The hydrostatic shock theory?

[Loosedhorse]

they are making a case for what is effective on a detirmened threat, hydrostatic shock does not stop them, temporaory cavity does not stop them, only loss of blood pressure leading to incapacitation or death stops them reliably, aside from a CNS shot anyway.

So, is the conclusion is that 83% of those shot by LEOs were simply not that determined, or that they were rescued despite lethal injury, or that they received non-fatal injury that nevertheless incapacitated them by blood loss or neurological injury? Because 83% ended up injured, not dead.

BTW your statement "hydrostatic shock doesn't stop them" is exactly what we've been discussing. I think if you added "every time" to that statement, everyone would agree; if you add "ever," now many would disagree.

Only a small handful of people have tried to depate me on this topic, and usualy those who have tried don't know enough about termianal ballistics to actualy debate, much less realize when they are just plain wrong. They just spout whatever they read on some highly bias website for whatever handgun caliber they worship.

I'm sure you don't include me or the others here in your broad, pre-emptive ad hominem swipe at those who hold a different opinion?

 

[Kachok]

I did in fact state that hydrostatic shock was not a reliable method of incapacitation, not that it never happens. Heck I have seen it on several occasions with rifle bullets on game anamals, but of all the handgun shots that I have seen on two legged and four legged targets that were not CNS hits non of them were bang flop kills, with the exception of a 44 magnum killing a traped hog at point blank range. When you are talking THAT kind of power on that size target, I will be very clear in stateing that rapid incapacitation via remote shock to the upper circulatory system causeing brain trama is not just possable but somewhat likley to happen. It is not really an instant kill, but the target bleeds out while unconscious.

 

[2zulu1]

I'm not sure what MacPherson's point here is.

The fact that Newton's Laws of Motion don't mention energy does not change the fact that Conservation of Energy is a law of physics. Energy is conserved in collisions: if a bullet hits an object and does not emerge, then all off the bullet's energy has been absorbed by (or dissipated by, or "dumped into") that object. Some of that energy is used for destroying tissue, some for creating (temporary) movement of tissue (and that movement is eventually changed to heat as the tissue again comes to rest), and some to shock wave (which also eventually becomes heat).

Fine. How does that argue for or against BPW? Why does it matter if Newton mentioned energy or not? He seems to be condescending ("... most of them aren’t really familiar..."), but for no cause, and to no purpose.Yes, or loss of CNS function. In other words, rapidly lethal wounds. And yet we know that the majority of those suffering handgun wounds survive.

WISQARS lists 326 law-enforcement-caused firearm deaths and 1663 non-fatal law-enforcement firearm injurys for 2008. The implication is that something other than lethal injury stops the majority of attackers. The FBI says we should ignore that; and from a "what you can plan for and predict" perspective, I see their point. But I'm not sure I ready to, as they do, simply ignore the results of most gunfights.

I would suggest you read MacPherson's book, Bullet PenetrationModeling the Dynamics and the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma, second edition 2006 printing.

481 and I did an experiment comparing a higher energy 10mm round vs a lower energy .45auto round. A simple explanation of why the momentum model is better than the energy transfer model;

Momentum vs Sectional Density
By 481


While sectional density is part of the overall terminal performance picture, that parameter is "redefined" at/during expansion. Penetration depth is inversely proportional to the expanded cross-sectional area of the recovered bullet and directly proportional to the velocity of the bullet at the instant of impact. The dimension of the frontal area of the expanded bullet induces drag (effectively behaving as a "brake" as it traverses the media) and when this dimension increases (final expansion diameter) drag increases by the square of the difference in the expanded radius which is effectively ΔA = πΔr2

Therefore, while the effect of the difference between the 10mm's and the .45's final expanded diameter might seem insignificant, it isn't.

The sectional density for each respective round decreases significantly and the one that expands proportionately less than the other gains an advantage in its 'new' and somewhat greater sectional density.

Numerically speaking, the 10mm's sectional density decreases from 0.16071 to 0.05278 (33% of its prior sectional density) and the sectional density of the .45 decreases from 0.16118 to 0.07105 (44% of its prior SD) allowing the .45 load to destroy 6.25% more soft tissue and penetrate 1.33 inches farther/deeper than the 10mm despite the 10mm load's greater KE (+214 fpe/ +53% more than the .45).

