The hydrostatic shock theory?

[Pasteur]

Papers documenting remote CNS wounding are relevant, because outdated (yet common references in these discussions) works such as HWFE, Bullet Penetration, and IWBA publications assert that temporary cavitation and tissue directly crushed tissue are the sole bullet wounding mechanisms. Remote wounding effects are necessary (but not sufficient) to support physiological incapacitation via “hydrostatic shock.” The data providing evidence for remote wounding effects contradicts supposedly “expert” opinions claiming that remote wounding does not exist. Science is based on supporting claims with published data rather than expert opinion. A long list of scientists and medical professionals have published data supporting remote wounding effects. In contrast, none of the (smaller) group making contrary claims have published work showing the lack of remote CNS wounding using detection techniques that would be sufficiently sensitive to see it in cases where it is expected from the shot placement and energy transfer.

Scientific discussion of incapacitation via of BPW is in terms of probability and averages rather than being an absolute predictor of outcomes in every case. This is consistent with standard practice in assessing the risk of injury and disease in the medical world. Thus the theory that “other factors being equal, bullets with higher ballistic pressure waves incapacitate more quickly, on average” or that “other factors being equal, a bullet creating a higher ballistic pressure wave is more likely to cause incapacitation in under five seconds” is analogous to the idea that “the probability of a broken bone increases with the height of the fall” or “the risk of a blast-induced traumatic brain injury increases with the blast wave pressure.” In contrast to the data-driven studies supporting the theory of more rapid incapacitation (on average), there is no published data contradicting the BPW theory as it predicts more rapid incapacitation. Rather than rehash the same tired opinions for the same handful of “experts”why not show some actual published data that might be capable of contradicting the theory either as applied to remote wounding effects or more rapid incapacitation?

Interested parties would do well to read the 2011 Neurosurgery paper and its citations as well as the 2007 Brain Injury paper and its citations. These papers appear in peer reviewed journals and if the citations did not support the claims they would be easy targets for peer-reviewed published replies in the same journals. However, if those posting criticism in internet forums attempted the same criticism in the peer-reviewed journals, I suspect the original authors, editors, and peer-reviewers would embarrass them with the reasoning and evidence presented in reply. Dialog in scientific journals is more limited to actual data and logic without the propensity to veer off into expert opinions and ad hominem attacks. What does it suggest when support for a theory can cite data from numerous scientific journals and opposition can only cite expert opinions from internet forums and a handful of outdated scholarly sources that also contain more opinion than relevant data?

The behind armor blunt trauma causing remote cerebral effects (depressed EEG, including flatlining and rapid death in some cases in human-sized pigs) occurs with pistol levels of energy transfer to the chest at 233, 386, 569, and 634 ft-lbs. As the energy applied to the chest is increased, the severity of EEG suppression and probability of death is increased. In the case of dogs shot in the thigh experiencing remote brain injuries, the energy transfer levels were 97 ft-lbs in the case of mild remote TBI and 546 ft-lbs for a more serious TBI. In the case of pigs shot in the thigh, 466 ft-lbs of energy and 570 ft-lbs of energy both produced transmission of significant pressure pulses to the brain and resulting damage. The study showing 33 cases of cerebrovascular damage (in 33 cases examined) in humans shot in the chest were with handguns with less than 500 ft-lbs of energy.

No one has claimed that hydrostatic shock/BPW is a reliable incapacitation mechanism at service handgun levels. However, nor is blood loss a reliable mechanism in the time span of most gun fights (less than 5 seconds). If the mechanism reduces the average time until incapacitation, then it is somewhat of a straw man fallacy to claim its absence in all cases except for truly instant incapacitation. Likewise, it is a fallacy to claim that absence of evidence of TBI in cases where sensitive detection techniques were not employed. Finally, when selecting ammunition, does it really matter whether the mechanism by which the BPW produces more rapid incapacitation is a remote CNS effect or a muculo-skeletal effect or a combination of both? Isn't knowing that increased BPW increases the probability of a positive outcome sufficient even if the mechanistic details are still under investigation?

