GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-03-2010, 08:13   #221
Bones13
Member
 
Bones13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Directly above the center of the ea
Posts: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by glock20c10mm View Post
And the above quoted text by uz2bUSMC is the reason I've computed the numbers to see where various common SD cartridge loads stand comparatively.

How did you compute these numbers? What is the source data? Has the computation been validated by empirical testing?

The kinetic energy is listed after "KE", penetration depth is listed after "P" and is based on clothed gel for ALL rounds, expanded bullet diameter is listed after "E", wound volume is listed in cubic inches(ci) and is based on 12" penetration for ALL rounds unless a specific round couldn't manage 12" penetration, and in the last column in pounds per square inch(psi) is the peak ballistic pressure wave. Please note - for PBPW, for any round that fragmented to any extent, the PBPW is actually higher than what's shown. All PBPW numbers assume zero fragmentation. Very generally, for the PERCENTAGE a round fragments, that same percentage would be added to the PBPW in psi.

Again, where do you get the formula and how do you know it's accurate? Why do you say fragmentation would increase peak pressure? That's very counter intuitive. Drop a big stone in water, get a big splash. Drop a handful of sand of equal weight, not so much.

Most of the HST #s and Speer Gold Dot #s are based on averages from the ATK workshop results with various police departments. Those that aren't based on an average were tested only 1 time. Those workshop results can be viewed in their entirety here - http://www.le.atk.com/general/irl/woundballistics.aspx

Win 380auto T Series, 95gr, 1000fps, KE=211, P=7.95, E=.64, 2.6ci, 507psi


Those ATK workshops are pretty good, but they also represent very small sample sizes. The source is inherently biased simply because they were conducted by ATK and not an independent body. It might be perfectly clean data but it has to be replicated by someone else in order to eliminate that source of bias. How did you derive wound volume? Penetration X average expansion? Is there a published study correlating this to actual observed wound volume? Is there any published research that would correlate your method of calculating PBPW to actual observed pressures?

It seems like an awful lot of work for some thing as ephemeral as BPW. You calculated a bunch of numbers, but does it really mean anything?
__________________
The Audacity of Nope
Bones13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2010, 11:58   #222
Mrs_Esterhouse
Senior Member
 
Mrs_Esterhouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by glock20c10mm View Post
and in the last column in pounds per square inch(psi) is the peak ballistic pressure wave.
How is the PSI calculated? Is there a formula?
__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
-Sir Winston Churchill

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Member
Mrs_Esterhouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2010, 14:14   #223
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones13 View Post
......

Courtney may be able to demonstrate that Ballistic pressure waves can cause brain injury but there is a wealth of data that shows that it is not a reliable or repeatable phenomenon. I'd be willing to accept that injury can occur in this manner and that it is more likely to occur with a more energetic round, etc., but I don't think anyone could ever create a pistol or rifle round that is guaranteed to stop as a result.

In short, BPW may exist but you can't count on it because it's effects are unpredictable.
This is an extraordinary idea that is repeated by many as though it settles the argument.

Courtney's data shows quite precisely that BPW effects are repeatable on a probabalistic basis. He even gives good approximations of the probability of incapacitation for particular peak pressures given that they are accompanied by sufficient penetration. This is all related to incapacitation within 5 seconds.

What more can you possibly expect? Almost everyone here will accept that being shot with a pistol bullet does not guarantee a stop and in principle the probability of a stop and the times associated with different bullets and vital organs hit could be established. The fact that the practical problem of doing so means that we will be unlikely ever to have this information makes no difference to the fact that the result of being shot with a pistol bullet has a probabalistic outcome that cannot be relied upon. In spite of this you are prepared to rely on "tried and true" strategies which, according to the authorities you support, take to long to stop the fight or present too difficult a target under most circumstances to stop a fight with practical reliability of shot placement. That is, bleed out and a CNS hit.

Along with this you set an impossible target for the reliability of BPW effects of a "guarantee" of a stop which is ridiculously above the probability of a stop that can be achieved by your tried and true methods.

English
English is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2010, 16:14   #224
Bones13
Member
 
Bones13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Directly above the center of the ea
Posts: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
This is an extraordinary idea that is repeated by many as though it settles the argument.

Courtney's data shows quite precisely that BPW effects are repeatable on a probabalistic basis. He even gives good approximations of the probability of incapacitation for particular peak pressures given that they are accompanied by sufficient penetration. This is all related to incapacitation within 5 seconds.