This phenomena clearly demonstrates why a "momentum" model is a better means of quantifying hard terminal ballistic performance than an "energy" model.

10mm 180 gr. Remington Golden Sabre JHP
Impact velocity: 1243 fps/618fpe
Average recovered diameter: 0.698"

Vcav = 389.302 fps
Mw = 58.906 grams (2.078 ounces)
Xcm = 33.361 cm (13.134 inches)

.45ACP Winchester Bonded PDX1 230 gr. JHP
Impact velocity: 889 fps (404fpe)
Average recovered diameter: 0.680"

Vcav = 392.366 fps
Mw = 62.603 grams (2.208 ounces)
Xcm = 36.748 cm (14.468 inches)

For obvious reasons, MacPherson does not support the hydrostatic shock theory.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I would suggest you read MacPherson's book, Bullet Penetration

A presumptive, condescending response. I've read it, although my copy is dated 2005. Perhaps you would be so good as to tell us on which page MacPherson explains why conservation of energy doesn't apply to wounding?

A simple explanation of why the momentum model is better than the energy transfer model

Momentum has the better correlation to permanent wound channel, yes. And if you have already decided that wound channel is all that matters for incapacitation, then you have your answer. But, your answer depends entirely on the assumption that permanent wound channel is the only method of incapacitation.

So it's a very good answer to the question I didn't ask, and a non-response to the one asked.

I asked: what about those 83% wounded?

 

[Kachok]

Permanate wound cavity is the single most important factor in terminal ballistics (aside from shot placement of course) concerning incapacitation with handgun rounds. Shock incapacitation is simply not reliable, not with 357 mags, not with 10mms and most certainly not with 9s 40s and 45s. I have yet to find any crediable study supporting shallow penatrating fragmented shock bullets as the best method of self defence. Every crediable source I have ever found has said the opposite, shock is great, but unlike high speed rifle bullets handgun rounds simply are not moving fast enough to stretch the soft tissue beyond it's elastic limits. Proper expansion and 12-18" penatration is what you need for effective terminal performance period. Virtualy all quality 9mms 40s and 45 HPs will perform within that range, none make a gallon sized shock cavity like a high speed rifle round, not even close, but they are still effective at stopping attacker that is what they are designed for.

 

[pisc1024]

So, is the conclusion is that 83% of those shot by LEOs were simply not that determined, or that they were rescued despite lethal injury, or that they received non-fatal injury that nevertheless incapacitated them by blood loss or neurological injury? Because 83% ended up injured, not dead.

So what percentage of those people shot by police, or anyone else in that matter, showed signs of brain damage that was not present beforehand? 83% of people were stopped by non life threatening wounds, so show me the numbers that indicate any of them have brain damage.... I have seen a few victims of gsw in my life, and none of them show any signs of TBI...

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Odd Job writes:

Thanks for providing that, Michael Courtney (I know you are traveling incognito, but you and I both know that it is well known who "Pasteur" is)

So, who is "Pasteur"?

Is this person Michael Courtney, Amy Courtney, or somebody else promoting/defending the Courtney's hypothesis on their behalf?

I've personally asked "Pasteur" if he/she is indeed one of the Courtneys but this person has refused to be honest and answer with a simple "yes" or "no". The usual response is an attempt to deflect the question.

Michael Courtney is known to run around various firearms related discussion boards (as well as Wikipedia) to post, promote, quote, and defend his pet theory - Ballistic Pressure Wave - to gullible laymen. Michael Courtney suddenly stopped posting after the mysterious "Pasteur" appeared a couple of years ago.

The Courtneys' "ballistic pressure wave" papers have been reviewed by Dr. Gary K. Roberts ("DocGKR" at M4carbine.net) and Dr. James S. Williams (see article about Dr. Williams by Massad Ayoob and Dr. Williams' website), and both have independently concluded that the claims made by the Courtneys (Pasteur?) are not supported by the references they cite.

Dr Williams responded directly to "Pasteur":

"Your deer-incapacitation study is, methodologically and physiologically flawed beyond description and in the real world, irrelevant. If you find the mathematics interesting, more power to you; but in terms of applicability to living physiological systems of any species, no conclusions can be drawn from your method and results."