 

[MachIVshooter]

Scientific discussion of incapacitation via of BPW is in terms of probability and averages rather than being an absolute predictor of outcomes in every case. This is consistent with standard practice in assessing the risk of injury and disease in the medical world. Thus the theory that “other factors being equal, bullets with higher ballistic pressure waves incapacitate more quickly, on average” or that “other factors being equal, a bullet creating a higher ballistic pressure wave is more likely to cause incapacitation in under five seconds” is analogous to the idea that “the probability of a broken bone increases with the height of the fall” or “the risk of a blast-induced traumatic brain injury increases with the blast wave pressure.”

Now this I think we can all finally come to an agreement on.

I'm still not particularly convinced that BPW is a mechanism of incapacitation with service caliber handgun rounds (as opposed to "handgun levels of energy"), but.....if two cartridges can achieve the same penetration and bullet expansion, we can factually state that the one doing it with greater velocity/energy will absolutely be at least as effective, and probably more effective.

 

[Kachok]

Loosedhorse when you have to deliberately and obviously remove everything from it's intended context that is not debating, that is a con game. Were that in an actual debate the modorator would not let you skew words any further, and no I don't beleve that it is an honest mistake nobody else here jumped to those stupid assumptions........only you. Now keep it between the lines.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Gosh, kachok--

You and others seem to KNOW an awful lot about what I "good and .... well know," about what I haven't read, and what a debate moderator would or wouldn't allow...

It's a pity that none of that is what this thread is about. But I begin to see why you prefer to always shift away from topic, to focus instead on me, ad hominem (as in calling me dishonest and stupid). Always easier to present insult rather than refutation.

Your apparent assumption that no one would notice your tactic suggests you hold all of THR in the same contempt you hold me.

I invite you to return to topic.

Remote wounding effects are necessary (but not sufficient) to support physiological incapacitation via “hydrostatic shock.”

Is it your contention then that micro- or macroscopically visiible vascular damage in the CNS will be present in all true cases of BPW-induced incapacitation?

 

[Mike1234567]

Kids, kids... Who's driving this thread? You're not going to be happy if someone has to pull this thread over.

 

[Kachok]

Gosh, kachok--

You and others seem to KNOW an awful lot about what I "good and .... well know," about what I haven't read, and what a debate moderator would or wouldn't allow...

It's a pity that none of that is what this thread is about. But I begin to see why you prefer to always shift away from topic, to focus instead on me, ad hominem (as in calling me dishonest and stupid). Always easier to present insult rather than refutation.

Your apparent assumption that no one would notice your tactic suggests you hold all of THR in the same contempt you hold me.

I invite you to return to topic.
Is it your contention then that micro- or macroscopically visiible vascular damage in the CNS will be present in all true cases of BPW-induced incapacitation?

First I never called you stupid, only an assumption that you made, yet again quit skewing my words. I felt it necessary to confront your aggressive attack on me, before going on any further. I don't hold you in any form of contempt, now please quit taking every word I say out of context, if you do not understand what I am saying please feel free to ask me to clarify, I will do so without hesetation. Misleading is not debating, let's not confuse the two. To anwser your question, it depends on how you classify incapacitation, if you are talking about rapid loss of conscienceness then most certainly yes. If you are talking about suspect ceasing to fight back then no I don't beleve that CNS damage is present in all cases of incapacitation because of the psychology of being shot triggers an instinct in most people to stop resisting arrest. The temporary cavity genarated by medium caliber handgun gunshot is no greater then that genarated by a stiff punch to the gut, and those don't usualy casue any CNS damage, but they can sure end a fight quickly, not becase of shock causing brain damge, simply becasue it hurts alot and interupts functions like breathing. Anyone who has ever been hit by a professional fighter knows this for a fact and does not need a scientific study to support it.

 

[Loosedhorse]

First I never called you stupid, only an assumption that you made, yet again quit skewing my words.

Distinction without a difference, buddy. Trying to get yourself off on a technicality.

"That was a completely moronic thing to say, but no, I didn't just call you a moron." Do you even believe this stuff yourself?

If you call a post inaccurate, and show where the inaccuracy lies, and reference a source that says your response is true, that's one thing. When you hurl around "stupid" and question honesty--everyone understands what you're saying, no matter your later denials.