What more can you possibly expect? Almost everyone here will accept that being shot with a pistol bullet does not guarantee a stop and in principle the probability of a stop and the times associated with different bullets and vital organs hit could be established. The fact that the practical problem of doing so means that we will be unlikely ever to have this information makes no difference to the fact that the result of being shot with a pistol bullet has a probabalistic outcome that cannot be relied upon. In spite of this you are prepared to rely on "tried and true" strategies which, according to the authorities you support, take to long to stop the fight or present too difficult a target under most circumstances to stop a fight with practical reliability of shot placement. That is, bleed out and a CNS hit.

Along with this you set an impossible target for the reliability of BPW effects of a "guarantee" of a stop which is ridiculously above the probability of a stop that can be achieved by your tried and true methods.

English
I'm not saying at all that the debate is over, but the answer is still the same regardless: handguns suck at stopping people and even rifles and shotguns offer no guarantees. There's too many variables. The problem is turning what we know into something we can do. We can even quantify what is necessary for a projectile to make a stop according to "tried and true methods"- adequate penetration for a hole deep enough to reach vital structures, large or expanded projectile to make a bigger diameter hole. But you still don't know what's going to happen until it happens.

Your claim that BPW raises the probability for a stop "ridiculously above" that of recognized physiologic methods is extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is it?
__________________
The Audacity of Nope
Bones13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2010, 17:26   #225
chewybaca67
Senior Member
 
chewybaca67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 5,274
Send a message via AIM to chewybaca67 Send a message via Yahoo to chewybaca67
Quote:
Originally Posted by hikerpaddler View Post
It's an unbelieveably average and mildly overpriced round! Amazing! Al Queda is switching to it! ! (random exclamation mark unassociated with a statement). Next up - CHOLESTEROL proving to be an unbelieveable manstopper?????

Not a thing wrong with .357sig except that it's generally overpriced. Middle of the pack in performance. 9mm, .357sig, .40S&W, .45ACP, all fine rounds. I dig all the manstopper, force transfer, exit wound overanalysis. Shoot them with bullets, (not that that's very likely to happen in a ccw situation, but it's remotely possible), and anything from 9mm up is quite likely to work.
Which is exactly why I reload it, as with just about every other cart. I shoot. 357 Sig uses 9mm bulets (the basic Rem 124 grain H.P.'s seat fine), I get an average of 1530 fps, which is more that most 357 mag published data with a 125 grain h.p.
But still, most pistol cart. are fine.
__________________
"Come out and fight!................It is a good day to die."
Chief Dan George
chewybaca67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2010, 17:38   #226
DustyJacket
Gold Membership
Directiv 10-289
 
DustyJacket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Missouri, East of KC
Posts: 6,101
I would like to get a .357SIG some day.

However, I don't consider any pistol round, or rifle round to be an unbelievable manstopper. For that, it would take one COM shot and the body explodes.

(Although the 40mm shot round for the M203 may be close. I know 3 rounds of that fired prone put a hurt on my shoulder. I believe they have 27 pieces of 00 buskshot and I think it is supersonic.)
__________________
"...our quick technology allows use to indulge our deepest stupidity and tastelessness with out first thinking...."
DustyJacket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2010, 17:57   #227
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Bones13,

Have you read Dr.C's papers? Can't remember if you said you did or not and I'm being lazy, not wanting rummage through these threads...
__________________
- Without idiots, there would be no baseline for common sense.

- "Our country went through a transition during the last election where the parasites came together and outnumbered the hosts." -jdavionic
uz2bUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2010, 19:09   #228
remat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by dahahn View Post
Would you care to share with me papers that show empirical evidence of this please?
Kind of ironic asking for empirical evidence when talking about Strasbourg....

Last edited by remat; 02-03-2010 at 19:13..
remat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2010, 20:14   #229
Bones13
Member
 
Bones13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Directly above the center of the ea
Posts: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by uz2bUSMC View Post
Bones13,

Have you read Dr.C's papers? Can't remember if you said you did or not and I'm being lazy, not wanting rummage through these threads...
Yes, what they're saying makes a certain amount of sense, but even they make serious qualifications to their assertions.

Quote from "The Ballistic Pressure Wave Theory of Handgun Bullet Incapacitation", section titled "Conclusion and Limits of Interpretation".

One should not be overly impressed by the propensity for shallow penetrating loads to produce larger pressure waves. 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. 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.


