The hydrostatic shock theory?

[pisc1024]

The problem with the argument is no one on either side knows what actually goes on when a bullet hits someone. Clearly if blood loss was the only factor most gunfights would last until everyone was out of ammo. A perfect hit to the heart wouldn't have any effect for 10+ seconds. Clearly energy isn't the only factor or deer wouldn't run off after a good hit from a .300 mag.

You have to admit that psychology plays a part in it too. People have been taught to fall when shot from what they see it on TV etc. I think that accounts for a very large number of instant stops.

 

[2zulu1]

No, you didn't begin to address it.

The quote you cited has nothing to do with penetration levels required for the effectiveness of BPW nor does it in any way imply anything about the penetration levels normally associated with BPW. The quote is simply noting the fact that 300ft/lbs will generate approximately 500psi of BPW if the bullet comes to a stop after penetrating 12 inches of target medium.

This goes back to the earlier discussion on this thread about calculating applied force by dividing the kinetic energy by the penetration depth and then converting that force into a psi figure. Courtney is simply explaining the figures used in the calculation and being specific about how the BPW figures were obtained.That's pretty impressive. That partial sentence contains:

1. A strawman argument.
2. An ad hominem against those who note the validity of Courtney's claims.
3. An unfounded claim that is easily disproved with evidence provided by not only Courtney, but also others.
4. A failure to understand that even those experts who espouse penetration as the single most important factor in handgun wounding still recognize that temporary cavity and its effects are also part of "the wounding mechanism".

Ok, one at a time.

1. I'm not aware of any claims by Courtney indicating that BPW should be given the same consideration as all of the other effects that are wrapped into "the wounding mechanism. If you are, please cite them.

2. The fact is that Courtney has done his homework, research and experimentation properly and it is enough to convince anyone with a technical background and a reasonably objective viewpoint (not just the gullible) that BPW is a wounding mechanism that does contribute at least some of the time to incapacitation and therefore needs to be better understood.

3. BPW is a probabilistic effect, but it is not unproven. On the contrary, its validity has been quite well established. Furthermore, "undependable" is a reasonable characterization of any of the wounding mechanism components. There is no single parameter of the wounding mechanism components that will always insure rapid incapacitation.

4. While there are those experts who try to heavily discount temporary cavity and its effects (such as BPW), it is not possible to totally dismiss it. Nor is it possible to completely explain attacker incapacitation without including all of the known wounding mechanisms, to include temporary cavity, BPW, penetration, psychological effects, etc.

Really???

And the Ballistic Testing Group (that now includes fisheries science) has contracted with what agencies to do what kind of research?

Perhaps it's time to repost this statement by Courtney:

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.

No evidence of hydrostatic shock in those who were shot in the face and jaws!

From Dr. Gary Roberts:

"...I was a member of the Joint Service Wound Ballistic Integrated Product Team, the U.S. government study that gathered numerous experts from a variety of disciplines, including military and law enforcement end-users, trauma surgeons, aero ballisticians, weapon and munitions engineers, and other scientific specialists to conduct a 4 year, 6 million dollar study to determine what terminal performance assessment best reflected the actual findings noted in OCONUS combat the past few years. Courtney's "hydrostatic shock" was NOT found to be a valid or relevant factor. Likewise, I work at a large Level I trauma center and get to treat people who are shot in the face and jaws--guess what, NO remote CNS or other "hydrostatic shock" effects of the type Courtney espouses have occurred in ANY of these patients.

"...JSWB-IPT was initiated in 2002 and concluded in 2006. I should note that the joint USMC-FBI ammunition study of 2006 also found the same results. Oh...and the CTTSO/TSWG MURG program of 2007-2008 also made the same conclusions. Please think through this--the JSWB-IPT, FBI BRF, AFTE, and other organizations get to assess an extensive amount of post-shooting forensic data; the whole raison d'être of these independent, non-profit organizations is to interpret and disseminate information that will help LE and military personnel more safely and effectively perform their duties and missions. Why would they discount or ignore a potentially important incapacitation mechanism if there was any validity to it? I challenge you to read through all of the papers cited in Courtney's work and then make you own conclusions--everyone I know who has done just that has walked away utterly unconvinced of their merit."

 

[2zulu1]

You have to admit that psychology plays a part in it to. People have been taught to fall when shot from what they see it on TV etc. I think that accounts for a very large number of instant stops.

You're correct about the psychology factor. People have fallen down when shot at and missed.