(Oh, while I applaud your belated attempt to return to subject, the question you responded to was directed to Pasteur. The unanswered question for you still is: where is the evidence that fragmentation and temporary cavity don't have synergy when handguns are involved? But I wait in vain for an answer! Nevertheless, your reply is noted.)

Anyone who has ever been hit by a professional fighter knows this for a fact and does not need a scientific study to support it.

I have never been hit by a pro. You mean to imply that you have? I hope that you have not...at least not too many times: those concussions can add up!

 

[Mike1234567]

Okay, that's it... I'm pulling this thread over!! Momma, where's the belt??

 

[Kachok]

OK for the sake of the continued survival of this interesting thread let me be the one to wave the white flag here and call a truce, I am sorry if I insulted you, I don't think of makeing a stupid assumption is the same as being a stupid person, goodness knows I have made a few stupid assumptions and statements over the years, yet I don't consider myself a stupid person (you might disagree ) I have been hit many thousands of times by pro fighters, I spent five years training to fight in the UFC so I know a thing or two about phisical damage. Dixion's Dungon is not a place for the faint of heart. I will dig up some of the BG tests that I have seen to support my statement about the fragmentation at handgun speeds, it might take me a little while since they were saved on my old computer.

 

[Loosedhorse]

No problem, only thanks. Full credit to you--I seem to have taken things wrong. My apologies as well.

 

[Kachok]

OK here is one of a critical defence 125gr 357 magnum with visiable fragmentation most of it doing exactly what I said and remaining inside the permanate wound cavity, only two small fragments are visiable slightly outside of the PWC. http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/Page2846.htm
Here is one of a 9X23 Silvertip with heavy fragmentation, with only 1 large fragment reaching half an inch outside the PWC, no doubt the heavy fragmentation was the casue of it's sub standard penatration. http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/Page1479.htm
If these two very high speed calibers could not make effective use of their fragmentation, what makes you think a 45 ACP could at 550fps lower speed. That is the reson I tend to agree with the FBIs assesment that fragmentation at handgun speeds is not of any great benefit. In fact the opposite seems to be true seeing as it reduces penatration to sub standard levels in most cases.
Now contrast that with what the tiny little 5.56 does at 3100fps http://www.brassfetcher.com/US M193 bare gelatin.pdf That is effective use of fragmentation, throwing fragments 2" outside of the PWC, some even plowing their way in a mostly forward angle, and it still excedes the minimum penatration levels, not to mention a truly nasty shock cavity. That is why bullets at handgun speeds simply cannot be compared to those at rifle speeds, very different wounding effects are in play.

 

[Loosedhorse]

what makes you think a 45 ACP could at 550fps lower speed.

Not sure I ever mentioned .45 ACP as a fragmenting round candidate. The pistol rounds that could best make use of fragmentation would be high-speed rounds: .357 (Mag and maybe SIG), 10, 5.7; maybe even .40 with light bullets. (An instructor told me of his department's first use of a light-bullet .40 on a suspect: the coroner called and asked, "What kind of exploding bullet did your guy use???")

Right now, as we all know, LE specs rule the roost for the most part, so penetration is what most pistol bullets are designed for. If there was a stronger market demand for cavity-and-frag rounds, we'd see more rounds available that did that very well. Right now, the ones we have are that fragment do that almost by accident--and unfortunately they are uncommon enough accidents that we might not get much data on them, ever.

Except for that Rem .357 125gr SJHP (which neither of us can find a gel picture of); it has it all: frags, cavity, and penetration--and lots of shootings data. Still, it leaves us to speculate which one was the reason it works so well--better than rounds that penetrate more.

 

[Kachok]

If you were to design an ideal fragmenting round you would need a delayed fragmentation (about 4-5" delay) and have it seperate into uniform hardend fragments, since the deformation of lead accounts for much of the energy loss in softer bullet designs. Think of 3-4 hardend lead (high zinc content lead) segments thinly electorplated together. The tricky part is finding a way to delay the separation of the segments while having them reliably seperate. The delayed expansion and non-deforming hard segments will ensure adaquate penatration dispite it's multiple wound tracts. The key reason for the dealy is becasue you want the majority of your energy expended in the blood bearing organs rather then expanding it in the fat/muscle tissue like quick-shock and Safty slugs. I have spent years trying to figure out how to do that without a delayed contact fuse.
I have never seen a 357 mag wound tract that I thought of as an ideal example of terminal performance, but I will try to find the one you were talking about.