This statement clearly places BPW as, at best, a secondary mechanism of injury.

There are a lot of papers linked on their website, but a few issues come to mind. Maybe it's just me, but I could not find where some of their research was published. The quoted article for instance, does not seem to be published in any peer reviewed journal. Peer review is essential, as is independent replication and subsequent academic criticism. A given study is only as good as it's ability to stand up to subsequent research. Self publication is entirely useless.

They also seem to rely fairly heavily on the Marshall and Sanow data as well as the Strasbourg goat tests. Both data sets have been heavily criticized and has not been duplicated. They cite Suneson, et.al., but that research has been subject to serious criticism as well. In one paper they discuss incapacitation by rifle rounds and blithely extrapolate to handguns, which doesn't strike me as a valid conclusion.

Nowhere do they convincingly state that it is possible to calculate the likelihood of TBI based on muzzle energy, yet this is exactly how their research is being interpreted. The one clear graph purporting to relate TBI to PSI is based on the Strasbourg data and comes with the following caveat:

"The clinical implications of these analyses are that about half of patients who have sustained a gunshot wound to the chest that produced a local pressure wave of 1000 psi or greater are likely to have experienced the rapid (neurological) incapacitation effect and may have experienced mild to moderate TBI."

Yet they "recommend" ammunition that produces at least 500psi. Why? That is not convincingly explained. Some of their claims are based on an assumption that human brains are more susceptible to TBI than goats because goat's heads are designed for butting, yet the physical mechanism of injury from BPW is far different than head butting. Head butting is an inertial injury from the brain striking the skull while TBI from BPW is supposed to be a rapid transient change in intra-cranial pressure. Yet somehow they derive a mathematical method for expressing this difference and apply it in a pretty graph to bolster their argument. Flimsy stuff at best.

Another confounding factor is the existence of BTG research as an independent for-profit organization. They seem to be in the business of providing professional consulting services to government. They really should be conducting and publishing all of their research under the auspices of an academic institution. A maxim in research design is that money ruins everything. These folks are selling something, and that does not make for unbiased research. Other researchers must also duplicate their results experimentally. Without independent confirmation they have nothing.

Their research would seem more appropriate in terms of alerting emergency physicians of the possibility of brain injury rather than as a criteria for selecting ammunition.

There isn't anything truly compelling in this body of research. Is there reason to conduct further research? Certainly, but even the Courtneys admit that it's an unreliable secondary effect of bullet wounds. Personally, I'm more worried about being able to hit the target.
__________________
The Audacity of Nope
Bones13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2010, 20:52   #230
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
This statement clearly places BPW as, at best, a secondary mechanism of injury.
That statement has been repeated many times here.

Quote:
The quoted article for instance, does not seem to be published in any peer reviewed journal.
Their papers have been peer reviewed, don't have the link discussing this at hand however.

Quote:
They also seem to rely fairly heavily on the Marshall and Sanow data as well as the Strasbourg goat tests. Both data sets have been heavily criticized and has not been duplicated.
No, they don't. I asked if you read their information, not perused ...
They ascertained that the strausburg tests were real based on their results compared to the goat tests and this would in turn coorelate to M&S data, but they only "rely" on their research. -quick summary-

Quote:
In one paper they discuss incapacitation by rifle rounds and blithely extrapolate to handguns, which doesn't strike me as a valid conclusion.
+

What are you talking about here? There could be several answers to what you are asking, so I need to know specifically what that is?

Quote:
Yet they "recommend" ammunition that produces at least 500psi.
Because this is where the numbers begin to show usable results.

Quote:
That is not convincingly explained. Some of their claims are based on an assumption that human brains are more susceptible to TBI than goats because goat's heads are designed for butting, yet the physical mechanism of injury from BPW is far different than head butting. Head butting is an inertial injury from the brain striking the skull while TBI from BPW is supposed to be a rapid transient change in intra-cranial pressure. Yet somehow they derive a mathematical method for expressing this difference and apply it in a pretty graph to bolster their argument. Flimsy stuff at best.
The misconception here is that because the cause is different so must be the effect. This is not the case. The effect is the same, that would be the point. The goats resiliance to butting would coorelate to their resiliance to TBI. A human would be more suseptable to both effects from both activities. Makes perfect sense. (IMHO)

Quote:
Another confounding factor is the existence of BTG research as an independent for-profit organization. They seem to be in the business of providing professional consulting services to government. They really should be conducting and publishing all of their research under the auspices of an academic institution. A maxim in research design is that money ruins everything. These folks are selling something, and that does not make for unbiased research. Other researchers must also duplicate their results experimentally. Without independent confirmation they have nothing.
Then you better not ever read anything by Dr. Martin Fackler, he was all about the cash cow titled "IWBA".
Also, people do have to gain funding for their research, it's not free.