 

[JohnKSa]

What I should have said is this:
Courtney knows his claims are nothing more than B.S., so he saddles them with a PROVEN criteria. That criteria is the FBI recommendation of a min of 12" of pen. He dose this presumably so that he can sleep at night knowing that none of the people, like your selves, who he has suckered into buying into this crap will be killed or maimed due to using his THEORY in the selection of their bullet. This theory advocates the use of fragmenting bullets, and praises bullet deigns that FAIL to hold together in the human body.

Courtney knows that BPW is a probabilistic effect, and CLEARLY states that fact.

He also makes it clear that while BPW is a FACTOR in incapacitation, but it does not replace or supercede other factors.

In short, your assement of what the theory advocates is absolutely, 100% contradictory to what Courtney says about his own theory and the conclusions he draws from it. He is not discounting the importance of penetration, he is not advocating bullets that fail.

The fact that he points out that shallow penetration and fragmenting bullets CAN create high BPW does not mean that he advocates those things in bullet selection. He is very clear about the fact that he supports the FBI minimum penetration spec.

I suggest that instead of getting all worked up about this and creating strawmen, you simply read what Courtney says.

These designs have been proven to be a poor choice time and time again, you need look no further than the FBI's Miami shoot out.

And? Courtney's not advocating designs that "fail" as you put it. No one is.

This is a theory that claims that bullets strikes are comparable to the use of high explosives against your target.

No, it demonstrates that in some respects, there are similar effects. That's not the same thing at all as saying it's comparable.

It's got nothing to do with your writing skills, the problem is that you either haven't read what Courtney says/advocates/concludes or you've completely misunderstood it. You're trying to disprove claims that haven't been made, you're making statements that you apparently feel are contradictory to Courtney's claims but that aren't, and you're saying he advocates things that he doesn't.

The FBI recommends that loads intended for self-defense and law enforcement applications meet a minimum penetration requirement of 12” in ballistic gelatin.

The 12" minimum penetration is a spec set by the FBI.

Maximizing ballistic pressure wave effects requires transferring maximum energy in a penetration distance that meets this requirement.

So since we need to penetrate a minimum of 12" to stay within the FBI spec, we need to look at how to transfer maximum energy while meeting the penetration spec (12").

Does that make it clearer? He's not saying that you need to penetrate 12" to get BPW effects, he's saying that you need to penetrate 12" to meet FBI specs (which he ALSO advocates) and as a consequence he's going to orient his calculations/research to how to transfer maximum energy WHILE still meeting the spec.

Said a different way, he's saying he supports the importance of the FBI minimum penetration spec and so he's using that spec in his calculations. His research, testing and calculations clearly indicate that BPW is achievable with very little penetration--even no penetration per the testing using water as the coupling medium.

And the Ballistic Testing Group (that now includes fisheries science) has contracted with what agencies to do what kind of research?

They are no longer involved in fisheries science, for whatever that bit of information is worth. The Courtney's have worked in blast injury, internal, external and terminal ballistics for about a decade and are currently doing research for the U.S. military in that field.
http://www.btgresearch.org/MWCCV2010R.pdf

As far as Gary Roberts' quote, there has been readily available hard evidence (high-speed X-Ray photographs) of the remote effects of temporary cavity in animals (including broken bones and displaced internal organs) for close to 50 years. I don't know if Roberts was exaggerating to make a point or if he's really as uninformed as that quote makes him sound.

Neither am I. On the other hand, he must certainly believe that such speculation has some degree of merit or he wouldn't be trying to sell it.

If you're not aware of any evidence that he's trying to convince people that it's "worthy of the same consideration" then why would you claim that he is trying to convince people that it is "worthy of the same consideration"? How does that make any sense?

No, he has not. His dubious research methodology and his misleading supporting citations have been called into question....

I'm well aware that he's certainly stirred up some ire amongst the "establishment". But regardless of what's been claimed by those with an axe to grind, it's quite clear that his research results agree with observed real-world effects, mesh well with other similar testing and that his science is sound.

If it is not unproven, then it must have been proven. It has to be one or the other, Chief.

It is demonstrable via repeatable experiments and the results agree with the science and the predicted results. That's what is called "proven" in the scientific community. The fact that it is a probabilistic effect (undependable, if you wish to use that terminology) does not change the fact that it is proven.

"Probabilistic" is a far, far cry from "proven".

It is indeed. I'm not sure what to make of that non sequitur since I made no such claim.

Probabilistic merely refers to the fact that the BPW effect is not observed every time even using the same loading and roughly the same shot placement, but that it is possible to predict how often it will occur with reasonable accuracy.

TC is not the same as the unproven phenomena being suggested and putting words into my mouth is worse than arguing with no facts at all.

BPW is very much an effect of temporary cavity, I'm surprised that you don't understand that. BPW and TC are essentially two manifestations of the same thing. Once one realizes that fact, it becomes much easier to discount some of the attempts to discredit the BPW theory.