 

[hatt]

...but.....if two cartridges can achieve the same penetration and bullet expansion, we can factually state that the one doing it with greater velocity/energy will absolutely be at least as effective, and probably more effective.

That is how I've looked at it for years. With modern bullets you can play both sides. My .357 Sig with Gold Dots expands and penetrates as well as the heavy and slow selections. If the extra velocity helps somehow(clearly there are factors at work that we don't understand or else just about every gunfight would go on until all sides were out of ammo), I'm way ahead, if it doesn't, I'm just back where the others started.

 

[pisc1024]

The behind armor blunt trauma causing remote cerebral effects (depressed EEG, including flatlining and rapid death in some cases in human-sized pigs) occurs with pistol levels of energy transfer to the chest at 233, 386, 569, and 634 ft-lbs. As the energy applied to the chest is increased, the severity of EEG suppression and probability of death is increased.

So are you saying that some one who is shot wearing a blunt trauma plate will now receive brain damage from pistol bullets? I know more than one person who has been shot with body armor on, and not one of them exhibit signs of tbi. Also wouldn't this claim fail to jive with Courney's requirement for a minimum of 12" of penetration for the BPW effect to occur?

In the case of dogs shot in the thigh experiencing remote brain injuries, the energy transfer levels were 97 ft-lbs in the case of mild remote TBI and 546 ft-lbs for a more serious TBI.

So shooting dogs in the legs like the Chinese did is supposed to be applicable to a shoot out on the street how? I fail to see the correlation here call me closed minded or old fashioned, but it’s kept me alive this long.

No one has claimed that hydrostatic shock/BPW is a reliable incapacitation mechanism at service handgun levels. However, nor is blood loss a reliable mechanism in the time span of most gun fights (less than 5 seconds).

No one who has been in a gun fight will tell you that shooting someone and waiting for them to bleed out is the best option to stop that fight. The only way to stop a confrontation immediately is a CNS hit period. To think that there is some magic energy level that can be produced by common self defense hand guns that will increase your chances of stopping the fight is in my opinion a pipe dream. The whole "it may help or it may not, you just don't know" argument is not good enough for me. When my life is on the line, I want tangibles.

If the mechanism reduces the average time until incapacitation, then it is somewhat of a straw man fallacy to claim its absence in all cases except for truly instant incapacitation. Likewise, it is a fallacy to claim that absence of evidence of TBI in cases where sensitive detection techniques were not employed.

So you don't see it as equally a fallacy to claim that there is TBI in all these cases where "sensitive detection techniques were not employed"?

Also I loved how you completely dodged my question about your claim in ref to high explosives. I'm still waiting for a response on that one.

 

[pisc1024]

Right now, as we all know, LE specs rule the roost for the most part, so penetration is what most pistol bullets are designed for. If there was a stronger market demand for cavity-and-frag rounds, we'd see more rounds available that did that very well. Right now, the ones we have are that fragment do that almost by accident--and unfortunately they are uncommon enough accidents that we might not get much data on them, ever.

And for very good reason. This is backed up by years of study both in the lab and on the street. The fact is that current le ammo works and works well. COPS on the street are better armed now than they ever have been in the past. Police departments have learned from their mistakes ala the FBI's Miami shoot out. One thing that more and more agencies are learning is that velocity is not the king, it's adequate bullet weight and retention of same. This weight and retention allows them to routinely defeat barriers today that would have stopped bullets of 15 years ago, including the much praised 357 mag 125gr.

 

[JohnKSa]

So are you saying that some one who is shot wearing a blunt trauma plate will now receive brain damage from pistol bullets?

No, he's not. He is saying that the test results indicate that it is a possibility.

So shooting dogs in the legs like the Chinese did is supposed to be applicable to a shoot out on the street how?

No such claim was made. The point is that the tests demonstrate the potential for remote effects on the brain from relatively low energy levels.

So you don't see it as equally a fallacy to claim that there is TBI in all these cases where "sensitive detection techniques were not employed"?