Quote:
I'm more worried about being able to hit the target.
And this belongs in tactics and training. In CC, we dicuss the issues concerning what that bullet does when it hits your target. This is also a rediculous statement made over and over again which leads me to say "No $h1t" and then why would someone say this but still debate terminal ballistics? Because someone finds validity in BPW does not mean they do not care about hitting their target, and that has never been implied.
__________________
- Without idiots, there would be no baseline for common sense.

- "Our country went through a transition during the last election where the parasites came together and outnumbered the hosts." -jdavionic
uz2bUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 10:33   #231
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones13 View Post
......

Your claim that BPW raises the probability for a stop "ridiculously above" that of recognized physiologic methods is extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is it?
If you read my final paragraph again:
Quote:
Along with this you set an impossible target for the reliability of BPW effects of a "guarantee" of a stop which is ridiculously above the probability of a stop that can be achieved by your tried and true methods.

English
you will see that I am not claiming that "BPW raises the probability for a stop "ridiculously above" that of recognized physiologic methods" but that the test of worth you are applying is ridiculously above the test that you, and most BPW deniers, apply to "recognized physiologic methods". That is, you are asking for a guaranteed 1 shot stop from BPW effects before you will consider it to be of use but you accept that pistol bullets will need multiple sound hits to produce a stop with "recognized physiologic methods".

English
English is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 12:20   #232
Bones13
Member
 
Bones13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Directly above the center of the ea
Posts: 41
If it was all published in peer reviewed journals it would be in their interest to include the citation - they're both in academia and would thus fully understand this requirement. Yet some of their articles do not have citations included on their website or available via search on PubMed.

In order to buy into their theories, you have to fully accept both the Marshall and Sanow data AND the goat test data. I DID peruse their papers and even followed up some of the citations; peruse means "to read in detail". Their key claims do in fact rely heavily on suspect data in every paper they "published". And their key claims are often supported by citation of their own work. Additionally, brain injury by impact vs intra-cranial pressure change is apples and oranges. The mechanisms that protect animals such as goats has to do with structures such as a thickened skull, dura mater, etc., specifically designed to prevent the brain from moving in the cranium to prevent impact injury from the brain contacting the skull. The assertion that a fluid pressure spike causes injury via the same mechanism is simply specious and makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Much of Fackler's work was published while he was at the L"etterman Army Institute of Research, Division of Military Trauma Research, Wound Ballistics lab" at the Presidio, and even if you don't accept his work as the be all and end all, you have to consider the context: In the post FBI Miami firefight world, he was deliberately trying to build a scientific basis to counter the "light and fast" theories that were the standard of the day and which got some agents killed. Your characterization of the IWBA as a "cash cow" is simply amazing and reveals your extreme prejudice against his research.

There's are extremely weak links in the chain they've built. Until a larger body of peer reviewed research is published by independent investigators, there just isn't much there - and this goes back to the most basic data collected and relied upon for this theory. This is more important than you seem to realize. The data MUST be repeatable and independently verified. Secret goats do not make for good science. Frankly, I came away far more skeptical of the research after having dug into it - and my undergrad degree was about research design and statistics. If you want to hang you hat on it go ahead, but it's an awfully small hook.
__________________
The Audacity of Nope
Bones13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 12:34   #233
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones13 View Post
...

Quote from "The Ballistic Pressure Wave Theory of Handgun Bullet Incapacitation", section titled "Conclusion and Limits of Interpretation".

[COLOR=Red]One should not be overly impressed by the propensity for shallow penetrating loads to produce larger pressure waves. 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. 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.[COLOR]

This statement clearly places BPW as, at best, a secondary mechanism of injury.
Any experimental design has to make certain simplifying assumptions. In Courtney's case he decided that he should limit his investigation to rounds which would meet the generally accepted penetration requirements. What you must do is distinguish between injury components that cause eventual death and injury components that cause rapid incapacitation. Any bullet with enough depth of penetration which hits a "vital" organ will cause eventual death. Only a hit from such a bullet to the CNS will cause rapid incapacitation. The others will cause eventual death by bleed out or insufficient blood pressure.

