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 02-04-2010, 17:02   #241
KenB22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 199
Nice cogent argument. It took you 1 sentence to start the name calling. Lets see, your argument that the government ignores this theory is because I'm ignorant that the government is not interested in saving the lives of its soldiers or incapacitating the enemy quickly. You still didn't answer my question of why the FBI, government agencies and police departments ignore this as a viable part of the analysis of handgun rounds. Let me see, I'm ignorant because I don't know they don't care about their people either. You didn't answer my question about why ammo makers and gun makers don't pay any attention to this. Let me answer, they are ignorant too. You obviously believe this and others do too. Let me remind you all it took was 1 farmer in Arizona to say he saw a UFO and there are people around today still believing it. Lets assume Mr. Courtney believes this stuff. Why doesn't he start up his own ammo company or own gun company and make a fortune marketing the guns and ammo he believes makes a difference? When Mr. Courtney puts his money where his research is and when others on here do the same, I'll start to pay attention. Until then, I'll pay attention to the people whose job it is to track down and maybe even shoot BG's and pay attention to what they use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by uz2bUSMC View Post
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.
KenB22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 17:18   #242
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenB22 View Post
Nice cogent argument. It took you 1 sentence to start the name calling. Lets see, your argument that the government ignores this theory is because I'm ignorant that the government is not interested in saving the lives of its soldiers or incapacitating the enemy quickly. You still didn't answer my question of why the FBI, government agencies and police departments ignore this as a viable part of the analysis of handgun rounds. Let me see, I'm ignorant because I don't know they don't care about their people either. You didn't answer my question about why ammo makers and gun makers don't pay any attention to this. Let me answer, they are ignorant too. You obviously believe this and others do too. Let me remind you all it took was 1 farmer in Arizona to say he saw a UFO and there are people around today still believing it. Lets assume Mr. Courtney believes this stuff. Why doesn't he start up his own ammo company or own gun company and make a fortune marketing the guns and ammo he believes makes a difference? When Mr. Courtney puts his money where his research is and when others on here do the same, I'll start to pay attention. Until then, I'll pay attention to the people whose job it is to track down and maybe even shoot BG's and pay attention to what they use.
Quote:
Until then, I'll pay attention to the people whose job it is to track down and maybe even shoot BG's and pay attention to what they use.[/
Ignorant isn't a name is a state. You need to be educated. In this one sentence alone(above that you wrote), it's clear you have no idea. Iv'e been one of those people. And in another capacity, I've been one of those people again. They(the Government) don't care about me, pure and simple. They care about money, the lowest bidder... that kind of thing. They'd give me a slingshot to carry and a bag full of pebbles if they could win wars that cheaply, bro. Trust me.

Why would Dr. Courtney waste time making ammo when the ammo manufactures already make what he would?
__________________
- 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, 20:34   #243
Police Marksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 529
I am not going to argue whether there is a BPW or not, I will leave that up to the terminal ballistic experts. I do believe that penetration of the round is a lot more important, than what any effect the BPW will have.

By the information that English posted, the rounds with the greatest BPW have the less penetration. I shot some DT 115 Gold Dot 357 Sig rounds in some jugs of water, and the bullet came apart shredding in the second jug. Be Careful!!
Police Marksman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 01:15   #244
glock20c10mm
Senior Member
 
glock20c10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Out West
Posts: 5,244
You know what, something I'ld like to get out of the way right off the bat........if you take offense to anything I'm about to post to you, you've taken it the wrong way. Ok, here goes....

My God, where to start!?

Bro, you need to slow down. You're acting as if someone suggested there was proof proving Dr. Courtney's THEORY of BPW and it's possible incapacitating effects on humans and animals in under 5 seconds. It's ALMOST like you want to disprove what hasn't been proven yet. See what I'm getting at?

SOME of the questions you ask can't be answered by anyone because there aren't answers yet. At this point, yes, there are many unanswered questions. At the same time, plenty of us can directly relate to what Dr. Courtney's THEORY suggests from shooting various animals with different SD cartridges.