Hmmm....so much for arguing one's position with nothing more than strong personal opinions...

If you want citations or supporting evidence then all you have to do is ask. I'll do my best to provide them.

 

[hatt]

You have to admit that psychology plays a part in it to. People have been taught to fall when shot from what they see it on TV etc. I think that accounts for a very large number of instant stops.

No doubt. Now the question is do some rounds make people give up faster than other rounds.

 

[pisc1024]

No doubt. Now the question is do some rounds make people give up faster than other rounds.

My point is in this whole thing that no one round will make any one give up faster except a CNS hit. I think that some rounds are much louder, and put on a more spectacular show like the .357 mag, or .357 sig. It is my opinion that this accounts for some of the spectacular stops seen. I know on a range, I can tell right away who is firing the .357's!

 

[pisc1024]

The fact that he points out that shallow penetration and fragmenting bullets CAN create high BPW does not mean that he advocates those things in bullet selection. He is very clear about the fact that he supports the FBI minimum penetration spec.

I suggest that instead of getting all worked up about this and creating strawmen, you simply read what Courtney says.

From the recomendations in his PDF.

"In addition, bullets that
fragment and meet minimum
penetration requirements generate
higher pressure waves than bullets
which do not fragment."

It sounds to me like he is recommending bullets that fragment. Or am I creating another straw man argument?

I think you miss understood what I wrote in my last post. I was saying that he knows that his theory is still unproven. I think that we can all agree on that can we not, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
With that he wants to cover his own ass so-to-speak, so he embraces the FBI standards too. I think that if you look critically at his work, you'll see what I'm talking about.
Who is getting all worked up here? I'm not, quite frankly I could care less what you put in your gun, it doesn’t matter to me one bit.
And yes, I have read his work, and find it amusing.

 

[481]

I'm well aware that he's certainly stirred up some ire amongst the "establishment". But regardless of what's been claimed by those with an axe to grind, it's quite clear that his research results agree with observed real-world effects, mesh well with other similar testing and that his science is sound.

It is demonstrable via repeatable experiments and the results agree with the science and the predicted results. That's what is called "proven" in the scientific community. The fact that it is a probabilistic effect (undependable, if you wish to use that terminology) does not change the fact that it is proven.It is indeed. I'm not sure what to make of that non sequitur since I made no such claim.

You'd do yourself a favor by familiarizing yourself with what constitutes the scientific method and reproducibility. The experiments can be repeated (run again) but the conditions are not reproducible due to sloppy execution, methodology and a lack of controls- shooting critters immersed in buckets of water in the back of a barn just doesn't cut it. None of these "experiments" rise to the level of being valid or repeatable (capable of yielding reproducible data under the same conditions and c can't/won't do that even though he has been asked to) under the tenets of the scientific method.

Despite your insistence that his science is sound, it has been debunked as having a lack of suitable controls, the cited references in support of the claimed phenomena found to be dishonestly applied (by the authorities named earlier) and as such has been relegated to the trash heap much as it should be.

Probabilistic merely refers to the fact that the BPW effect is not observed every time even using the same loading and roughly the same shot placement, but that it is possible to predict how often it will occur with reasonable accuracy.

Compounded by the lack of controls and the disengenuous source citations, it amounts to conjecture at best.

BPW is very much an effect of temporary cavity, I'm surprised that you don't understand that. BPW and TC are essentially two manifestations of the same thing. Once one realizes that fact, it becomes much easier to discount some of the attempts to discredit the BPW theory.If you want citations or supporting evidence then all you have to do is ask. I'll do my best to provide them.

Confusing cause for effect is not a strong position from which to make your argument. I'm surprised that you don't understand that.

Temporary cavity is a tangible, measureable, provable event, as seen in the high speed photography of calibrated ordnance gelatin undergoing ballistic testing whereas bpw is one effect claimed to be caused by the temporary cavity. Not "the same as", but "caused by" the temporary cavity.

As for the offer of those ad hoc citations- no thanks, I am good. After reading, and digesting at length, the papers cited by c in support of his allegations, I am in agreement with those (Fackler, Roberts, Williams, MacPherson, et al) who've by their accomplishments demonstrated each their considerable acumen in the field of study (while adhering to the tenets of the scientific method) and have no need of any further lay interpretation of what has already been addressed by those individuals mentioned above.

The effect being alleged can be brought 'round for discussion for as many times as the Mod's'll permit it, but such continued attempts to breathe life into the decaying corpse of c's allegation does not mean that it has any more validity than it did the first hundred times that it was brought up.