Dr. Williams also wrote:

"I have been far too busy to do a detailed critique of the inferences and conclusions you have published based on the work of Gorannson and Suneson, but I have read your papers as well as having reviewed both Gorannson and Suneson's work. Not only have I reviewed them myself, but I have also reviewed them with other persons with extensive background in physiological research, both in vivo and in vitro.

Neither I nor anyone I have reviewed these papers with is particularly impressed with the applicability of these studies to the physiology of human GSW's. The papers published by Wong's group which you also rely on do NOT support the assertions you have ascribed to them, and upon which you based the hypothesis upon which you based your research questions."

 

[Odd Job]

For whatever reason, he doesn't want to post under his real name and he can neither confirm nor deny that he is posting under the name Pasteur. Probably not worth going into that: if he has two accounts on THR I'm sure the mods would sort it out, perhaps he even notified them before switching from Courtney to Pasteur for commercial reasons.
The main thing to note is that he is here in this thread, it's worthwhile acknowledging that and keeping it civil (and of course, knowing who it is who is supporting the hypothesis. We wouldn't want to accuse Pasteur of being a sock puppet)
Anyway, back to the discussion...

do NOT support the assertions you have ascribed to them

Dr Williams used a very good word there, the word is "ascribed" and it means attributed to. It is a recurring pattern in Dr Courtney's "works." He conducts or reports on an experiment and then attributes the results to the ballistic pressure wave.

My favourite example of this is the raccoons in buckets experiment:

http://www.ballisticstestinggroup.org/lotor.pdf

He ascribes the incapacitation of these raccoons to a ballistic pressure wave and notes that there was one case (in the rifle group) where a raccoon died immediately and several cases where raccoons died within 24 hours.
What I would liked to have seen, BEFORE ascribing these deaths to coupling of a ballistic pressure wave to the raccoons' bodies, is cause of death or at LEAST the exclusion of drowning or focal head injury as the mechanism. It isn't unreasonable to ask this, because if you have a raccoon trapped in a bucket and you rapidly displace water by means of gunshot, it isn't a far stretch of the imagination to wonder whether these raccoons aspirated the water from the bucket. It is also not unreasonable to enquire whether these raccoons hurt themselves on the rigid milk crate when the shots were fired and they tried to get away. He doesn't document whether they thrashed around in the buckets during the 3 seconds they were trapped there. There is a lot of stuff he doesn't document, and you have to ask why.
It is an interesting ethical paradox also: Dr Courtney previously refused to do the deer testing he has recently referenced (albeit without control subjects and with rifle injuries) on the grounds that the deer may sustain head injuries when falling which could confound any documented findings of intracerebral damage. The sprinkles on this delicious pie was his apparent reluctance to bait the deer over a soft landing for fear of resprisals by PETA.

Shooting deer over a soft landing = bad, but shooting raccoons in buckets and observing them die up to 24 hours later = okay.



You have to ask yourself why he didn't have those animals analysed by certified veterinarians. The same applies to the original deer experiments: what assurance do we have that the rapidly "incapacitated" deer were not subject to a musculo-skeletal incapacitation?

He ascribes the results of the deer shooting to the ballistic pressure wave.
He ascribes the results of the raccoon shooting to the ballistic pressure wave.

The best thing he has done in the last 5 or 6 years on this mission, is the last set of deer tests where he has documented physical evidence of haemorhages in three deer shot with rifles.
The integrity and value of that experiment is subject (in my opinion) to the dependencies I mentioned in a previous post. We have yet to see those.

However, I stand by what I said, which is (with the provisos mentioned) that the last experiment cannot be dismissed out of hand. It's a small sample with no controls and no handgun injuries, but nonethless it is the right direction to be heading in my opinion. With that last valuable evidence in hand, I have to wonder why he insists on referencing Strasbourg Goat tests and Marshall and Sanow data. If you have a PhD and you are on a mission to get a hypothesis moved into the arena of a generally accepted theory, surely it is best to stick with clean data from legitimate experiments?

Pity it took all this time to do it, he might have had less resistance if he had set out to do the experiements in a forthright manner without the abovementioned chicanery from the start. Dare I say it, he might have saved some money also.