While such "other" effects are taking place the BG can continue to fight for some 15 or 30 seconds up to half an hour or more. If your desire is to survive the fight rather than to join the BG in a mutual suicide, the most important aspect of bullet performance and shot placement is rapid incapacitation (or at least immediate temporary incapacitation but, that is another issue). As such, it might well be claimed that BPW effects are not secondary effects but primary effects. In order not to frighten people away from consideration of the idea and, I assume, from natural modesty and scientific caution, Dr. Courtney has phrased the issue as he has.
Quote:

.... I could not find where some of their research was published. The quoted article for instance, does not seem to be published in any peer reviewed journal. Peer review is essential, as is independent replication and subsequent academic criticism. A given study is only as good as it's ability to stand up to subsequent research. Self publication is entirely useless.
We have seen the problem of peer review with climate science. If a strongly dogmatic faction gains control of the peer review process it is entirely capable of blocking proper scientific progress. In the case of wounding effects we seem to have had just such a dogmatic block for over 30 years. Peer review is a convenient means by which the editors of journals cover themselves relative to what they publish or refuse. It has nothing to do with the quality of the science involved and everything to do with the opinion of favoured scientists. We are, for instance, fortunate that the Helico bacter pylori paper was eventually published at all but it then took some 15 years before its findings were accepted by 50% of medical doctors in the Western world because of their dogmatic certainty that it could not be so.

True science advances by proposing a hypothesis of a falsifiable form with supporting evidence. It then stands as a possible truth until someone finds a means of showing it to be false. This is possible only if it is made public knowledge and publication is the bottleneck in that process. That bottleneck is inevitably controlled by the established scientific order and so the human tendency is that any science which is too far from what is generally accepted in its field is blocked from publication. I am not in a position where I need publish scientific findings and so I can make such a statement. Scientists as a whole would take a huge risk if they said anything of the kind because they are challenging the powers that control their publications.

In Courtney's case, he has published his findings and made a very reasonable and well supported case for his hypothesis. This has produced enormous volumes of attacks on the man and his work by the wound ballistics establishment and their followers but not a single piece of counter evidence. If they are right is should be simple enough to repeat Courtney's experiment or perform other experiments which falsify his hypothesis. It is significant that this has not happened and you should bear that in mind.


Quote:
They also seem to rely fairly heavily on the Marshall and Sanow data as well as the Strasbourg goat tests. Both data sets have been heavily criticized and has not been duplicated. ....
They do not rely on Marshall and Sanow or the Strasourg tests at all. In an aside, Courtney has said that it is interesting that the Strasbourg test results fit his theoretical model even though they were testing a different theoretical model. As the Strasbourg data set did not at all match the widely accepted beliefs of the time about stopping power, this is strong support for the likely real existence of those tests. There are perfectly good reasons why any agency which commissioned them would not have wanted to publish them of put its name to them. I believe that the M&S data was based on a fundamentally flawed method and contained occasional arithmetical errors, of a kind that you and I would never make of course, but that they were essentially well meaning and not deserving of the opprobrium poured upon them. There is no way in which Courtney could rely on their figures.
Quote:

Nowhere do they convincingly state that it is possible to calculate the likelihood of TBI based on muzzle energy, yet this is exactly how their research is being interpreted.
On the contrary. Courtney gives a formula to calculate a particular bullet's approximate peak pressure and gives probabilities of rapid incapacitation for some selected pressures. Below about 385 psi there is no evidence of a significant probability of rapid incapacitation due to BPW effects. Interestingly enough, this include the great majority of 9mm, 40S&W and .45ACP rounds.
Quote:

....

... they "recommend" ammunition that produces at least 500psi. Why?
See immediately above.
Quote:

.....

There isn't anything truly compelling in this body of research. Is there reason to conduct further research? Certainly, but even the Courtneys admit that it's an unreliable secondary effect of bullet wounds. Personally, I'm more worried about being able to hit the target.
As explained, this is not a secondary effect if you wish to survive a fight. It is an additional effect which you would be wise to make the effort to understand and apply.