 

[Kachok]

Well establised points about hydrostatic shock.
1 It does in fact exist as a remote wounding effect.
2 It can cause rapid incapacitation via a concussion like effect, though that is VERY rare at handgun speeds.
3 While hydrostatic shock is a factor in bullet wounding it is minor in comparison to the PWC, hence handgun defence bullets sould be designed to maximize the permanate wound cavity through 12"-18" of soft tissue rather then dumping energy on contact.
4 The TWC does in fact damage tissue that is not included in the PWC figures, this is a very nasty very deep bruising, it does not contribute much to the rapid loss of blood pressure, but in my personal estimation a bruise pattern as wide and deep as a 357 magnum can deliver would hurt far worse then a .45 cal slug plowing at slow mo speeds even it the 45 does leave a larger PWC.
My conclusion hydrostatic shock is far from a myth and even further from a reliable method of stopping a determined attacker. While it should never be the primary design function of your bullet, good bonded JHPs tend to create just as much or nearly as much TWC as "shock bullets" AND they reach an adaquate level of penatration. As with most things in debate the truth is in the golden middle as we say in Russian.

 

[pisc1024]

1 It does in fact exist as a remote wounding effect..

Prove it...

2 It can cause rapid incapacitation via a concussion like effect, though that is VERY rare at handgun speeds..

Prove it... Prove that it can happen at any reasonable handgun speed. Prove it.

3 While hydrostatic shock is a factor in bullet wounding it is minor in comparison to the PWC, hence handgun defence bullets sould be designed to maximize the permanate wound cavity through 12"-18" of soft tissue rather then dumping energy on contact..

If it is so minor, then why are you making such a big deal about it? If it is so rare in handgun velocities and when it dose happen the effects are minor, then I don't get why your undies are in such a twist about it when people tell you that it isn't real?

4 The TWC does in fact damage tissue that is not included in the PWC figures, this is a very nasty very deep bruising, it does not contribute much to the rapid loss of blood pressure, but in my personal estimation a bruise pattern as wide and deep as a 357 magnum can deliver would hurt far worse then a .45 cal slug plowing at slow mo speeds even it the 45 does leave a larger PWC.

What hurts more, a 357 or a 45? Getting shot hurts, I doubt a person would rate a .357 as a 10, and a 45 as only an 8 on a 1-10 scale. But in the end I honestly don't know as I've not been shot by either one so I can't tell you either, you may in fact be right.

...good bonded JHPs tend to create just as much or nearly as much TWC as "shock bullets" AND they reach an adaquate level of penatration.

Agreed 100% with this^^^^

 

[Kachok]

OK want proof watch a deer get hit with a Ballistic Tip at 3200fps, they go limp on contact a good percentage of the time, the TWC is so intense you can see their whole torso expand. Any hunter who hunts with an ultra high speed medium bore rifle can vouch for that. I have seen a handgun do that only once and it was a 44 magnum.
My undies are not in a twist about it and I don't make a big deal about it until some company builds handgun bullets that sacrafice real performance for "shock" that upsets me, because I know that is foolish and making people buy into it just to sell a crappy product should be criminal.
I would not want to get shot by either as well, I am basing that statement on the results I have seen from high speed vs low speed bullets on game + the very nasty bruising (gunshot meat) that comes with high speed expanding bullets.
Long ago I bought into the shock theory as the primary method of terminal performance because it just looked so dramatic on the high speed footage, but after years of reserch I found it to be unreliable at best.

 

[JohnKSa]

It sounds to me like he is recommending bullets that fragment. Or am I creating another straw man argument?

Yes, that is a strawman argument. OBSERVING that fragmenting bullets with shallow penetration create high BPW is NOT the same thing as RECOMMENDING bullets that fragment and have shallow penetration.

He clearly does not recommend that kind of bullets because we know he recommends that people should stick with the FBI minimum penetration spec.

Who is getting all worked up here? I'm not, quite frankly I could care less what you put in your gun, it doesn’t matter to me one bit.

This has nothing to do with what I put in my gun. If you read my comments on this thread, you'll see that I've made it plain that while I admit that BPW is established as fact, I don't believe that, at this time, BPW should be used as anything other than a selection criterion between loadings that meet all other commonly established criteria for effectiveness. Basically that it makes more sense than flipping a coin.

...conditions are not reproducible due to sloppy execution, methodology and a lack of controls- shooting critters immersed in buckets of water in the back of a barn just doesn't cut it.

You either haven't read the paper or you're intentionally mischaracterizing the methodology. The pertinent factors in the experiment were controlled and carefully explained in the paper.

