Discussion in 'Handguns: General Discussion' started by labnoti, Oct 21, 2019.
Tell me again, what exactly is this mysterious energy doing that you are so concerned about.
You're missing the point I'm making and, perhaps, taking this as a personal affront.
This is not a personal affront on you. Is addressing the confusion of "wasted energy" as a concept that has any significant basis by which terminal ballistics can be either evaluated by or designed around.
That a bullet no longer has any effect on the target body after it exists the body is indisputable. However, what the bullet does while transiting the target body is what counts... this is where its effectiveness, or "terminal ballistics", is determined.
The ONLY thing you can reliably address about a bullet which does not exit the target body is efficiency of energy transfer. But energy transfer is not the whole of terminal ballistics, nor even the point. What actually counts is the physical trauma the bullet produces.
Terminal ballistics is holistic and complex. It's not all about muzzle velocity, it's not all about energy, it's not all about caliber, etc.
It's about muzzle velocity AND caliber AND rifling AND bullet mass AND bullet length AND (insert a whole bunch of other stuff).
And that's just talking about the bullet.
On the receiving end there's point of impact AND tissue density AND interactions with bone AND type/amount of clothing AND size of wound AND type of tissue damage AND psychological disposition of the individual AND...
This is what makes terminal ballistics difficult and why, for example, one cannot directly relate performance of ammunition of different calibers and mass.
It is also why the FBI decided to focus on penetration ability as a priority characteristic for choosing an effective round: if you cannot achieve at least a minimum reliable amount of penetration, then you have significantly less likelihood of being able to reach the vital organs necessary to incapacitate/kill your target, regardless of other factors.
A lot of people often get caught up in all the rest of the stuff and forget that, essentially, the FBI tests have this part correct across the calibers and bullet designs.
You want to use a particular 9mm hollowpoint defense round? Does it penetrate 12 to 18 inches of ballistics gel? Yes? Awesome!
You want to use an armor piercing, heat seeking, incendiary, explody bullet? Does it penetrate 12 to 18 inches of ballistics gel? No? Then what's the point?
A bullet must be CAPABLE of producing significant penetration and damage to be able to stop/kill the target. That the bullet may pass through the target in the process and thus cause no further damage afterwards has no real bearing on this. In fact, it can be said that a bullet which does this also produces some quantifiable amount of additional damage while passing through the additional tissues and producing an additional hole for blood leakage.
In post 104 of this thread, if you watch the video, the officer discusses how the first shot of the gunfight hits him and puts him on his back. He rejoins the fight and wins. But shot #1 hits him in the face, breaks his jaw and exits. It doesn't hit cns, it doesn't destroy major blood vessels or organs to cause a drop in blood pressure, and it doesn't destroy skeletal structures preventing him from remaining upright. Why does the officer end up on his back, placement and penetration?
Is it your contention the bullet physically knocked him over?
It's a simple contention, to be sure, but it's really just a theory. Energy transfer was a concept that was very popular a number of years ago. Since then, extensive studies and research shows that what really matters is what the bullet hits on it's way through the body. The amount of energy transferred to the body matters only when it's used to push a bullet through tissue or bone.
And until you can show us wound ballistic studies or post-mortem evaluations that tie energy transfer to body damage or real-world combat stops, you are arguing for an theory that has little or no factual basis.
If a bullet hits a key bone structure, the lungs, the heart, or a major artery, the body will quickly lose its ability to function as it should. The body may bleed out -- but it can continue to fight back for a period of time. If the central nervous system is struck, the body may cease to function more quickly. If the bullet that caused this damage then moves on out of the body, it's later travel is relatively unimportant to anyone but a bystander. What matters is what it hit on it's way through the body!
Secondary wound damage is often discussed when addressing this topic -- the sort of damage is caused by the bullet's path through tissue -- but secondary wound damage is often relatively meaningless unless the round is traveling at speeds greater than 2,000 fps.. At that higher speed, the secondary wound path is enlarged and can impart additional structural damage in the body. But even that may not stop an attacker if the enlarged secondary wound damage does not affect critical structures.
My contention is that the tissue destroyed by the projectile didn't put him on his back. What do you think caused it?
Just clarifying. I agree that the tissue being destroyed likely didn't do it so much as the bodies reaction to said tissue being destroyed caused him to lose balance when he instinctively jerked back.
Though he is living proof that a head shot that does not immediately destroy necessary structures (such as the brain or spine) did not stop him from continuing to fight and ultimately win with his own, more effective, brain shot.
People fall down for all sorts of reasons when they experience intense physical stimuli, not to mention such direct traumatic stimuli to the head. Impact to the jaw can actually cause a concussion to the brain because of the jolt to the head.