If you are worried about your ability to hit the target the BPW effect gives you a bigger target to hit provided you shoot something which produces a big enough peak pressure at enough depth within the body.

uz2bUSMChas been kind enough to do the maths. To simplify things still further I have narrowed your choices down to:

Win 9mm+P+ Ranger, 115gr, 1335fps, KE=455, P=8.50, E=.81, 4.4ci, 1023psi
DT 9mm+P Gold Dot, 115gr, 1415fps, KE=511, P=12.00, E=.70, 4.6ci, 813psi
DT 9mm+P Gold Dot, 124gr, 1310fps, KE=472, P=13.25, E=.70, 4.6ci, 684psi
Federal 9mm+P HST, 124gr, 1200fps, KE=396, P=12.50, E=.66, 4.1ci, 605psi
Win9mm+P+TSeries, 127gr, 1250fps, KE=441, P=12.20, E=.68, 4.4ci, 691psi
DT 9mm+P Gold Dot, 147gr, 1125fps, KE=413, P=14.00, E=.66, 4.1ci, 563psi

DT 357SIG Gold Dot, 115gr, 1550fps, KE=613, P=12.12, E=.71, 4.8ci, 955psi
DT 357SIG Gold Dot, 125gr, 1450fps, KE=584, P=14.50, E=.66, 4.1ci, 770psi
Win357SIG T Series, 125gr, 1350fps, KE=506, P=12.10, E=.66, 4.1ci, 798psi
Win357SIG Bonded,, 125gr, 1350fps, KE=506, P=15.90, E=.57, 3.1ci, 608psi
DT 357SIG Gold Dot, 147gr, 1250fps, KE=510, P=14.75, E=.73, 5.0ci, 661psi

DT 40S&W Nosler,,,, 135gr, 1375fps, KE=567, P=12.10, E=.72, 4.9ci, 894psi
DT 40S&W Gold Dot, 155gr, 1275fps, KE=559, P=13.00, E=.76, 5.4ci, 825psi
DT 40S&W Gold Dot, 165gr, 1200fps, KE=528, P=14.00, E=.70, 4.6ci, 721psi
Rem Golden Saber,,, 165gr, 1150fps, KE=485, P=14.00, E=.67, 4.2ci, 662psi
Federal 40S&W HST, 165gr, 1130fps, KE=468, P=14.00, E=.75, 5.3ci, 637psi
Win40S&W T Series, 165gr, 1140fps, KE=476, P=13.20, E=.70, 4.6ci, 690psi
Speer 40S&W GD,,,, 180gr. 1025fps, KE=420, P=11.75, E=.72, 4.9ci, 683psi
DT 40S&W Gold Dot, 180gr, 1100fps, KE=484, P=14.75, E=.68, 4.4ci, 626psi
Federal 40S&W HST, 180gr, 1010fps, KE=408, P=13.40, E=.77, 5.6ci, 582psi
Rem JHP (not GS),,,, 180gr, 1015fps, KE=412, P=13.25, E=.69, 4.5ci, 594psi

DT 10mm Nosler,,,, 135gr, 1600fps, KE=767, P=11.00, E=.70, 4.2ci, 1332psi
DT 10mm Gold Dot, 155gr, 1475fps, KE=749, P=13.50, E=.88, 7.3ci, 1061psi
DT 10mm G. Saber, 165gr, 1425fps, KE=744, P=14.75, E=.82, 6.3ci, 964psi
DT 10mm Gold Dot, 165gr, 1400psi, KE=718, P=14.25, E=1.02, 9.8ci, 962psi
DT 10mm Gold Dot, 180gr, 1300fps, KE=675, P=15.25, E=.96, 8.7ci, 846psi
DT 10mm G. Saber, 180gr, 1330fps, KE=707, P=16.00, E=.85, 6.8ci, 844psi
DT 10mm Hor. XTP, 180gr, 1350fps, KE=728, P=17.25, E=.77, 5.6ci, 808psi
DT 10mm Hor. XTP, 200gr, 1250fps, KE=694, P=19.50, E=.72, 4.9ci, 680psi

Win 45GAP T Series, 230gr, 905fps, KE=418, P=12.70, E=.72, 4.9ci, 630psi

DT 45auto Gold Dot, 185gr, 1225fps, KE=616, P=12.75, E=.82, 6.3ci, 923psi
Rem45auto G Saber, 185gr, 1140fps, KE=534, P=14.25, E=.70, 4.6ci, 716psi
Win45auto Silvertip, 185gr, 1000fps, KE=411, P=13.25, E=.70, 4.6ci, 593psi
DT 45auto Gold Dot, 200gr, 1125fps, KE=562, P=14.25, E=.88, 7.3ci, 753psi
DT 45auto Gold Dot, 230gr, 1010fps, KE=521, P=15.25, E=.95, 8.5ci, 653psi
Federal45auto+P HST,230gr, 950fps, KE=461, P=14.60, E=.85, 6.8ci, 603psi
Speer 45auto G Dot, 230gr,, 890fps, KE=405, P=13.50, E=.70, 4.6ci, 573psi
Win 45auto T Series, 230gr, 905fps, KE=418, P=12.70, E=.72, 4.9ci, 630psi
Win45auto+PTSeries, 230gr, 990fps, KE=500, P=15.20, E=.78, 5.7ci, 628psi

