Energy Dump - A Self-Defining Term

[easyg]

You can easily show that a good punch has as much kinetic energy as a .45 bullet. So how come it doesn't kill like a .45 bullet?

Because it's expressed as momentum, not KE.

First of all, I'm not convinced that a good punch generates as much energy as a .45 bullet.
But even if it did....
The punch will deliver that energy to a much larger area than the .45 bullet would, so the energy dumped is applied to a large surface area that can more easily absorb that energy, while the .45 bullet focuses that energy.
Focused energy is nearly always more effective than dispersed energy.
And the punch will lose energy much more rapidly than the .45 bullet....
What's the energy of a punch at fifty yards vs the energy of a .45 bullet at fifty yards?


The connecting punch and the glancing punch both have the same momentum, but the connecting punch does more damage because it dumps more energy in to the target.
If it were just momentum, and not energy dumped, then the glancing blow would cause just as much damage as the connecting blow.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I'm reminded of Jack Lott's epiphany with a cape buffalo that led him to develop the .458 Lott.

Jack had a softnose in the chamber of his .458 Win Mag, and a solid as the first round in the magazine. He hit the buffalo too far back -- the expanded bullet slowed and came to a stop in the buffalo's paunch but never reached the vitals. The next shot hit the buffalo's shoulder, but the poorly-constructed "solid" riveted over and came to a stop -- again not reaching the vitals.

Now, both those bullets "dumped" all their energy in the buffalo. So in theory, Jack should not have wound up in the hospital.

But he did.

 

[Odd Job]

So we have an alternate theory here, the theory of cavitation?

No, sir, it isn't a theory...it is a real life phenomenon.

Let us cast our enquiring nets wider:

Nowhere are the effects of cavitation from high velocity projectiles better seen than in the head. A gunshot wound to the head with a rifle often results in the evisceration of the brain (the brain 'erupts' out of the cranium). There are ample examples of this in the literature.
Yet the results are not nearly as impressive when the projectile is traveling at handgun velocities (Note that we must exclude contact wounds of all kinds in this debate because the gases of discharge are known to greatly increase the damage done when entering the wound.)

Another thing for both you gentlemen to consider (you and JesseL), is the difference in the effects of small arms fire on dry and wet heads. By this I mean heads that still have all their soft tissues (the brain is in situ) and dry skulls such as those seen in school biology labs in the 70s and 80s.
When the heads are shot wet, the effects of cavitation are manifested by fracturing of the skull that cannot be attributed to the direct passage of a projectile alone. This indicates that the wounds are complex, and the displacement of soft tissues affects both the bone and the type of damage that is sustained. However when dry skulls are shot, the complex fracture patterns are not seen and the damage is often manifested in neat 'drill holes' in the bone. In other words there was no material to host the cavitation. If there was no contribution to the wound other than direct contact with the projectile, then gunshot heads would look alike whether they were wet or dry.

The fact that penetrating and perforating gunshot wounds of the head and brain result in raised intracranial pressure acutely, is not disputed. What is evident is the remarkable and violent displacement of the brain from high velocity projectiles, when compared to low velocity projectiles. It is not my place to offer numbers in support of a declaration of what 'high velocity' and 'low velocity' is, in terms of small arms projectiles.
However, it is well within the scope of what I know and have seen, to be able to advise that there is a definite increase in the wounding potential of projectiles traveling at rifle velocities compared to projectiles traveling at handgun velocities (in general).

This is nothing new at all, this has been known for a long time.

 

[easyg]

Now, both those bullets "dumped" all their energy in the buffalo. So in theory, Jack should not have wound up in the hospital.

A very illogical conclusion.

Just because a bullet dumps all of it's energy into a target, that does NOT mean that it will be enough energy to stop the target.

In other words....
If you shoot a 300 lbs line-backer with a spitball, even though the spitball has dumped all of it's energy in to the line-backer, the line-backer will most likely NOT be killed.
The spitball simply lacks the energy to stop a 300 lbs line-backer.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

And the punch will lose energy much more rapidly than the .45 bullet....
What the energy of a punch at fifty yards vs the energy of a .45 bullet at fifty yards?

Only in California could we debate this.

Consider the velocity and mass of the moving fist and arm. Let's say it is about half the speed of a good fastball and about 5 lbs of effective mass.

5 X 75 fps^2/64.4 = 436 ft lbs. Just about in the .45 range for KE.

 

[fletcher]

Below is a typical stress-strain curve. Tissue is more elastic, so the curve wil have a different shape (probably a J-curve looking elastic line), but the principles are the same. Here's how energy transfer works to destroy things.