 

[Loosedhorse]

So what percentage of those people shot by police, or anyone else in that matter, showed signs of brain damage

First, I do not conclude that those incapacitated by BPW (presuming that happens) would show any overt "sign" of brain damage (depending on what you mean by sign; loss of consciousness is a sign); they might have pathological findings on autoptsy, but few survivors volunteer for that!

Again, concussion victims typically show no brain changes on standard neuro-imaging; that does not change the fact that they suffered concussion. So, if a BPW-incapacitated person showed no neuro-imaging changes, that fact would be similarly not exclude a BPW.

And lastly, I didn't claim that 83% of the shot were stopped by BPW; I claimed they were not stopped by rapidly fatal injury. Therefore, saying that inflicting massive hemorrhage or significant CNS damage (wounds that would be rapidly fatal) is the way attackers are incapacitated is proposing a theory that seems to miss 83% of the actual incidents.

Some of us are still interested in that 83%, even if we are told that only the 17% were incapactiated "the right way."

 

[Kachok]

Too many variables in that 83% figure. The mindframe of the shootie, drug use, number of cops in the situation, shot placement, proper bullet expansion, health of the shootie prior to being shot........etc. I only like to deal in tangiable facts that can be tested over and over again. Everything else is so subjective since nobody not even the FBI keeps a detailed statistics log of every shooting, attempts have been made to compile such lists but have been so heavly tainted by bias that they have all been worthless. Common sence has to come into play somewhere to cut throuh the BS. The larger the wound canal and deeper the penatration the more blood bearing organs can be damaged and the faster the loss of bloodpressure. The 124gr 9mm Gold Saber makes an impressive 5.1 cu in wound canal, the 155gr .40cal Gold Dot makes a slightly larger 5.9 cu in wound tract, and the 230gr Gold Saber 45 ACP make a monster 6.3 ci in wound all penatrate to the 14" range, all make a 25 cu inch+ temporary cavity if you put stock in that stuff. I would not hesetate to use any one of those in an emergengy situation.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Okay. So, "too many variables" and "too subjective" means we should ignore the 83%, and concentrate on the 17%. Because only the 17% is free of BS?

No alternative?

 

[Kachok]

No don't ignore any facts, God only know it is hard to find them through the piles of BS, just take them with a grain of salt since there are so many variables involved. I just don't buy that shock took down those 83% that did not die. No 45 357 or 10mm is a 100% one shot stopper that is no secret. Most of the time once someone is shot it makes them much more complient, you usualy don't have to keep shooting, I have seen more then my fair share of shootouts (none in person thank God), I spent two years in LE in Texas.

 

[pisc1024]

First, I do not conclude that those incapacitated by BPW (presuming that happens) would show any overt "sign" of brain damage (depending on what you mean by sign; loss of consciousness is a sign); they might have pathological findings on autoptsy, but few survivors volunteer for that!.

I would think that if a person was shot and stopped solely by the damage caused to the brain he or she would exhibit permanent signs of brain damage. This would by similar to the signs of TBI exhibited by military personnel who were the victims of an IED strike. These military personnel display these signs immediately after the strike, and will continue to show signs of TBI long after if not permanently. Why then has there never been a study or even a question of people who were victims of GSW possibly exhibiting signs of TBI too?

Again, concussion victims typically show no brain changes on standard neuro-imaging; that does not change the fact that they suffered concussion. So, if a BPW-incapacitated person showed no neuro-imaging changes, that fact would be similarly not exclude a BPW.

What is being clamed by Dr Courtney is damage to the brain that is more than just a concussion. So while you may or may not be able to see a concussion (I honestly don't know), you should be able to see the damage spoken of by Courtney.

And lastly, I didn't claim that 83% of the shot were stopped by BPW; I claimed they were not stopped by rapidly fatal injury. Therefore, saying that inflicting massive hemorrhage or significant CNS damage (wounds that would be rapidly fatal) is the way attackers are incapacitated is proposing a theory that seems to miss 83% of the actual incidents.

Some of us are still interested in that 83%, even if we are told that only the 17% were incapactiated "the right way."