Despite your insistence that his science is sound, it has been debunked as having a lack of suitable controls, the cited references in support of the claimed phenomena found to be dishonestly applied (by the authorities named earlier) and as such has been relegated to the trash heap much as it should be.

It has not been debunked, it has been attacked, with the reasons you have cited provided as some of the ostensible bases for the attacks. It's extremely telling that none of his detractors have actually attempted to replicate the experiments although all of the more noted critics cited on this thread have the resources to easily do so.

...disengenuous source citations...

So, have any of the sources that Courtney has cited come forward and complained that he has "disengenuously" used their material? I have seen no evidence to that effect.

Temporary cavity is a tangible, measureable, provable event, as seen in the high speed photography of calibrated ordnance gelatin undergoing ballistic testing whereas bpw is one effect claimed to be caused by the temporary cavity. Not "the same as", but "caused by" the temporary cavity.

BPW and temporary cavity are both created by the application of force which creates pressure. One could say they're both caused by the same thing, or one could just as reasonably say that the abrupt formation of the temporary cavity creates BPW. They both exist and are inextricably linked. Like temporary cavity, the magnitude of BPW is measurable. The link below shows picture of a pressure trace of a BPW measurement done in 1945.



In addition, it can be calculated and the calculations agree with the measurements, just as one would expect. There is no question as to the existence of BPW at this time, nor has there been for well over 60 years.

Prove it...

Look at the picture I posted. Are you really saying that 600psi has no remote wounding potential? Remember that pressure level was measured 6 inches from the track of the projectile.

Prove it... Prove that it can happen at any reasonable handgun speed. Prove it.

Courtney's experiment with water as a coupling medium (no bullet penetration of the test subject) and using handgun ammunition demonstrated an incapacitation effect on some of the test subjects. The experiment and its results are published and have been linked on this thread.

 

[Odd Job]

JohnKSa, do you have any academic stake or commercial interest or association with the Courtneys or their "Ballistics testing Group?"
Just curious.

 

[481]

You either haven't read the paper or you're intentionally mischaracterizing the methodology. The pertinent factors in the experiment were controlled and carefully explained in the paper.

Again, as for the offer of these ad hoc citations- no thanks, I am good to go and have no need of any further lay interpretation of what has already been addressed by the highly experienced and professional individuals mentioned previously.

It has not been debunked, it has been attacked, with the reasons you have cited provided as some of the ostensible bases for the attacks. It's extremely telling that none of his detractors have actually attempted to replicate the experiments although all of the more noted critics cited on this thread have the resources to easily do so.

What constitues "debunking" in one's opinion is "attacking" in another's. It is an emotional distinction. Same process. Stop hiding behind semantic subtleties.

As for the lack of replication of such haphazard procedure why would anyone want to waste their time chasing unreproducible effects produced by such shoddy work and technique?

The lack of controls, the multitude of confounding factors and the disengenuous source citations make the "conclusions" drawn hopeless conjecture at best. It speaks to their intellect that Fackler, Roberts, Williams, MacPherson, et. al. were not gullible enough to duplicate such dubious methodology.

So, have any of the sources that Courtney has cited come forward and complained that he has "disengenuously" used their material? I have seen no evidence to that effect.

Your question assumes that his source's silence regarding his misapplication of their work implies a tacit approval of his disingenuous behavior. The question put forth is premised upon an unsustainable assumption and has the odor of desperation about it.

 

[Loosedhorse]

we know he recommends that people should stick with the FBI minimum penetration spec

I'm not sure he says that. He does say (second time I'm quoting it)

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.

I read that as saying that the person or agency selecting ammo should do a risk assessment; so, he would recommend that the FBI stick with the FBI minimums (as well as any other persons or agencies that feel the FBI's minimums work for them, too).

JohnKSa, do you have any academic stake or commercial interest or association with the Courtneys or their "Ballistics testing Group?"
Just curious.

It's not a "Just curious" question, but rather one intended to undermine credibiity. A common theme of yours: it's not what you say, it's who you are that matters.

In any case, your question would only be pertinent if there is reasonable belief that what is said in this thread will influence someone's monetary or academic fate--and that seems highly unlikely to me.

Are you, in turn, willing to state that you have neither financial nor ego interests tied to the outcome of this discussion (either of which might affect your judgment)? Fair's fair--but I'd rather argue facts and interpretations than "who's who."

What constitues "debunking" in one's opinion is "attacking" in another's. It is an emotional distinction. Same process. Stop hiding behind semantic subtleties.

Completely untrue. "Attacked" indicates an attempt to damage or destroy; "debunked"--the word you originally used, and which JohnKSa commented on--indicates a completed task of disproving. We can agree that the BPW theory is being attacked, debated, argued against, etc. But not that the outcome of the discussion is decided.