I have limited the list to 600 psi and a little below because there is a big gain in probability of rapid incapacitation between 500 and 600 psi. You should note that the first one on the list gets a high psi value at the cost of only 8.5 inches of penetration. Quite apart from the deficiency with regard to other wounding effects it is very likely that the peak pressure is at insufficient depth to produce a fully effective BPW effect even though it has a high peak pressure.

In the other direction, note the difference between:
Win357SIG T Series, 125gr, 1350fps, KE=506, P=12.10, E=.66, 4.1ci, 798psi
Win357SIG Bonded,, 125gr, 1350fps, KE=506, P=15.90, E=.57, 3.1ci, 608psi
Both have the same bullet weight and velocity and therefore the same KE. The Bonded gains 3.8 inches more penetration but looses 190 psi. That is very nearly a 24% loss or a 31% gain! As Heinlein says, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

You might also note from the two examples above that although many are interpreting BPW effects as being proportional to KE, this is not at all the case and Courtney has never suggested that it is. What is true is that without enough KE you can't get enough peak pressure and penetration in combination.

English

Last edited by English; 02-04-2010 at 12:36..
English is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 14:21   #234
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Thanks English, well written and thurough as usual.

I cannot take credit for the math however, that belongs to G20C10mm, who took the time to work all those out.
__________________
- Without idiots, there would be no baseline for common sense.

- "Our country went through a transition during the last election where the parasites came together and outnumbered the hosts." -jdavionic
uz2bUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 15:16   #235
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by uz2bUSMC View Post

I cannot take credit for the math however, that belongs to G20C10mm, who took the time to work all those out.
Sorry! I know that of course! Mental glitch!

English
English is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 15:35   #236
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
Your characterization of the IWBA as a "cash cow" is simply amazing and reveals your extreme prejudice against his research.
I have prejudice against the way the guy does business. Yea, cash cow is right, he needed something leading into his retirement. What better way than to use Platt's failure and to attack and discredit other expert's in the field to make himself the lone ballistic consultant for all.

Hell, he even called his own bud, Gary Roberts, his jello toting assistant. Great, trustworthy guy that Fackler.
__________________
- Without idiots, there would be no baseline for common sense.

- "Our country went through a transition during the last election where the parasites came together and outnumbered the hosts." -jdavionic
uz2bUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 15:44   #237
KenB22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 199
I'll never buy this BPW stuff. With all of the people getting shot in wars for the last 100 years, anyone from the army ever pay any attention to possible BPW effect? Are there any government agencies that pay attention to this BPW? You'd think the agencies might like their employees to come home safely at night and to have as much edge as possible. Think how much profit the gun makers or ammo makers could make if they could just market their product as taking advantage of this BPW. Yet...the army never discusses it, the FBI and all police departments ignore it and no gun maker or ammo maker is paying any attention to this. Mr. Courtney needs a better agent. He should be inviting the FBI and sky marshals and remington and speer to his home on a daily basis and redoing his tests for them so they can "learn" and take advantage of his superior analysis. Yet they don't. Wonder why??
KenB22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 15:55   #238
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenB22 View Post
I'll never buy this BPW stuff. With all of the people getting shot in wars for the last 100 years, anyone from the army ever pay any attention to possible BPW effect? Are there any government agencies that pay attention to this BPW? You'd think the agencies might like their employees to come home safely at night and to have as much edge as possible. Think how much profit the gun makers or ammo makers could make if they could just market their product as taking advantage of this BPW. Yet...the army never discusses it, the FBI and all police departments ignore it and no gun maker or ammo maker is paying any attention to this. Mr. Courtney needs a better agent. He should be inviting the FBI and sky marshals and remington and speer to his home on a daily basis and redoing his tests for them so they can "learn" and take advantage of his superior analysis. Yet they don't. Wonder why??
You're kidding right?

One: You are obviously not educated, even a little bit, about BPW.