BOTTOM LINE, THERE IS A REASON HUMANS AND ANIMALS HAVE BEEN INCAPACITATED IN LESS THAN 5 SECONDS WHEN NO PART OF THE CNS (BRAIN OR SPINE) WAS CONTACTED BY THE PROJECTILE. AND IT ISN'T BECAUSE OF OXYGEN LOSS TO THE BRAIN THROUGH BLOOD LOSS (WHICH TAKES AT LEAST 15 SECONDS IN THE MOST "PERFECT" BEST CASE SCENARIOS, TO MUCH MORE COMMONLY 30 SECONDS OR MORE). {the all caps has nothing to do with "raising one's voice", but simply a way of highlighting as to not be missed with your eyes, also showing imporance to understand}

What do you think about stopping trying to find everything that either hasn't been answered or hasn't been studied to be answered, and simply objectively look at what we do know?

Forget about the "Goat tests". Forget about the Marshall/Sanow data set. Blah blah blah. Who cares. Reguardless, Dr. Courtney's results correlated to what the other's results shoed. End of story. Doesn't matter if the Goat tests existed or not. Doesn't matter if the Marshall/Sanow data set was cherry picked. It's all beside the point. And the only point is that the data correlated.

What we do know is Dr. Courtney did a study where he shot some deer with two different rounds. One of the rounds effectively incapacitated deer quicker on average, and by a pretty fair margin to boot. Plenty of people on GT claim to have noticed the same thing in general, one round compared to another. Did some people lie? Maybe, who's to say? But did they all lie, if any? VERY PROBABLY NOT. Is Dr. Courtney's study repeatable? YES. Would the outcome be the same? Guess we won't know till someone does their best to repeat it. What we do know at this point is NOBODY has come up with ANYTHING that disproves Dr. Courtney's theory. And aside from the Goat tests and Marshall/Sanow data set and whatever other supporting work Dr. Courtney cites, his theory still stands.

Do you realize a good handful of member's of GT see NO benefit to using ANY JHP over FMJ? Maybe you're one of them, I don't know. Tell me, and I'm VERY LOOSELY stating this, if more speed or energy on target with the right bullet design for the job has absolutely ZERO chance of aiding in quicker incapacitation of BGs, then why would any LE/Gov't Agency choose a +P or +P+ round or 357SIG over 9mm? A Winchester rep has stated 9mm +P+ 127gr has a cult following among LE. Why? Again I ask; Why? Shall I ask a third time?

If the: higher recoiling, higher muzzle blast, more expensive.....ammo is of no benefit to incapactating a BG quicker, and what they buy is based partly on a budget of taxpayer dollars, then WHY???, of the ones that have choosen to go that route? And especially with all the scare of lawsuits and all...Why? There's all kinds, heck, LOADS, of data out there showing the 9mm in various loads to be lacking in the department of incapactating BGs. Yet with the 357SIG, NEVER have I seen a negative comment brought up. None, not any, zero, zilch, nada... Oh sure, you see people claiming the LE depts they know using 357SIG claim there is no difference in it from any other round they've used in the past, but you know what the commonality there is? The ones bringing it up are virtually always diehard 9mm fans, OR, dead set against Dr. Courtney's work, among others. Besides that it's still not a hit against 357SIG.

Why is 357 Magnum recommended for harvesting deer, but 38 Special is NEVER recommended? They can both be loaded with bullets that will poke a hole right through a deer, yet what I said is common knowledge.

What about gravity? Will you stop believing in it when I tell you it isn't proven from all angles? Do you know that the current equations we use for figuring gravity disprove more than they prove? Yet they work out for many purposes too. They're still trying to figure out what gravity is. Some believe it is made up of particles smaller than atoms. Reguardless, you still know what goes up must come down. You don't run around questions all the theories on it, right? I mean, that's all they are, theories. There are all kinds of theories we all take for granted every day.

Now don't get me wrong. I was simply making a general point. I'm not saying all of us have seen evidence of Dr. Courtney's theory at work. That certainly makes it more difficult to take in. Then you have dentists like DocGKR among others preaching agianst it (put a "Dr" in front of anyones name, and they have to be a genious, right? Guess that doesn't work out to well when two Doctors disagree. Who would have thunk it?). Blah blah blah. But at the end of the day, there is zero evidence against what Dr. Courtney showed in a scientifically done study, among other supporting work.

All that said, many seem to be getting a wrong impression from those of us that go along with what Dr. Courtney's work showed. And that is that we're supposedly trying to make you believe in it enough to use it in how you choose a round for SD. That is not the case and should be clearly evident from a number of posts within this very thread alone previous to this one. Again, choose to apply it or not. That's entirely up to the individual. In the end we all make our own choices based on our own individuality. You can throw all the evidence you want out to anyone that conclusively does literally prove something, and there's always someone who won't listen to reason.