The person hiding behind semantics--and finding it necessary to change from his previous past participle to a present-progressive gerund to do so--is you.

 

[Odd Job]

It's not a "Just curious" question, but rather one intended to undermine credibiity. A common theme of yours: it's not what you say, it's who you are that matters.

Actually JohnKSa is a respected member on more than one board, I just don't understand his subscription to some of the elements of Courtney's research.
Anyway I am sure he can answer that question (if he feels like it) without your help, as gallant as it is. He is a big boy.

Are you, in turn, willing to state that you have neither financial nor ego interests tied to the outcome of this discussion (either of which might affect your judgment)? Fair's fair--but I'd rather argue facts and interpretations than "who's who."

I have no academic stake or commercial interest tied to either "side" of this debate. Which is what I asked him.

 

[481]

Completely untrue. "Attacked" indicates an attempt to damage or destroy; "debunked"--the word you originally used, and which JohnKSa commented on--indicates a completed task of disproving. We can agree that the BPW theory is being attacked, debated, argued against, etc. But not that the outcome of the discussion is decided.

The person hiding behind semantics--and finding it necessary to change from his previous past participle to a present-progressive gerund to do so--is you.

Both terms are valid descriptions of the process presently underway even if you refuse to believe it.

Those perceiving themselves as being on "the losing side" of this debate have chosen to employ the emotionally charged term of "attacked" as they watch the demise of a theory that they've tied their emotional little red wagons to, but a debunking it has been (courtesy of Drs Fackler, Roberts, Williams and Mr MacPherson, etc).

The outcome of this discussion has already been determined if you haven't figured it out already. In the end or whenever the thread is locked (inevitably), the hypothe-fanta-sis of bpw will remain unproven and your demonstration of "how to label tense" will still count for naught.

 

[2zulu1]

Since the Ballistic Testing Group list one of their specialties as Fisheries Science on their website;

http://ballisticstestinggroup.org/fisheriesscience.html

As avid outdoor sportsmen, the scientists at BTG Research also apply data gathering and analysis skills to contribute to improved wildlife management. We have found that this work also complements our educational efforts by providing motivating projects for students.

Topics of interest include weight, length, yield, and growth in fish. Figures below and left are from a 2010 study on cutbow trout in Colorado.

then the only way you could state this;

JohnKSa

They are no longer involved in fisheries science, for whatever that bit of information is worth. The Courtney's have worked in blast injury, internal, external and terminal ballistics for about a decade and are currently doing research for the U.S. military in that field.
http://www.btgresearch.org/MWCCV2010R.pdf

is because you know the Courtneys!

On another board, I asked Dr Courtney who some of his BTG clients were.

His response was that BTG client information was confidential. I can understand his response; however, one would expect that Courtney would have also stated that BTG's clients included Departments/Agencies at the local, state, national and international levels.

In 2009 Courtney accepted employment at the Air Force Academy, same time Pasteur joined THR, first post promoted his BPW position.

 

[Kachok]

No bullet is illigal if you roll your own, you think they are going to go to your relaoding bench and inspect how many grains of powder you are using?

 

[Shadow 7D]

***???
ktil
sorry buddy, just expect a number of corrections to what you just posted, cause you got your facts, um not straight.

I left this discussion once it got to pressure wave theory and related esoterics
my take, LOCATION
x3
esp. in such inadequate calibers that handguns come in

When we get to Gadzookums Blow-em-up-e-ems 6KPS ray guns, yeah, you got a point when you shoot the little toe and their ABDOMEN explodes and head pops off.

but we aint there yet

 

[JohnKSa]

JohnKSa, do you have any academic stake or commercial interest or association with the Courtneys or their "Ballistics testing Group?"
Just curious.

None whatsoever.

I just don't understand his subscription to some of the elements of Courtney's research.

I find it interesting for the following several reasons:

It explains observed results that other theories don't. For example, it explains why CNS trauma (instant drop-dead kills) are sometimes observed when animals are shot in the torso and the CNS is not actually hit.

The math is sound and the theory doesn't require that one attempt to discount any well-established aspects of the physics of motion.

The science is sound and doesn't require that one attempt to discount and/or dismiss easily measured and verifiable terminal ballistic effects.

As pointed out below, while he has taken a lot of abuse for his results, no one (even from among those who clearly have the motive and means to do so) seems willing to simply repeat his experiments to prove that he's wrong.

Because unlike many other ballistics researchers, he seems much more concerned with learning about ballistics than about attacking those with differing views.