The fall can be purely psychological. Why do some people pass out when pricked by a needle, for example.
It can be due to a stimulus overload of the reticular activating system in the brain stem with pain. A similar response causes people to actually pass out from pain.
OK, you bring up an excellent question here.
What put the officer on the ground was not being literally knocked on his keister by the force of the bullet. He may have been somewhat off balance at the time, in which even a small force might do this, but it was more than likely that he had a physiological reaction to the shock of being hit: it was NOT because the kinetic energy of the bullet was enough to push him over.
Think about this...when you shoot your pistol, are you in danger of being literally bowled over by the recoil? Even if you're shooting a large caliber magnum, with some pretty hefty recoil, is your 180 pound body (or however much you weigh) really in danger of being knocked over? Equal and opposite reaction says that the bullet will have no more energy going forward than the gun which fired it has going backwards.
By the way, we really need to talk about momentum transfer. Kinetic energy really represents the ability to do work, whereas momentum is a measure of motion...an object in motion tends to remain in motion and an object at rest tends to remain at rest. KE is equal to mass times velocity squared, whereas momentum is equal to mass times velocity.
Here's a way of thinking about this...if you're walking down the street and a toddler walks into you, how likely are you to actually be knocked on your keister by the toddler? Now drop that down from a toddler weight of, say 25 pounds all the way down to a bullet weight of 230 grains (about 1/2 ounce).
Fortunately, we don't have to confine ourselves to thought experiments on this as youtube has any number of videos which can illustrate this. The one I've attached here shows several rifle calibers and a shotgun round into a ceramic armor plate, propped up against a 25 pound lump of clay, setting up against a 30 pound cinder block. If kinetic energy transfer is significant enough to literally knock a grown man on his keister, many of these rounds would have shown significant movement of the clay and cinderblock. But you don't see that.
Which means in the real world what puts a shot person down is due mostly to the physiological reaction to being shot, not the physical impact resulting from kinetic energy transfer.
If he had been shot by a .25 acp fmj, and the projectile had followed the same path, do you believe the officer would have had the same reaction? What about a 125 grain hollow point from a .357 magnum? If the placement and penetration of the projectile is the same, would the officer's physical reaction have been the same?
Exactly what physical reaction? How much of the reaction was physical? How much was psychological? How much was physiological?
You seem to be driving at some point with your line of questions and fixation on this shot. What is it?
Pudge, there is no way that anyone here, even medical doctors, could offer meaningful answers to your questions.
What are you trying to determine?
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 are pushing a belief or theory about the stopping power of energy transfer. In doing this, all you're really doing is arguing that Energy Transfer stops an attacker because energy transfers stop attackers.
You offer no proof that this is true. Your argument is, in fact an expression of faith. Faith is generally defined as confidence or trust in a person or thing or a belief not based on proof.
Your argument itself is also a type of logical fallacy called "begging the question" -- which is the process of making a claim that uses the idea underlying the claim is a proof. That just doesn't work.
Offer us some valid examples that support your claim and you might find some folks agreeing with you. Offer us some serious studies that show the effects of energy transfer on a person (or any living creature) that has been shot and you might find some folks agreeing with you. But until you do that, your claim and faith statement will continue to be met with skepticism.
No, I'm questioning why the officer ended up disoriented and on his back.
Pure speculation, and it makes no sense whatsoever,
What we have done is equate the momentum of the recoiling gun with the momentum of the bullet and other effluents. That's not "unrealistic"--it is demonstrable fact.
Not at handgun velocites.
He fell down.
As pointed out multiple times, there are a whole variety of reasons why that could happen.
As pointed out by Kleanbore, nobody here has any idea specifically why that happened and so that can't tell you if a different caliber would produce the exact same result. Heck, the officer in question probably can't explain it either.
So he didn't know he would be in a gun fight? This guy didn't know he would be attacked by a shark and he ended up on his backside.
NOTE: Not a real shark, but a funny simulation to teach people not to pound on the glass, LOL. There was no physical energy, momentum, or force conveyed to the man.
Anecdotal, but I've seen a similar reaction (including the fall) from someone grabbing a pot they didn't know was hot and burning their hand, jerking back so hard they ended up on their butt.
Ok, so the consensus is that I may well be correct in my speculation?
No, not if your speculation is about "energy" and "disruption" caused by energy.
But what you are trying to say does seem to be becoming increasingly unclear.
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?
I do know very well what the reason cannot be.
You're saying that being shot point blank in the face with a 230 grain .45acp cannot cause a concussion?
Separate names with a comma.