to post material in 20+ pages. ;)

The material also contains a lot of name-dropping, slips in a lot of the familiar ballistic beliefs of many firearms enthusiasts, deftly including a respectable number of homilies popular among caliber and ballistic performance aficionados.

The anonymous author remained anonymous, despite people trying to figure out where he worked and his identity. He basically signed off and disappeared, last I read.

Is it the actual experiences of a real person, or a work of imaginative fiction crafted to lure gun and caliber enthusiasts into following the postings? Who knows? Let's just say that the trained cop in me was back then, and remains, more than a little skeptical.

Personally, I put it up there with the mythical Strasbourg Goat Tests, which is to gun enthusiasts what MJ12 and the Alien Autopsy is to UFO believers. ;)
 
I’ve had issues with the current accepted handgun terminal effects theory. First, the whole criteria of what is a handgun bullet velocity vs rifle velocity. It is almost always listed as above 2000 feet per second (FPS). Yet a 30 Carbine typically starts below that velocity at the muzzle, yet is very effective with expanding bullets. Ditto for 125 grain 357 magnum handgun rounds. But the current experts will look at you with a straight face and say neither one of those have an effective temporary stretch cavity. So a crush cavity is all that matters. So how are they more effective than a 32acp or 38 Special, respectively? Also, if crush cavity is the only wounding effect of handgun rounds, then 45s should be better than 40 caliber, which should be better than 9mm, which is always listed as the minimum self defense caliber, despite people having effectively defended themselves with calibers all the way down to 22lr.

Central Nervous System (CNS) hits will incapacitate, but as someone who has participated in martial arts, there are also a number of joint locks and strikes that will produce enough pain to incapacitate the target. An example of this is getting punched in the liver, which oddly enough doesn’t put you down instantly, but takes a few seconds to kick in. I wonder if the incapacitation by some handgun rounds is similar to those effect, either by hitting a nerve center or producing a shock wave within the vascular system.
 
This well known phenomenon has discussed here at length before. It was the crux of the debate between Ackley and Weatherby on the one hand and Keith on the other. It is covered in the FBI report on handgun wounding effectiveness.

We see if in the "temporary wound cavity", which is discussed in oith the FBI report and on the Speer/CCI video.

Ad we hear in both, we are told that the temporary wound cavity has no material effect until we get to bullet velocities that exceed those of handgun cartridges.
I firmly believe both P.O. Ackley and Roy Weatherby had it right, bullet weight-velocity is critical in stoppage power, whereas Keith believed in large bullet size and penetration. When I was hunting in season every year I Carefully observed the reaction of animals when shot by me and others. I would then agree to dress out said animal, enabling me to see the damage done by bullet used ( at that time Win Power Points were the best )!! Turned out, in studying effects of animals shot all three gentlemen were correct in their beliefs. Now if I was to choose which calibers-bullets to use it would be ( has always been ) just those capable of penetration to or thru spinal column. Anyone highly juiced up on drugs or alcohol or adrenaline can still cover 30' and kill you even when shot thru the heart, but NEVER when hit in the spinal column. Me ?? As I have posted before, I will always aim for the PELVIS!!!
 
I hate to say it, but I was not very impressed with either one of them.
Do you know the sources of the medical opinions that the FBI Training Academy used as a basis for their conclusions?
Yep.
Disproven what? Why?
Go get them.
Sure. But how significant might they be?
Of course not. It has been understood for decades.

Again, the human body is extremely complex, and every wound in every person is different. A vast body of research involving large amounts of field data, have been used to develop performance expectations for service handgun ammunition that will generally suffice. For the FBI and their law enforcement partners, one set of specifications exists; it has been adopted by every civilian agency of the Federal Government. The US military uses another. Civilians may choose sill others--I'm not hard over on the barrier requirements for my defensive use.

One might wonder why a block of gelatin shakes when it is penetrated, and one might wonder about the possible brief interruption of neurological signals. That's fine. Bu so far, no one has come up with any reason why these things should impact handgun ammunition design.