There are other factors that are involved with how a person reacts to being shot. These factors are the "intangibles". You can't assign a number on a chart to them. They can't be taken into account as a known factor. That being said, you should never count on them being in your favor. The guy who is attempting to assault you may piss his pants at the mere sight of a fire arm in your possession, or he may be a combat vet who is not fazed by being shot at. You just don't and can't know until after the event has played out. That being said, I feel that Courtney and others are trying to come up with an explanation for the inexplicable. I think that people are reaching for straws. This is fine and dandy, but in the real world it is a dangerous train of thought. People are trying to account for something that they simply cannot quantify. This may lead them toward round X which has a higher velocity, but less penetration. Some may think that if 1100 FPS is good, then 1300 should be better. This is simply not true.
I guess at the end of the day, load what you will in your blaster, and I'll do the same. I however will depend on proven designs, and things that can be tested for in a real lab setting. This works for the FBI, and many other LE agencies in America, and has worked for me in the past. That is good enough for me.

 

[shadow9]

...IMHO, this thread ended with the post "it's applicable with High-velocity rifle cases, and inapplicable with pistol cases", or something to that note (too lazy to go back and re-quote exactly)

While we can study and bounce %'s back and forth and get scientific about the details, in real-life, you gotta take it ALL in one big ball, because that's how life works. There is the general statistic, then there's the anomalies; the people that have been able to put two .32ACP rounds into both ventricles, or the person that got 7 .45ACP's to the torso, and minus a lot of holes and 3 weeks of painful healing, had no major damage. SHOT PLACEMENT. PERIOD. That's as much as you EVER need to calculate in your ballistics decisions and carry decisions.

As far as HydroStatic shock...well, when we were training in the morgue for embalming school, a "trade-trick" is to apply SLIGHT pressure to the sternum/chest, which COMPRESSES the internal organs enough to actually INFLATE the jugular vein - which we need to utilize to facilitate drainage during the embalming process. Mind you, this thing is as thin as tissue-paper, stretches like a rubber band, but a sharp finger-nail will snap it in half before you can say "oh, ****".

THAT said, think for a second folks. We all know that the FASTER something hits something else, the more kinetic energy is imparted. Car-crashes. Motorcycle-crashes. A 22LR vs a .223 hitting a watermelon (which makes the watermelon pop?). This causes a Temp Wound cavity (which will vary on bullet tilt or shape), which we're ALL familiar with in ballistics tests. Also, mind you, the human body is comprised of 70% water, ideally. Trust me, it looks ALOT different without that 70%.

Now, if you're STRETCHING the tissues OUTWARD away from the bullet, but they're not BREAKING (see Permanent wound cavity), and that STRETCH is confined to an area (the rib-cage/peritoneum), then in order to make SPACE for that stretch, you are COMPRESSING those tissues TOGETHER, CardioVascular system INCLUDED. The aortic arch, the subclavian, the brachiocephalic, the ventricles and atriums, the arterioles and the alevolae are ALL affected with a high-speed centre-mass shot.

Now, if my hand applying SLIGHT pressure could actually INFLATE the jugular enough to PUSH surrounding tissues aside so I could see it, in an UNPRESSURIZED CV system, imagine what an ALREADY PRESSURIZED system would do if you took the internal organs, especially those in the thoracic cavity, and COMPRESSED them together at VERY high speed(and I'm talking compression in amounts of shoving them into spaces 75-85% of their normal "real estate" allowed), then that's going to INSTANTLY deflate the surrounding CV system.

Since our CV system is all hooked together, it's gonna shove that blood above the impact, UP, and the blood below the impact, DOWN. Well, in an upper-thoracic hit (which is close to the head, and the farther up we go, the smaller the pipes get) there's ALOT of pressure through the CV system upwards, and it all meets up in the circle of willis in the brain. That's alot of blood, at once, in a tiny space, meant for minimal pressure, and with weak-piping. ENTIRELY plausible for a bullet impact to cause a remote cerebral hemorrhage with that sort of pressure, provided the bullet is:


A) Big enough (.375 H&H, .416 Rigby, .458 Lott, etc. etc.), or-
B) Moving VERY quickly.


Simply put:
Ever seen the disruption of a 5.56 passing through 12x12x16 of Ballistic Gel? It doesn't leave a huge hole behind, but for a few seconds, the block gets about 220% larger while the bullet is going through.
Make your water-filled thoracic cavity, namely it's organs, 190% larger, instantly, and tell me where THAT blood's gonna go...


Just my uneducated opinion in laymans terms on the matter. Dissect and disparage as you may.

Cheers!