A material sitting alone with no residual stresses will be at the origin of the graph. It can be deformed elastically (non-permanently) by stretching it up to the first dashed line. It takes energy, not momentum, but energy, to bring it up to that point on the curve. The energy is given by the area underneath the curve.

Stress is Force per Unit Area (F/A) - units are psi/Pa. Strain is (Change in Length) / (Original Length) - unitless.

Once it passes that line, permanent deformation takes place. At this point, it takes much more energy to continue permanent, or plastic, deformation.

After passing the third line, something called "necking" begins. It is where stress/strains are highly localized, and leads up to the X at the end of the line - failure. The total area under this curve is the energy necessary to fracture a material. This will only happen if energy is expended, not momentum. Momentum does not cause damage; things with a lot of momentum may cause lots of damage upon impact, but the correlation is only because they share similar terms in the equations.

 

[easyg]

But again...

If it were just momentum, and not energy dumped, then the glancing blow would cause just as much damage as the connecting blow.

 

[dodging230grainers]

Vern, why is the 5.56mm NATO round one of the most popular rifle cartridges in entire world, and most Western militaries chamber their main rifles in it?

I don't think its because it's known to be a deep penetrator, nor carry much momentum. :banghead:

You've turned the effects of kinetic energy into an often overly exaggerated myth (which is true) to something that you claim outright does not exist, at any level.

 

[Soybomb]

Well Soybomb, gotta ask, how many people did those doctors shoot?

How many oncologists have had cancer? What person has shot enough people to make any sort of statement about that anyway? I've been in a few car wrecks in my life but that doesn't qualify me to speak in depth about generalities regarding what happens in car wrecks. These are people who have years of eduation and experience in the function of the body and treating people with gun shot wounds and examining people that didn't survive their gun shot wounds.. We need large amounts of data analyzed by people who know what they're looking at. So far the police in the US don't seem to be complaining.

My opinions are based on the conclusions I arrive after considering what I learn from real life shootings.
I talk often with guys that kill people and got shot at. Unfortunately this happens all day long here in the suburbs of Buenos Aires. I try to listen to what guys that have been in gunfights have to say, both civilians and police.
That’s how I know that 124 FMJ 9mm is not much of a stopper but will put people down if you do your part ( shoot accurately, repeat if needed) and 45 ACP 230 gr FMJ works MUCH better.
Believe whatever you want.

So why does that leave you to believe energy dump is a reliable component of stopping power. Using the numbers for winchester ranger factory loads of both rounds I get 400 ft/lbs on the .45@885fps and 364 ft/lbs on the 9mm@1150fps, a difference of 36 ft/lbs, or 10% more kinetic energy than the 9mm round. All the experts say its the size of the hole that makes the difference, so why when the diameter of the hole increases nearly 30% and the volume of the wound increases (lets say a 14" wound tract which is 5.4 cubic inches for the 9mm round and 8.9 cubic inches for the .45) far more do you feel the 10% difference in kinetic energy of the round is responsible for the better stopping?

Vern, why is the 5.56mm NATO round one of the most popular rifle cartridges in entire world, and most Western militaries chamber their main rifles in it?

I don't think its because it's known to be a deep penetrator, nor carry much momentum.

You've turned the effects of kinetic energy into an often overly exaggerated myth (which is true) to something that you claim outright does not exist, at any level.

I think its important to keep in mind that in this thread we're talking about handguns. The damage rifle caliber rounds can do through cavitation and fragmentation is pretty widely accepted. The temporary cavitation from handgun rounds doesn't even begin to compare.There is no service caliber handgun wound that causes wounds like 5.56

Finally, why are you guys even talking about punches? You're talking about such a different type of injury to the body I can't even begin to see the correlation.

 

[Michael Courtney]

The proponents of "energy dump" theory said that. They postulate that a bullet which does not exit "dumps all its energy" in the body and is therfore more effective.

While not a complete strawman, this version of the "energy dump" theory is more a demonstration that an oversimplification of an idea for consumption by a general audience is often easily picked apart by folks with an above average appreciation for the technical details. This is a "gun magazine" dumbing down of an idea in a manner that I have not seen from any scientific sources (such as scientific journals or scientists themselves). A more scientific rendering would probably be more like:

Energy Transfer Hypothesis:

Other factors (penetration depth, shot placement, expanded diameter, etc.) being equal, the projectile that has a larger local rate of energy loss (dE/dx, for those who know calculus) will create more tissue disruption in the target.