Another strawman--no such claim was made.

The whole "it may help or it may not, you just don't know" argument is not good enough for me. When my life is on the line, I want tangibles.

Since Courtney acknowledges that penetration is important and quotes the same penetration spec as the FBI, the implication that one must choose one or the other is incorrect. The theory, at this point, provides a method to choose between two loadings or calibers that both meet the generally accepted standards for penetration and expansion.

You're arguing against points that nobody has made, trying to discount claims that haven't been made and creating the appearance of contradictions when none are present.

 

[pisc1024]

No, he's not. He is saying that the test results indicate that it is a possibility.No such claim was made. The point is that the tests demonstrate the potential for remote effects on the brain from relatively low energy levels.Another strawman--no such claim was made.

Well I guess I just don't read no good...

The behind armor blunt trauma causing remote cerebral effects (depressed EEG, including flatlining and rapid death in some cases in human-sized pigs) occurs with pistol levels of energy transfer to the chest at 233, 386, 569, and 634 ft-lbs. As the energy applied to the chest is increased, the severity of EEG suppression and probability of death is increased.

That to me seems to be a pretty definitive claim right there, but I guess I’m missing something.

In the case of dogs shot in the thigh experiencing remote brain injuries, the energy transfer levels were 97 ft-lbs in the case of mild remote TBI and 546 ft-lbs for a more serious TBI.

If he was only trying to demonstrate the POTENTIAL, then why is he bringing it up in a discussion about shooting people? If this was a discussion about shooting the neighbors dog, then your point would be valid, but it's not. The point is he is trying to compare shooting dogs, pigs, raccoons, and deer to shooting people bent on doing bad things. There is a difference, and yes it dose apply!

As for the straw man, yes he is making the claim that there is TBI, other wise we wouldn't be having this debate to begin with. It is pretty simple to me to see with my own eyes, but then again I don't read no good.

 

[JohnKSa]

The point is he is trying to compare shooting dogs, pigs, raccoons, and deer to shooting people bent on doing bad things.

At the risk of seeming to patronize you, I'll answer the unasked question.

He's discussing evidence collected from animal experiments because it is totally impractical/impossible/illegal to shoot people under laboratory conditions. By doing controlled experiments on animals, it is possible to develop and test explanations for effects that are observed in humans even when it is not feasible to directly conduct tests on humans.

That to me seems to be a pretty definitive claim right there, but I guess I’m missing something.

Yes, you are. Nowhere does the passage you quoted, nor does any other passage from the Courtneys quoted on this thread, make the claim that: "some one who is shot wearing a blunt trauma plate will now receive brain damage from pistol bullets". EEG suppression can be indicative of brain damage, but it isn't always.

...yes he is making the claim that there is TBI...

No, if you read what he says, he states that he's talking about "potentials", "probabilities", "risks", "averages", etc.

The second paragraph of Pasteur's post, the paragraph beginning with: "Scientific discussion..." addresses this issue very clearly.

 

[pisc1024]

At the risk of seeming to patronize you, I'll answer the unasked question.

He's discussing evidence collected from animal experiments because it is totally impractical/impossible/illegal to shoot people under laboratory conditions. By doing controlled experiments on animals, it is possible to develop and test explanations for effects that are observed in humans even when it is not feasible to directly conduct tests on humans.

Are you talking about the famous deer experiments, or the raccoon experiments? All of the experiments he speaks of are dubious at the best, or flat out lies at worst. I fail to see how shooting dogs in the legs applies realistically to what we are talking about. I fail to see how shooti g deer with rifles applies realistically to what we are talking about. I fail to see how the raccoon experiments applies realistically to what we are talking about. I just don't see the application of these experiments in real world ballistics. I see the point you are making, but looking at it with a critical eye,they just don't add up.

Yes, you are. Nowhere does the passage you quoted, nor does any other passage from the Courtneys quoted on this thread, make the claim that: "some one who is shot wearing a blunt trauma plate will now receive brain damage from pistol bullets". EEG suppression can be indicative of brain damage, but it isn't always.