P.S. - final note: The HydroStatic shock theory I doubt would work on a femoral-shot or a tibial-impact, or even one to the axillary or brachial regions. There just isn't enough physical tissue to compress there to cause remote damage, or in the case of the femoral, you're fighting the whole CV system from the artery to the neckline, and you're fighting gravity. Short story, you'll take the leg off or blow the thigh apart/break the femur much before you pressure-spike the CNS.

 

[Loosedhorse]

just take them with a grain of salt

Agreed.

I would think that if a person was shot and stopped solely by the damage caused to the brain he or she would exhibit permanent signs of brain damage.

Again, it depends on what is meant by "signs". But while signs of "functional deficit"--almost always temporary--are defining of concussion, physical evidence of brain trauma is not. Go figure. It is that feature that for years caused concussion to be underestimated, especially in contact sports.

What is being clamed by Dr Courtney is damage to the brain that is more than just a concussion.

No. The fact that vascular damage in the CNS has been seen in some cases of remote bullet injury gives plausibility to the idea that force is trasmitted to the CNS. It does not then follow that tissue damage is required to cause change of consciousness. Petechial hemorrhage (for example) is variably visible on MRI, depending on extent--and again is typically not seen in simple concussion.

I feel that Courtney and others are trying to come up with an explanation for the inexplicable.

I think any scientist would take that as high praise. However, perhaps you meant "assigning a false explanation."

We should remember the fable of the guy searching for his keys at night under a lamp-post. Passerby tries to help: "So where'd you drop them?" "Over there, about 20 yards away." "So...why are you looking here?" "Because this is where the light is."

The researchers who choose to ignore the 83% of shootings do so because they don't have a model to explain them, so they confine themselves to the light of their particular lamp-post. The Courtneys have decided to wander away from that lamp-post...and may in time build another. But the scientific effort realizes that the really interesting answers are out there in the dark, and someone needs to look for them, even while others claim it's just too dark.

 

[2zulu1]

Now, if you're STRETCHING the tissues OUTWARD away from the bullet, but they're not BREAKING (see Permanent wound cavity), and that STRETCH is confined to an area (the rib-cage/peritoneum), then in order to make SPACE for that stretch, you are COMPRESSING those tissues TOGETHER, CardioVascular system INCLUDED. The aortic arch, the subclavian, the brachiocephalic, the ventricles and atriums, the arterioles and the alevolae are ALL affected with a high-speed centre-mass shot.

Now, if my hand applying SLIGHT pressure could actually INFLATE the jugular enough to PUSH surrounding tissues aside so I could see it, in an UNPRESSURIZED CV system, imagine what an ALREADY PRESSURIZED system would do if you took the internal organs, especially those in the thoracic cavity, and COMPRESSED them together at VERY high speed(and I'm talking compression in amounts of shoving them into spaces 75-85% of their normal "real estate" allowed), then that's going to INSTANTLY deflate the surrounding CV system.

The high speed compression you speak of has a time window of <1 millisecond during a gun shot wound.

The stretch cavity (temporary wound channel) will actually collapse and reform repeatedly with a diminishing amplitude until it settles down to what will be the permanent cavity during a time window of one to five milliseconds.

In service calibers, wound trauma incapacitation is caused by cell comminution and laceration.

 

[Kachok]

All reputable souces I have read treat fragmintation and temporary cavity as lesser secondary effects, while there are something their importance pales in contrast to the bullets primary function to crush and lacerate soft tissue. Now I do not have any hard scientific studies to back up this next statment so please take it with a few grains of salt, but from what I have seen over my years of hunting is that higher speed shock inducing projectiles seem to create a greater sensation of pain then low speed projectiles. Before you laugh at me take it to the extream for contrast. An arrow moving at only a couple hunderd fps can cause just as much rapid blood loss as most rifle bullets moving 10 times as fast, and both can reliably kill within seconds, but the deer shot with an arrow will almost always run off like nothing touched him at first. A deer shot with a 100gr 243 SP (very high perssure wave) will often casue them buckle a little on the side where they were shot, many times they will turn eraticly after being hit, Now I don't speak the deer language but I am just guessing he felt that more then an arrow. I would have to try it a few times with a large caliber slow moving bullet before I can say that with a great sence of certenty since arrows are very different then bullets in several ways, but it does seem logical. OK you can laugh now.