Since the local rate of energy loss, dE/dx, is the retarding force, this phrasing of the idea has a lot of support:

1) Prompt damage (tissue damaged by a high local stress field prior to temporary cavitation) depends strongly on the retarding force, and (other factors being equal) increases monotonically (and approximately linearly) with the retarding force.

2) The cross sectional area of the temporary cavity depends strongly on the retarding force and increases monotonically with the retarding force.

3) The ballistic pressure wave, which has been shown to cause remote neural damage, increases with the retarding force.

At handgun energy levels (below 1000 ft-lbs), none of these mechanisms causes rapid incapacitation 100% of the time. However, each mechanism slightly increases the probability of rapid incapacitation, and in the energy range of 500-1000 ft-lbs, these effects cannot be considered negligible. These effects might not speed incapacitation in every case, but they do decrease the time to incapacitation on average.

The average retarding force is E/d for non-fragmenting bullets, the kinetic energy of the projectile divided by the penetration depth in suitable prepared gelatin. Your version of the gun magazine energy dump "theory" advocates reducing penetration to increase the retarding force. Serious scientists are much less likely to advocate reducing penetration below well-established minimum penetration requirements for a given application and risk assessment.

Michael Courtney

 

[Kentak]

Probably better -- the .243 is considered by many to be marginal for mule deer.

And these same people consider the .45 better?

Who loads a 255 grain .45 to 1000 fps?

K

 

[Kentak]

Fascinating discussion. But, I need a porn break. All this talk of penetration and cavities is getting to me. Back later.

K

 

[mavracer]

There is "dead" and then there is . . . "dead."

maybe but there is "dead right now" and "mortaly wounded killed you then died enroute to the hospital"

 

[mavracer]

I am saying the hole kills. The deeper and wider the hole, the more effective the round will be, all other things being equal. And the deepest possible hole is a through-and-through hole.

I've quoted my boar shot twice before and you want to knock my spelling.There was no hole in the chest cavity yet there was enough energy transfered to the lungs to cause enough viseral damage the animal "died" from the lung wound.therefore energy transfer can Kill.
if all things are equal the hole can't be deeper and wider.
all things being equal a bullet that exits can not and will not make as wide of hole as a bullet that stops under the skin on the back side.

 

[easyg]

Finally, why are you guys even talking about punches? You're talking about such a different type of injury to the body I can't even begin to see the correlation.

Because, just like the billiards example, it's another easily understood example (at least for most folks...yourself excluded apparently) of energy transfer (aka the energy dump that this thread is about).

If you "can't even begin to see the correlation" then you probably don't understand what's being discussed here.

 

[mavracer]

First of all, I'm not convinced that a good punch generates as much energy

IIRC heavyweights are in the 750-800 ft.lb. range

 

[Soybomb]

Because, just like the billiards example, it's another easily understood example (at least for most folks...yourself excluded apparently) of energy transfer (aka the energy dump that this thread is about).

If you "can't even begin to see the correlation" then you probably don't understand what's being discussed here.

There's no reason to go to name calling or insults, I've tried very hard to post good links and well thought out responses to this thread and would appreciate that courtesy in return. Thinly veiled "you're stupid" comments don't tell me why how my body reacts to getting punched is going to be anything like it reacts to getting shot.

Getting punched by a 5 year old does not hurt you as much as getting punched by an adult boxer.
Why?
Because the boxer generates more force and more kinetic energy, and then deposites that energy (ie: energy dump) in to your body.
More energy equals more damage.

To me thats trying to equate the effects of the two. Alright. Stubbing my toe hurts more than cutting my face shaving. I don't see how the analogies are applicable to this. Getting shot is not at all like getting punched, they're very different types of wounds. What happens when I get punched is irrelevant to what happens when I get shot. I want to hear the mechanics of whats ahppening and how its making my attacker stop. There's a laundry list of experts with a great deal of peer reviewed published work that say the round that carries more kinetic energy isn't necessarilly going to the better wounding round and that we need to look at the actual wound created in the tissue since handgun rounds are not reliable stoppers based on temporary cavitation. You're telling me they're wrong. All the shooting of the fruit or talk of getting punched in the world doesn't address the issue at all.

Just how far do you take your views and what have you based them on? RBCD makes a 60gr 9mm round that clocks in at 2010fps and 539 ft/lbs. Is this a better stopper than the 400 ft/lb .45 load or the 350ft/lb 9mm load? Why or why not? Its sure going to do a nasty number on fruit and water jugs.