If it happens, I'm sure the folks at Speer /CCI will fell us about it.
I am very leery of any so called " truthful studies " done on taxpayers dollars. Why??? Because you can bet your bottom dollar those conducting that research will always slant said findings in a manner to put more money in their pockets, just human nature isn't it???
 
This well known phenomenon has discussed here at length before. It was the crux of the debate between Ackley and Weatherby on the one hand and Keith on the other. It is covered in the FBI report on handgun wounding effectiveness.

We see if in the "temporary wound cavity", which is discussed in oith the FBI report and on the Speer/CCI video.

Ad we hear in both, we are told that the temporary wound cavity has no material effect until we get to bullet velocities that exceed those of handgun cartridges.
A sincere question: Is there not a difference between a hydrostatic shock wave and a temporary/permanent wound cavity? I understand that many argue that all of it is insignificant in most handgun calibers, but those are two different albeit related mechanisms.
 
Last edited:
Over the years I've killed or seen killed several hundred critters, with calibers ranging from .22 Short to .505 Gibbs. Very few with handguns or handgun calibers, mostly .22, 9mm, and .375 Mag in a carbine.

I have witnessed a clear case of hydrostatic shock, or call it as you want, exactly once: a dik-dik, all 6lbs of it, shot with a .17 HMR at 25-30 yards.

He was broadside. At the shot he jumped straight up, like if the four legs had been tiny rockets, and fell down dead. When we reached it, I found out that the shot had hit him right in the middle, through the paunch. No bone and no other organ had been touched. The stomach was full, and the matter explains how a shockwave could have been transmitted to the CNS.

Besides that, I have observed a few times that a neckshot generated sufficient intracranial pressure to pop the eyes out of their socket, even if the lower neck was hit. I put that to pressure transmitted through the carotid or the cerebrospinal fluid.

As for any type of "shock" in a chest shot... Nope. Even when shooting a 50-60lbs antelope with a .300 Weatherby Magnum at 30 yards, a chest shot results in a running animal. As others have pointed out, lungs being full of air, you can't expect much "hydro-anything" from them.

All this to say... Hydrostatic shock with pistol rounds? In lab conditions, you'll probably be able to do that, with selected calibers, bullets, and shot angles. But in real-life SD shootings, I doubt that this has any sort of practical relevance.

Last thing... The papers reference the "Strasbourg Goat Tests", which have been hanging around for a few decades now.

Well... If there had been any sort of extensive goat-shooting done in Strasbourg, France, I'm sure that the French would have noticed. It so happen that the French know absolutely nothing about it, even close friends who are in Government jobs where shooting down bad guys is part of the curriculum. My take is that one of two things applies: 1) The "Strasbourg" tests did not happen in Strasbourg, or anywhere else in France or even in Europe, or 2) The "Strasbourg" tests did not happen anywhere else than on paper. No authors, fictitious location, only US-made ammunition and no European ammunition, US calibers purportedly tested in Europe, and typical European calibers ignored... In the early 90's, nobody in Europe was using the .40 S&W, 10mm, or .45 ACP, but a good number of police forces were using 7.65 Luger or 32 ACP, and the 9x18 and 7.62x25 Tokarev would have been of interest to Europeans. I call BS on that one.
 
From another forum written by Dr. Williams :

"DocGKR and I--as well as many other learned persons with experience in scientific research--have independently spent hours and hours looking up Courtney's citations to be sure we're not missing something important, and we have independently come to the conclusion that his work is junk science at best. Feel free to keep researching and arguing with Courtney, if you like, but in the end you may feel you've wasted a lot of time and energy that could have been used more productively in other pursuits.

Arguing with Courtney is like trying to teach a pig to sing..."/\

Doc Williams can be reached via Tactical Anatomy Systems LLC
 
I always think the effectiveness of a round during an autopsy is a bit strange, sure damage can be seen but the real question is how it effected the once living person, not so much after the fact. I'm not a big energy proponent but I also don't think it's irrelevant either, no so much in the concept of some type of energy wave but rather the degree of damage done outside of what the bullet itself comes in contact with. It's easy to say a 9mm vs. 40 vs 45 doesn't make much difference when looking at a dead body, but that may not exactly be the case when the person is alive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top