What gets most of us is when some member's choose to post against it, while clearly from the context of their post having on clue as to what they're talking about. Those that say they understand Dr. Courtney's theory, yet have never read his study, or that skimmed it and never got anything out of it anyway. Then there are those who have simply been fed the same lie so long that they believe it, no matter what evidence against what they think you can show them. As for BPW, no, nothings been proven. The mechanism it works off is still unclear. But Dr. Courtney's work, among other supporting work, among what some of us have seen with our own eyes, suggests there's something to it. That's all. Again, please stop questioning from the standpoint anything was proven. I myself have plenty of questions I may never see answers for. Yet I still know there's SOMETHING to the theory of BPW.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones13 View Post
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.
What's biased??? They use ballistic gel. The ballistic gel is calibrated. The police did all the actual shooting with their own guns. The police themselves chose which barriers they wanted to test against. ATK designed all the barriers around FBI protocol. What conspiracy could you possibly be refering to? Small sample size??? They shot premium ammo into calibrated blocks of ballistic gel, and the numbers I used were they averages of each load for penetration depth and expansion. Seriously bro, I'm not saying it's PERFECT, but GD. Why don't we simply say F everything we've ever known or been told, and all shoot whatever the lowest recoiling load is that will still penetrate to the vitals of a human from any angle including compensating for arms being in the way............c'mon, seriously! Holy nitpicking already. Geez.

Ok, relax, I've regrouped (downed a couple shots and smoked a pack of cigs ).

Quote:
How did you derive wound volume? Penetration X average expansion? Is there a published study correlating this to actual observed wound volume?
I simply figured the volume of a hole make by the expanded bullet diameter in conjuncion with the penetration depth up to 12". Granted, it isn't realistic for a host of reasons. Sorry it looks that way. I made this chart up years ago. And it certainly doesn't have anything to do with BPW (not that you said it did, just saying). And no, no studies I'm aware of.

Quote:
Is there any published research that would correlate your method of calculating PBPW to actual observed pressures?
Yes. They used a high speed pressure transducer in live animals at varying distances from the actual projectile path and measured the pressure wave(s) in psi. I don't remember the specific studies to refer you to off the top of my head. If you choose not to believe it, so be it, as that's all I have to say on the matter. Anyone else who may know should feel more than welcome to help me out here. I'm currently on a dial up internet connection, and research can be a serious b1t<h!

Quote:
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?
Yes. You also asked earlier what the equation was for BPW. The following should help explain alot;

The equation for JHP handgun bullets with 100% mass retention is -
p = (5*E)/(pi*d)

p is the peak pressure wave magnatude on the surphase of a 1" diameter cylinder centered on the wound channel (in psi). E is the impact energy (in ft-lbs) and d is the penetration depth (in feet).

If a JHP bullet fragments then generally whatever % the bullet fragments is the same % you need to add to the PBPW originally figured for nonfragmentation.

For FMJ handgun bullets the equation changes to a reasonable approximation of -
p = (3*E)/(pi*d)

For FMJ rifle bullets there is much more variation because some tumble deep and some tumble at shallow depths and some fragment. The retarding force profile (the more retarding force the greater the PBPW) is dominated by the depth at which a FMJ rifle bullet tumbles.

An FMJ rifle bullet which does not fragment and tumbles late in the penetration (10" or more) will have a peak pressure wave comparable to the formula for FMJ pistol bullets.

An FMJ rifle bullet which does not fragment and tumbles early (first 4") will have a peak pressure wave comparable to the formula for JHP handgun bullets.

You might wonder why PBPW goes up with bullet fragmentation. This involves a bunch more math which I can post if you like, but I don't see that it's necessary. What I do understand is the basic principal which I believe will be simple for you also once you simply basically understand the basic equations above for equating PBPW.

If it is necessary for you, maybe this will help, and it's about as far into as I'ld prefer to get. If kinetic energy and penetration depth are equal, bullets that fragment create a larger pressure wave than bullets that retain 100% of their mass because the average penetration depth is shorter than the maximum penetration depth. Less penetration depth with equal kinetic energy = higher PBPW.