 

[mavracer]

Getting shot is not at all like getting punched.

yes they are different wound mecanics but energy transfer is to an extent energy transfer.I will try to make the corralation this way.a 100 lb. average joe probably doesn't punch with enough energy to knock the wind out of my fat ass but he could easily stab a 5/16" drill bit through my heart.this would equate to a 32 acp. yes it will poke a hole in your heart but tis not going to create a temporary cavity that knocks the wind out.
now take the pro heavyweight boxer not only is there enough energy to jab a 1/2" rod through my chest, he can punch hard enough to not only knock the wind out he may break ribs.now were talking the power of the upper end handguns say 10MM and it will poke a big hole through the heart and may just knock the wind out (damage lungs) with temporary cavity.

RBCD makes a 60gr 9mm round that clocks in at 2010fps and 539 ft/lbs.

probably work great if all the BG were 6' 150 lb. wearing t-shirts and wouldn't hide behind stuff.sufficient penatration is still king.

 

[FerFAL]

Soybomb wrote:
These are people who have years of eduation and experience in the function of the body and treating people with gun shot wounds and examining people that didn't survive their gun shot wounds.. We need large amounts of data analyzed by people who know what they're looking at. So far the police in the US don't seem to be complaining.

Whatever, you stick with your doctors I’ll stick with the guys that shoot people for real
Last time I checked being a doctor does not qualify you as a ballistics expert… or even more importantly, a gunfighter.
I know doctors that can’t even tell the difference between calibers. A good friend of my family does heart transplants, the guy is a darn genius. What’s that got to do with on the street efficiency of one caliber or another?
We can discuss until the end of ages, what doctors and what guys shooting gelatin have to say. Real, cold facts? Those you don’t argue, you simply pick them and accept them, like it or not, and then you can study why it worked ( or not) but you don’t get to change the fact of what happened, just try to find a logical explanation for it.

All the experts say its the size of the hole that makes the difference, so why when the diameter of the hole increases nearly 30% and the volume of the wound increases (lets say a 14" wound tract which is 5.4 cubic inches for the 9mm round and 8.9 cubic inches for the .45) far more do you feel the 10% difference in kinetic energy of the round is responsible for the better stopping?

mmm... no, I think that you have a terribly wrong impression of what happens when people get shot. To you, its all about the diameter of the hole and the depth. You seem to ignore the importance of how that hole was made in the first place.
Surgically cutting a narrow hole that imitates the permanent cavity of a 45 Hardball round does NOT equal to actually getting shot with such caliber. The permanent cavity is just part of the equation, there’s also crushing of bones and hydraulic shock to consider, along with the temporary cavity and what organs got affected by it. An important nervous center getting caught within the temporary cavity area of influence will likely shock the person enough to put him down, out of the fight or unconscious. Him bleeding to death afterwards is merely anecdotal.
Say, a JHP +P 9mm that expands and transfers all of its energy, creating a hydraulic shock that happened to affect some main artery. The blood pressure in that “hose” goes up a LOT for a fraction of a second and God only knows what it may affect. If it’s a main artery that connects to the brain, that person will likely go down unconscious, or he will at least be stunned for sure.
That’s why I don’t trust the wound profile drawings by Falkner, according to those drawings 45 ACP, even 7,62x51 are almost useless, with a relatively small permanent cavity, the temporary cavity being completely ignored, and that’s’ simply wrong because FACTS prove otherwise, both calibers are good stoppers. And as I said before, you just don’t argue with hard facts.
A temporary cavity is not less important because it’s “temporary”. That’s an ignorant approach.
Just like with any other material, there an E factor of elasticity. Once you stretch tissue to a certain extent, it gets past a point of no return where it gets DAAMGED. A shock damaged organ, tissue and nervous terminals affects people, its like having a small bomb explode in you, that wave creates, pain shock and damage.
Yu just can’t ignore the importance of the hydraulic shock, the way it affects the person’s nervous system, not necessarily being a CNS shot.
I know of a guy that put down an armed attacker with a single 45 hardball slug to the shoulder. The guy went down, and stayed down, not being able to shoot back. He later lost the arm. Seems that the projectile smashed through the socket where the arm bone meets the shoulder. The terrible pain wave shocked him enough to leave him barely conscious on the floor, instantly. So much for only CNS shots and blood loss being the only instant fight stoppers.
The human body is just too complex for such a simplistic analysis.
It’s not only about penetration. An ice pick through the brain may put the lights out, but so will a JHP +P 9mm impacting the stomach of someone that just drank 1 liter of Coke.
A soccer player was left unconscious on the floor once because of a point black shot to the stomach. The policeman that shot him use LTL ammo that barely penetrated the skin, but just as if he had been hit by a huge fist, the shock by the LTL 12 ga round was so great that many internal organs where damaged and he barely managed to survive after several days of hospitalization. I saw that one live on TV, the infuriated soccer player ( healthy, mad, mid 20’s) went down like a sack of potatoes.
And then comes a reporter that was executed during the “dirty war” Shot in the face 6 feet away with a Mouser 7,65 Argentine( similar ballistics to a 7,62 x51 NATO). The round blew out his upper teeth, and exited through the upper neck. The reporter went down but he didn’t loose consciousness. He played dead ( the other victims of the firing squad were indeed dead) and he ESCAPED ON FOOT once the soldiers left. The guy exiled to USA and after some facial reconstruction you could barely see he had been shot with a darn Mauser right under the nose.