And finally, it's not so much that I "subscribe" to the theory as much as it is that I occasionally object to the way someone tries to attack it. For example, I've not seen anything that suggests Courtney is advocating shallow penetration or fragmenting bullets. In fact, several folks have quoted from his works on this thread indicating that he endorses the FBI minimum penetration. Here's another quote from one of his papers.

... Bullet 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 bullets that meet a minimum penetration requirement.

Reliable expansion, penetration, feeding, and functioning are all important aspects of load testing and selection. We do not advocate abandoning long-held aspects of the load testing and selection process, but it seems prudent to consider the pressure wave magnitude ... along with other factors.​

You'd think that a statement that unequivocal and that clear would put an end to allegations about his recommendation of shallow penetration and fragmenting bullets, but it doesn't seem to matter much.

What really struck me initially when I first became aware of Courtney's work was that in spite of the fact that his results were plainly not intended to usurp or replace any existing selection criteria but only add to the collective knowledge of the terminal ballistics community, he was instantly attacked for intruding onto what certain members of the community apparently perceived as their turf. That was a most unscientific response, and I don't like to see unscientific responses. Science is about expanding knowledge, not about trying to discredit those who are perceived as a possible threat regardless of the value of their contributions.

What constitues "debunking" in one's opinion is "attacking" in another's.

Not at all. Attacking is attacking and debunking is debunking. If the Courtney's detractors wanted to actually debunk his results, all they have to do is repeat his experiments and then show that their results contradict his. Except of course that tactic would be highly undesirable if the detractors had good reason to believe the results wouldn't be contradictory. Which is, in my opinion, precisely why the "official response" has been limited to verbal attacks.

As for the lack of replication of such haphazard procedure why would anyone want to waste their time chasing unreproducible effects produced by such shoddy work and technique?

No, that's not how it works, and that's the beauty of science. You publish your methods and results and then they speak for themselves. If other researchers can't duplicate your results using your methods then your results are discarded. Happens all the time.

Most importantly, it prevents science from deteriorating to rhetoric and a war of words. There's no need to create and publish scathing criticisms, you simply repeat the experiment and demonstrate that the results aren't the same.

It speaks to their intellect that Fackler, Roberts, Williams, MacPherson, et. al. were not gullible enough to duplicate such dubious methodology.

Again, that's not how science works. If a scientist questions another results, he attempts to duplicate them. If he can't duplicate them using the published methodology then he publishes his results and methodology and things progress from there. It works very well.

it speaks volumes when one scientist badmouths another, lending some measure of credence to the results by focusing his attention on them, but then makes no attempt whatsoever to duplicate his experimental results.

Your question assumes that his source's silence regarding his misapplication of their work implies a tacit approval of his disingenuous behavior.

You claim that his cites are disengenuous and misleading, but most of them are from researchers who are currently active in the field and there's evidence that at least some of his sources are aware of his work. It follows that if he's truly misquoting them or misusing their work they would have something to say about it and yet I've seen no one present evidence that happening. It doesn't mean that it hasn't, but one would think that if such evidence existed it would be rapidly seized upon and publicized by Courtney's many detractors.

is because you know the Courtneys!

I haven't met the Courtneys. I got that information from his curriculum vitae--from the link you quoted in my response. That's also where I got the information about their current work for the USAF. Everything I know about the Courtney's I've found on the internet, either on firearm forums or by using internet search.

Besides, if you can't answer my arguments or come up with arguments I can't answer then it doesn't really matter who you know or who I know. These forums are a great equalizer. Because you can't show me your credentials and I can't show you mine, the outcome of the discussion will be determined not by who you know, where I went to school, where you work, or who I'm related to, but by the validity and strength of our arguments and the data we use to support them.

 

[pisc1024]

The link below shows picture of a pressure trace of a BPW measurement done in 1945.



In addition, it can be calculated and the calculations agree with the measurements, just as one would expect. There is no question as to the existence of BPW at this time, nor has there been for well over 60 years.Look at the picture I posted. Are you really saying that 600psi has no remote wounding potential? Remember that pressure level was measured 6 inches from the track of the projectile..

Your kidding me right? This is a graph of a 3/14 inch STEEL sphere moving at 3000 FPS. HOW IN ANYWAY DOSE THIS APPLY TO HANDGUNS? I should remind you that we are in the HANDGUNS:GENERAL DISCUSSION FORUM.
I'll help you out... There is no common defensive round made of steel. There is no common defensive round that is a sphere. There is no common defensive round that comes from a handgun that dose 3000FPS!!!!!!
Also what is the weight of this steel sphere? And again how dose this apply to what we are talking about?