Two: You obviously have never been in the military, cause if you think the "egents", "soldiers", or "troops" are in the Government's best interest at the end of the day I just have to say you're ignorant.

Three: The Courtney's have been working with governmental agencies finding the coorelation to TBI from blast pressure...


And BTW, there wasn't exactly the greatest technology 100 years ago either, just thought I'd throw that out there since you put so much thought into your post.
__________________
- Without idiots, there would be no baseline for common sense.

- "Our country went through a transition during the last election where the parasites came together and outnumbered the hosts." -jdavionic
uz2bUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 16:37   #239
Bones13
Member
 
Bones13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Directly above the center of the ea
Posts: 41
In order not to frighten people away from consideration of the idea and, I assume, from natural modesty and scientific caution, Dr. Courtney has phrased the issue as he has.

You certainly seem to know Courtney's mind intimately.
Skepticism is a more appropriate approach than enthusiastic support.

We have seen the problem of peer review with climate science ETC..

Now we see it in ballistic science where people doggedly cling to BPW theory. Peer review is still essential regardless. Independent replication of results is essential. There is no middle ground. Yes, it may take decades but good evidence, sound methods and convincing reasoning eventually win out, at you so ably point out occurred with regards to H. Pylori.

They do not rely on Marshall and Sanow or the Strasourg tests at all.


Nonsense, they cite them in every article on BPW they've published and use that data to support their key assertions. They do it by citing their own papers which cite those data sets.

Courtney gives a formula

Found it. My bad, but he cites one of his own goat papers as a source.

I believe that the M&S data was based on a fundamentally flawed method

That statement gets to the root of the problem: garbage in garbage out.

Courtney's ideas are interesting but they suffer from the lack of a reliable source for data. Going back to the idea of getting a scientific consensus is going to require much higher quality data: good enough to counter an argument based on the fact that many, many people have been shot with high kinetic energy projectiles and have not been instantly incapacitated.

In the end, the best this line of research ultimately can do is estimate the percentage chance for people to be thus incapacitated. I personally expect that this effect would only start to be really significant in the largest, most powerful bores. The key question is whether or not it would be worthwhile to trade comfort handling recoil, accuracy, etc., for an added percentage chance to incapacitate via BPW. Would it be worth allowing marksmanship to suffer? By how much?

What is really needed is a standardized rigorous method of data collection. The main difficulty is determining the exact cause of incapacitation and the exact time to incapacitation along with a really large sample size. People's recollections of events are notoriously poor. Unless the events are clearly recorded (for instance on camera) then correlated to forensic analysis, you can't really trust the data.

In this day and age the best you could probably do without getting thrown in jail for animal cruelty would be to use anesthetized animals which would preclude incapacitation studies.
__________________
The Audacity of Nope
Bones13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 16:54   #240
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
Courtney's ideas are interesting but they suffer from the lack of a reliable source for data. Going back to the idea of getting a scientific consensus is going to require much higher quality data: good enough to counter an argument based on the fact that many, many people have been shot with high kinetic energy projectiles and have not been instantly incapacitated.
Of course people have been shot with high energy projectiles and not been incapacitated. This contradicts your paragraph below. Anyhow, it has been said that is not 100%. Has it not? And English JUST finished explaining that it is not based on energy alone. Did he not? It is easy to state that people have not been instantly incapacitated but answer this: What is at play when someone IS instantly incapacitated without a CNS hit? People don't feint or process fast enough to instantly "quit".

Quote:
What is really needed is a standardized rigorous method of data collection. The main difficulty is determining the exact cause of incapacitation and the exact time to incapacitation along with a really large sample size. People's recollections of events are notoriously poor. Unless the events are clearly recorded (for instance on camera) then correlated to forensic analysis, you can't really trust the data.
This is the contradictory paragraph. In your above paragraph you mention individuals struck with high energy projectiles that did not instantly incapacitate, but I ask you... What was the path of the bullets in each of these cases? What was the immediate effect based on actual footage in each of these cases? And WHAT PARTICULAR LOAD was used in each case? Since bullet construction plays a huge part. You are correct, however, these three things would triangulate nicely, but I suspect it would lead to Courtney's hypothesis.

I've posed this question to DoGKR, all I got was crickets...
__________________
- Without idiots, there would be no baseline for common sense.

- "Our country went through a transition during the last election where the parasites came together and outnumbered the hosts." -jdavionic
uz2bUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 00:58.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 817
177 Members
640 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 16:42