Ballistic Pressure Wave Theory Confirmed in Human Autopsy Results

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
Yeah, it's a good service caliber, but the gun is just too large for every day civilian carry.
Click to expand...
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!
Click to expand...
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 re the "Widow Maker" round. See Dfariswheel's post.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
FYI, Pasteur is Doctor Michael Courtney. He's over on GT and the other forums spreading this crap science.
 
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.
 
FYI, Pasteur is Doctor Michael Courtney. He's over on GT and the other forums spreading this crap science.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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)
Click to expand...
 
I'm sure you have the credentials to determine if any science is "crap", freakshow.

His studies need to at least be considered.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Same thing on GT. He won't admit it nor deny it.
 
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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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...
 
Last edited:
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.
 
"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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You kind of have to use "big words" when dealing with physiology, double naught.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

Sorry about that :)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Formulating the Pressure Wave Hypothesis
2
Replies
45
Views
4K
thales
T
M
  • Locked
Ballistic Pressure Wave Theory: Additional publications
Replies
1
Views
847
MCgunner
M
M
  • Locked
Parallels between blast and ballistic pressure waves
Replies
17
Views
2K
Michael Courtney
M
M
  • Locked
Ballistics Testing Group 2008 Publications
Replies
0
Views
378
Michael Courtney
M
M
  • Locked
Indirect ballistic injuries
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Michael Courtney
M
Back
Top