 

[Loosedhorse]

All reputable souces I have read treat fragmintation and temporary cavity as lesser secondary effects...

Well, you and I may have different definitions of "reputable," but perhaps we agree on Martin Fackler, and he says this:

In the Vietnam era, the major role played by bullet fragmentation in tissue disruption was not recognized (8). It is now appreciated (12-14) and documented (Fig 3) that bullet fragmentation is the predominant reason underlying the M-16's increased tissue disruption.

... A similar temporary cavity such as that produced by the M-16 (Fig 2), stretching tissue that has been riddled by bullet fragments, causes a much larger permanent cavity by detaching tissue segments between the fragment paths. Thus projectile fragmentation can turn the energy used in temporary cavitation into a truly destructive force because it is focused on areas weakened by fragment paths rather than being absorbed evenly by the tissue mass. The synergy between projectile fragmentation and cavitation can greatly increase the damage done by a given amount of kinetic energy.

There are, by the way, handgun rounds that produce both fragmentation and large temporary cavities. The Remington .357 125gr SJHP is perhaps the most famous, but there are others.

 

[brickeyee]

The high speed compression you speak of has a time window of ~ 1 microsecond during a gun shot wound.

Millisecnds maybe (0.001 seconds) but not microseconds (1e-6, 0.000001 seconds).

bullets are not moving that fast.

Even at 3,000 ft/sec a bullet only moves 0.003 feet (0.036 inches) in a microsecond.

In 1 millisecond it moves 36 inches.

 

[Kachok]

Well, you and I may have different definitions of "reputable," but perhaps we agree on Martin Fackler, and he says this:
There are, by the way, handgun rounds that produce both fragmentation and large temporary cavities. The Remington .357 125gr SJHP is perhaps the most famous, but there are others.

The 5.56 is a whole different story, I was talking in the context of handgun rounds, the 5.56 is moving fast enough to throw fragmentation outside the regular wound cavity causing a noticable secondary wounding effect. As well as a truly useable amount of shock. No handgun round not even the 357 mag can throw it's fragmentation outward a couple inches or more, it pretty much drags along inside the permanate wound canal. At handgun energy levels fragmentation is not a good thing anwyay, the deformation takes up excessive amounts of the bullets energy, and since it reduces the mass it automaticly reduces penatration. I have seen several 357 mag tests and none showed useful deep fragmentation outside of the wound canal.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I was talking in the context of handgun rounds

Ah, well, a late clarification is better than none, I guess. Some would consider this an attempt to rescue your false statement: "Er, uh, what I meant was..."

it pretty much drags along inside the permanate wound canal

Odd statement. Wherever a fragment goes, it defines an new, separate wound canal...so, yes, it travels with the permanent channel--the very one it creates.

Some examples:





Caption for this lower image: "By driving Nosler’s 135-grain JHP bullet at more than 1,500 fps, there is massive fragmentation. The result is a 10 mm load that does frightening things to a gelatin block."

Fackler does not make a requirement that the fragments be thrown "outward a couple inches or more"--that seems to be a requirement you yourself have added. And, those fragments shown above do seem to have traveled more than a couple of inches.

I get this circular reasoning a lot: fragments aren't important for handguns, because handguns only throw fragments so far, and we know that isn't far enough, because fragments aren't important for handgun rounds.

none showed useful deep fragmentation outside of the wound canal.

Again, as long as you get to define "useful", then that is obviously true--with useful defined as "whatever is beyond what handguns can do." You have given no evidence why handgun-style fragmentation would not be useful in producing, as Fackler puts it, "synergy between projectile fragmentation and cavitation."

 

[Kachok]

You know good and damn well that I was talking in context of handgun bullets so quit trying to skew every word I say! I have made no such insulting attempt on you. Just to claify for everyone I am speaking in the context of deep penatrating expanding bullets, not FMJs and not rounds designed to completly break apart on impact (like quickshocks). I am talking about hydrostatic shock in bullets that meet the requirements of LE use unless otherwise clearly stated. Those BG tests are still not showing me adaquate panatration with effective use of fragmentation, or a permanate wound cavity being noticably expanded by the shock wave stretching the tissue beyond it's elastic limits. So try again.