FerFAL

 

[FerFAL]

Soybomb wrote:
To me thats trying to equate the effects of the two. Alright. Stubbing my toe hurts more than cutting my face shaving. I don't see how the analogies are applicable to this. Getting shot is not at all like getting punched, they're very different types of wounds. What happens when I get punched is irrelevant to what happens when I get shot.

Actually the case I mentioned about the soccer player being shot with LTL is exactly like getting punched very, very hard in the stomach. The incident was caught on camera and is well documented.
The plastic buck barely penetrated the first layers of skin, but the energy wave transferred was so important it affected his organs and nervous system, enough to put him down as if it were a death ray. The man BARELY survived, I remember the case well, and there was almost no penetration to speak of. How do you explain that?

FerFAL

 

[mavracer]

IMHO A more basic theory that energy transfer will not be much of a factor below ~250 ft.lb. you need most of your energy to penatrate so you don't want violent expansion.It becomes a possible factor someplace between 400-500 ft.lb. you need a balance too violent expansion it may not penatrate enough. its more of a probable factor above ~700 ft.lb. now you can have a bullet expand violently and still get deep enough.

 

[boomstik45]

Wow, this is a rather spirited discussion. I have to admit, though, that the analogies are a bit distracting....

 

[Soybomb]

Last time I checked being a doctor does not qualify you as a ballistics expert… or even more importantly, a gunfighter.
I know doctors that can’t even tell the difference between calibers. A good friend of my family does heart transplants, the guy is a darn genius. What’s that got to do with on the street efficiency of one caliber or another?

Obviously we're talking about doctors that can and do. No all doctors aren't ballistics experts. Some do specialize in this area of study though just as your cardiologist surgeon friend has his own speciality. I don't believe you can get much more qualified to tell me how a body reacts to being shot than being a surgeon in a trauma center or a battle field surgeon. Why is a gun fighter qualified to tell me what round is a good stopper? We need to look at a sample of a large number of victims and look at the variables that were involved in the shooting. How many guys do you think a person would have to shoot before he could speak with authority on what works and what doesn't?

We can discuss until the end of ages, what doctors and what guys shooting gelatin have to say.

This seems like an attack on their character more than their work to me. I'm saying I'm reading papers from guys with medical training to the extent of being trauma surgeons and being experts in gun shot wounds and you're saying their opinions are irrelevant because they sometimes use a tissue simulant as a way to benchmark ammunition performance? If their work is wrong, lets tear it apart and all carry better for it. Gelatin has nothing to do with their qualifications or their work on stopping attackers.

Once you stretch tissue to a certain extent, it gets past a point of no return where it gets DAAMGED. A shock damaged organ, tissue and nervous terminals affects people, its like having a small bomb explode in you, that wave creates, pain shock and damage.
Yu just can’t ignore the importance of the hydraulic shock, the way it affects the person’s nervous system, not necessarily being a CNS shot.

Right and these trauma surgeons and the like are telling me the energy a handgun round imparts isn't enough to cause destruction by stretching to most tissue. Why are they wrong?

The permanent cavity is just part of the equation, there’s also crushing of bones and hydraulic shock to consider, along with the temporary cavity and what organs got affected by it. An important nervous center getting caught within the temporary cavity area of influence will likely shock the person enough to put him down, out of the fight or unconscious.