But he is claiming the effect is there. This effect is present without Dr C's own requirements 12" of penetration. This would lead me to believe that he is 1 incompetent by contradicting himself, or 2 grasping at straws by saying that any bullet strike has the possibility of causing TBI.

 

[Loosedhorse]

And for very good reason.

Sure. But there is a difference between recognizing that emphasizing penetration has "very good reason" behind it (it does), and claiming it is the only game in town.

From a bullet designer's or manufacturer's standpoint, there is little economic sense in manufacturing a bullet that is designed to perform in a way that excludes it from LE contracts. I was just pointing out that their decision is economically, not scientifically, driven.

Small companies like DRT that emphasize a different technology will find it hard to get the type of large contracts that a company needs to survive, no matter if their handgun ammo is effective or not.

 

[2zulu1]

Well I guess I just don't read no good...

That to me seems to be a pretty definitive claim right there, but I guess I’m missing something.


If he was only trying to demonstrate the POTENTIAL, then why is he bringing it up in a discussion about shooting people? If this was a discussion about shooting the neighbors dog, then your point would be valid, but it's not. The point is he is trying to compare shooting dogs, pigs, raccoons, and deer to shooting people bent on doing bad things. There is a difference, and yes it dose apply!

As for the straw man, yes he is making the claim that there is TBI, other wise we wouldn't be having this debate to begin with. It is pretty simple to me to see with my own eyes, but then again I don't read no good.

You certainly bring up some very valid issues. Since you are on the cutting edge of blast protective gear and have real life experiences with this gear, suggests your statements can be used as reference and not merely opinion.

I'm not sure where Courtney (aka Pasteur) is coming from with his

In the case of dogs shot in the thigh experiencing remote brain injuries, the energy transfer levels were 97 ft-lbs in the case of mild remote TBI and 546 ft-lbs for a more serious TBI.

statement.

With the relatively few shooting experiences I've had with charging pit bulls, a non-head shot is relative to this discussion. On one occasion I didn't have time to use red dot sights on an M4 platform against a charging pit bull. At a PBR distance of about 12 feet, the 64gr Winchester Power Point hit within 2" of the shoulder/neck area causing the pit bull to cartwheel a short distance, thus stopping its charge. In that situation, the dog showed no signs of a BPW incapacitation, but a follow-up shot to the head was within 5 seconds.

 

[2zulu1]

Sure. But there is a difference between recognizing that emphasizing penetration has "very good reason" behind it (it does), and claiming it is the only game in town.

From a bullet designer's or manufacturer's standpoint, there is little economic sense in manufacturing a bullet that is designed to perform in a way that excludes it from LE contracts. I was just pointing out that their decision is economically, not scientifically, driven.

Small companies like DRT that emphasize a different technology will find it hard to get the type of large contracts that a company needs to survive, no matter if their handgun ammo is effective or not.

Are you a bullet designer, or are you offering your opinion relating to ammunition manufacturers motives being driven by greed?

Winchester spent over a million dollars developing their bonded Ranger/PDX line of ammunition and you're suggesting that Winchester's incentive was driven by economics, not science, to give their end users a top tier product?

I wonder if DRT spent a $1 mil R&D developing their line of ammunition?

 

[pisc1024]

With the relatively few shooting experiences I've had with charging pit bulls, a non-head shot is relative to this discussion. On one occasion I didn't have time to use red dot sights on an M4 platform against a charging pit bull. At a PBR distance of about 12 feet, the 64gr Winchester Power Point hit within 2" of the shoulder/neck area causing the pit bull to cartwheel a short distance, thus stopping its charge. In that situation, the dog showed no signs of a BPW incapacitation, but a follow-up shot to the head was within 5 seconds.

This is an excellent example of BPW not working. I was thinking of any one of a few times I've witnessed dogs shot, that failed to show any signs of BPW. None of the times I have seen though illustrate the point as well as this. Here you have a rifle and load, which by most accounts has the GREATEST likelihood of producing the BPW effect, fail to do so.

 

[pisc1024]

Small companies like DRT that emphasize a different technology will find it hard to get the type of large contracts that a company needs to survive, no matter if their handgun ammo is effective or not.

I'm sure that if DRT is as effective as claimed by the owner of the company every LE agency in the country would have it, or demand it.