 

[Kachok]

This is that I am talking about, A bullet that drives to 14" even after passing through a bone plate, and leaves a nasty trail of fragments thrown outward of the permanate wound canal, creating hundreds of secondary wounds. This is NOT a handgun bullet, this is a 168gr Burger VLD, If a handgun bullet could create a similar effect I would shoot nothing else.

 

[2zulu1]

Caption for this lower image: "By driving Nosler’s 135-grain JHP bullet at more than 1,500 fps, there is massive fragmentation. The result is a 10 mm load that does frightening things to a gelatin block."

Fackler does not make a requirement that the fragments be thrown "outward a couple inches or more"--that seems to be a requirement you yourself have added. And, those fragments shown above do seem to have traveled more than a couple of inches.

I get this circular reasoning a lot: fragments aren't important for handguns, because handguns only throw fragments so far, and we know that isn't far enough, because fragments aren't important for handgun rounds.

It appears the illustration of the fragmenting 135gr Nosler @1500fps penetrated less than 7" of gel. The illustration you posted does not meet Courtney's 12" penetration recommendation.

In Courtney's own words;

Recommendations

The FBI recommends that loads intended for self-defense and law enforcement applications meet a minimum penetration requirement of 12” in ballistic gelatin.[8] Maximizing ballistic pressure wave effects requires transferring maximum energy in a penetration distance that meets this requirement. In addition, bullets that fragment and meet minimum penetration requirements generate higher pressure waves than bullets which do not fragment. Understanding the potential benefits of remote ballistic pressure wave effects leads us to favor loads with at least 500 ft-lbs of energy.

In response to your quote outlined in red above; in MacPherson's WTI book, that you claimed to have read, MacPherson clearly states why handgun bullet fragmentation is a bad thing for wound penetration.

As far as the 5.56 55gr FMJ bullet that was commonly used in Vietnam, the bullet was/is designed to fragment at the cannelure. I observed a VC who had an entrance hole above his left nipple and an exit wound out his left buttocks.

 

[Loosedhorse]

You know good and ... well that I was talking...

No. I have assumed you are articulate--remember, you claimed to be quite the debater--and mean what you say. As you insist, I remove the assumption that you are able to express yourself competently.

This is that I am talking about

Doesn't matter what you're talking about; what matters is your proof of your claim that the fragmentation of handgun bullets cannot produce the Fackler-stated synergy between fragments and temporary cavitation.

that you claimed to have read, MacPherson clearly states why handgun bullet fragmentation is a bad thing for wound penetration.

Which I claim to have read, and have read, despite your bald accusation of dishonesty. (More ad hominem--can you really not sustain your argument without it?).

Duh. Of course fragmentation decreases penetration, and of course MacPherson, having decided that penetration is all that matters, would note that.

However, to bring you up to date, we were discussing the "synergy between projectile fragmentation and cavitation" that Fackler mentions. Perhaps you were too busy thinking up witty insults to keep up? Feel free, by the way, to insult Fackler for not mentioning penetration in this "synergy" he supposes.

The illustration you posted does not meet Courtney's 12" penetration recommendation.

Courtney does not have a 12-inch minimum, despite your claim. Instead, he says:

Selection criteria should first determine the required penetration depth for the given risk assessment and application, and only use pressure wave magnitude as a selection criterion for loads meeting minimum penetration requirements.

So, do your risk assessment.

And the gel results--as I think you realize, but try to obscure--where offered simply to refute the tired, circular claim that "handgun bullets don't fragment enough to matter, because they're handgun bullets." If you are now agreeing that handgun bullets can actually fragment enough to be significant, we can shift the discussion on to penetration.

Remember: you are claiming that we MUST concentrate on penetration because temporary cavitation and fragmentation ARE NOT wounding mechanisms. But Fackler says they are, together, in which case there is synergy. When shown a handgun round that seems to utilizes those as valid wounding mechanisms, the shout goes out: "But only penetration matters!"

No. Fackler is talking about fragmentation and cavitation being actual wounding mechanisms, not producing BPW-incapacitation. If you are trying to utilize BPW, everyone claims that is undependable, so you should have a "back-up plan" like penetration (as noted by Courtney). If you are using fragmentation and cavitation as actual wounding mechanisms, you don't need an additional wounding mechanism--though some will still want penetration for additional reasons.