Courtney's experiment with water as a coupling medium (no bullet penetration of the test subject) and using handgun ammunition demonstrated an incapacitation effect on some of the test subjects. The experiment and its results are published and have been linked on this thread.

So you are talking about trapping raccoons in a cage, dunking them in water and shooting the water they are in right? Once again how dose this prove your BPW theory? How dose this prove that it is a possibility in humans who have been shot by common defensive rounds from a hand gun?

 

[pisc1024]

The math is sound and the theory doesn't require that one attempt to discount any well-established aspects of the physics of motion.

You got one part right...

The science is sound and doesn't require that one attempt to discount and/or dismiss easily measured and verifiable terminal ballistic effects.

What science?

As pointed out below, while he has taken a lot of abuse for his results, no one (even from among those who clearly have the motive and means to do so) seems willing to simply repeat his experiments to prove that he's wrong.

How can you repeat the experiments? Deer? Realy? Dogs from China? Even better!!!

In fact, several folks have quoted from his works on this thread indicating that he endorses the FBI minimum penetration. Here's another quote from one of his papers.

... Bullet 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 bullets that meet a minimum penetration requirement.

Reliable expansion, penetration, feeding, and functioning are all important aspects of load testing and selection. We do not advocate abandoning long-held aspects of the load testing and selection process, but it seems prudent to consider the pressure wave magnitude ... along with other factors.​

You'd think that a statement that unequivocal and that clear would put an end to allegations about his recommendation of shallow penetration and fragmenting bullets, but it doesn't seem to matter much.

"In addition, bullets that
fragment and meet minimum
penetration requirements generate
higher pressure waves than bullets
which do not fragment."

'Nuff said....

 

[Odd Job]

JohnKSa says

The science is sound and doesn't require that one attempt to discount and/or dismiss easily measured and verifiable terminal ballistic effects.

Depends which part of the "science" you are talking about when you say it is sound. I have much more faith in Courtney's mathematics prowess than his ability to look at the result of an experiment and entertain possible causes for that result OTHER than what he ascribes it to. The raccoon experiment is a very clear example of this, yet you have referenced it several times despite the fact that:

1) We don't know why these raccoons died
2) We can't exclude aspiration
3) We can't exclude head injury

That's just the results, it doesn't even begin to address the question of ethics. It isn't enough to have the numbers correct, there is a certain ethics and integrity requirement also. That's the main source of the abuse he gets in my opinion, not his sums.

As pointed out below, while he has taken a lot of abuse for his results, no one (even from among those who clearly have the motive and means to do so) seems willing to simply repeat his experiments to prove that he's wrong.

The experiment that is worth repeating is the last deer experiment with the brain haemorrhages. I made some comments about that earlier, it would be nice to have:

1) A larger sample
2) Control subjects from the same population
3) Handgun injuries
4) Some discription, statement, or collaboration from a board certified veterinarian about the methods employed to detect this damage and the extent and distribution of this damage. Courtney has a PhD, this is the basics...

That last experiment shows promise. I am not in a position to set that up and do it (otherwise I would love to do it). As to why other people don't do it, you'll have to ask them directly. I can only assume it is because they don't think Courtney will get this into the arena it needs to be in before any commercial advantage can be enjoyed. That is just a guess on my part, though.

Because unlike many other ballistics researchers, he seems much more concerned with learning about ballistics than about attacking those with differing views.

I don't get the impression he is on a learning mission at all. My impression is, he has come up with a theory that could make him some money (either by the ammunition or the treatment). His aim is to get it into the arena where it is transitioned from a hypothesis to an accepted theory.
Trouble is, up to now he has used disparate references and flawed experiments where he has attributed those results to the BPW. I guess the fundamental difference between our perspectives on this is you are looking at the sums, and I am looking at the variables and the interpretation of the results.
Both facets are necessary to do the job right, you have to ask why he has not done it after being on this mission for at least six years.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Both terms are valid descriptions of the process presently underway even if you refuse to believe it.

No: "attacked" would be consistent with attempts to debunk the theory; "debunked" can only mean the process is complete, not "underway". I would have thought that was obvious, but I guess not?

The outcome of this discussion has already been determined if you haven't figured it out already.

I have figured out that either you think so, or you don't and are just claiming it. In either case, your statement is false.

I just don't understand his subscription to some of the elements of Courtney's research.

Then may I suggest that you ask your question in a form that does not imply ulterior motives and deception? To keep things, you know, polite and high-road?

Which is what I asked him.

Yes, and I explained why your question is very likely not pertinent. My question, which asked about your ego-stake (and which you declined to answer), certainly is pertinent.

On what grounds did you refuse to answer my question? Whatever those grounds, those are also valid reasons that you should not have asked your question.