Alright thats what I'm wanting to see more about. We've been through a huge list of ballistics experts and the peer reviewed work that says "hydraulic shock" and the idea of termporary cavitation from handguns being a factor in stopping attackers is bunk and outside of inelastic organs like the liver and brain isn't going be severe enough to destroy tissue. Where are the papers that refute this and show me the dissenting opinion you're presenting is actually true?

I know of a guy that put down an armed attacker with a single 45 hardball slug to the shoulder. The guy went down, and stayed down, not being able to shoot back. He later lost the arm. Seems that the projectile smashed through the socket where the arm bone meets the shoulder. The terrible pain wave shocked him enough to leave him barely conscious on the floor, instantly. So much for only CNS shots and blood loss being the only instant fight stoppers.

How do you know a "terrible pain wave shocked" him into almost losing consciousness? Is the shock from pain? Is it from energy dump? Does energy dump cause the pain? What about the people who get shot with a .32 and quit fighting? Is there any evidence this happens on a larger scale so I know the idea of getting shot wasn't all it took and he would have dropped like a sack of potatos from a .32 as well?

he shock by the LTL 12 ga round

We're still talking about service caliber handguns here. The rules all change when we go to long arms because of the tremendous difference in energy between them and handguns. All the documentation I've posted has been around handguns and explicitly mentioned it as have I several times.

yes they are different wound mecanics but energy transfer is to an extent energy transfer.I will try to make the corralation this way.a 100 lb. average joe probably doesn't punch with enough energy to knock the wind out of my fat ass but he could easily stab a 5/16" drill bit through my heart.this would equate to a 32 acp. yes it will poke a hole in your heart but tis not going to create a temporary cavity that knocks the wind out.
now take the pro heavyweight boxer not only is there enough energy to jab a 1/2" rod through my chest, he can punch hard enough to not only knock the wind out he may break ribs.now were talking the power of the upper end handguns say 10MM and it will poke a big hole through the heart and may just knock the wind out (damage lungs) with temporary cavity

Why do we have to keep trying to come up with analogies here? I want to someone to tell me why they believe it works that way.

http://www.brooksidepress.org/Products/OperationalMedicine/DATA/operationalmed/Manuals/NATOEWS/ch02/02Discussion.html[/url] ]
Many soft tissues (muscle, skin. bowel wall, lung) are flexible and elastic, having the physical characteristics of a good energy absorber. The assumption that tissue must be damaged by the temporary displacement of cavitation makes no sense physically or biologically.

So I've got the doctors telling me that temporary cavitation isn't going to hurt my lungs, you're telling me it is. Why are you to be believed, a real biological/physiological explanation is needed.

probably work great if all the BG were 6' 150 lb. wearing t-shirts and wouldn't hide behind stuff.sufficient penatration is still king.

Its probably about 4-6" of penetration, why do you believe that would be sufficient? There was a study in the 1991 Wound Ballistics Review Jounal by Eugene Wolberg where he checked out the real world performance of 28 147 gr winchester load in those shot by the san diego pd from bad guys bodies. It seems we expect its like just like poking in and touching the heart from the front of the chest but in reality its nothing of the sort. Penetration depth is seldom measured it seems but in this study the average length of the wound was 13.2" Two rounds had penetrated to 13.5-14.5" and were stopped just under the skin. Wolberg speculated that they could have penetrated more deeply but that the skin has a "holding in" effect. For as many times as I've read people say "12 inches is excessive penetration" i think its quite telling that out of 28 wounds the average is so high. The most shallow wound was 10", and the deepest was 17" Neither of those two were about to exit the body.

At the end of the day I've got no horse in this race. I don't know any of you or any of the authors of the papers being cited. I just want to have something in my handgun that has the best chance of stopping an attacker. I want there to be scientifically sound evidence supporting the opinions of those I take advice from. I want it to be treated as seriously and with the same type of proper sound methodology as drug research or a physics paper for college.

 

[boomstik45]

Well said, Soybomb. It's my opinion that what's best in your handgun for stopping an attacker is what's still in there after the first round is gone....the second, third, fourth, ....you get my drift.

 

[Kentak]

While the amount (debated) of actual tissue and organ damage that is caused by a round's permanent and temporary cavity is a big part of this equation regarding stopping effectiveness, what about other factors?

How does a good gut punch take an aggressive drunk down? Obviously, not by tissue destruction.

Pure speculation, I know, but might a "higher" energy handgun round, through the internal shock of temporary cavitation, contribute to the debilitation of the attacker without necessarily adding to tissue damage?

Intuitively, that just seems like a real possibility to me and shouldn't be discounted.

K