Good Shooting,
Craig
__________________
Free Men Don't Need To Ask Permission To Bear Arms

The Glock 29 is the most versatile handgun yet produced.
glock20c10mm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 01:20   #245
glock20c10mm
Senior Member
 
glock20c10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Out West
Posts: 5,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Police Marksman View Post
I am not going to argue whether there is a BPW or not, I will leave that up to the terminal ballistic experts. I do believe that penetration of the round is a lot more important, than what any effect the BPW will have.

By the information that English posted, the rounds with the greatest BPW have the less penetration. I shot some DT 115 Gold Dot 357 Sig rounds in some jugs of water, and the bullet came apart shredding in the second jug. Be Careful!!
All true to an extent. By the same token, nobody needs to shoot the DT 115gr GD 357SIG load to get a fair amount of BPW. Yet they can still choose any of various loads to get a fair amount of BPW added to their arsenal while still penetrating plenty.


Craig
__________________
Free Men Don't Need To Ask Permission To Bear Arms

The Glock 29 is the most versatile handgun yet produced.
glock20c10mm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 05:33   #246
DocKWL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 499
Quote:
Originally Posted by glock20c10mm View Post
You know what, something I'ld like to get out of the way right off the bat........if you take offense to anything I'm about to post to you, you've taken it the wrong way. Ok, here goes....

My God, where to start!?

Bro, you need to slow down. You're acting as if someone suggested there was proof proving Dr. Courtney's THEORY of BPW and it's possible incapacitating effects on humans and animals in under 5 seconds. It's ALMOST like you want to disprove what hasn't been proven yet. See what I'm getting at?

SOME of the questions you ask can't be answered by anyone because there aren't answers yet. At this point, yes, there are many unanswered questions. At the same time, plenty of us can directly relate to what Dr. Courtney's THEORY suggests from shooting various animals with different SD cartridges.

BOTTOM LINE, THERE IS A REASON HUMANS AND ANIMALS HAVE BEEN INCAPACITATED IN LESS THAN 5 SECONDS WHEN NO PART OF THE CNS (BRAIN OR SPINE) WAS CONTACTED BY THE PROJECTILE. AND IT ISN'T BECAUSE OF OXYGEN LOSS TO THE BRAIN THROUGH BLOOD LOSS (WHICH TAKES AT LEAST 15 SECONDS IN THE MOST "PERFECT" BEST CASE SCENARIOS, TO MUCH MORE COMMONLY 30 SECONDS OR MORE). {the all caps has nothing to do with "raising one's voice", but simply a way of highlighting as to not be missed with your eyes, also showing imporance to understand}

What do you think about stopping trying to find everything that either hasn't been answered or hasn't been studied to be answered, and simply objectively look at what we do know?

Forget about the "Goat tests". Forget about the Marshall/Sanow data set. Blah blah blah. Who cares. Reguardless, Dr. Courtney's results correlated to what the other's results shoed. End of story. Doesn't matter if the Goat tests existed or not. Doesn't matter if the Marshall/Sanow data set was cherry picked. It's all beside the point. And the only point is that the data correlated.

What we do know is Dr. Courtney did a study where he shot some deer with two different rounds. One of the rounds effectively incapacitated deer quicker on average, and by a pretty fair margin to boot. Plenty of people on GT claim to have noticed the same thing in general, one round compared to another. Did some people lie? Maybe, who's to say? But did they all lie, if any? VERY PROBABLY NOT. Is Dr. Courtney's study repeatable? YES. Would the outcome be the same? Guess we won't know till someone does their best to repeat it. What we do know at this point is NOBODY has come up with ANYTHING that disproves Dr. Courtney's theory. And aside from the Goat tests and Marshall/Sanow data set and whatever other supporting work Dr. Courtney cites, his theory still stands.

Do you realize a good handful of member's of GT see NO benefit to using ANY JHP over FMJ? Maybe you're one of them, I don't know. Tell me, and I'm VERY LOOSELY stating this, if more speed or energy on target with the right bullet design for the job has absolutely ZERO chance of aiding in quicker incapacitation of BGs, then why would any LE/Gov't Agency choose a +P or +P+ round or 357SIG over 9mm? A Winchester rep has stated 9mm +P+ 127gr has a cult following among LE. Why? Again I ask; Why? Shall I ask a third time?

If the: higher recoiling, higher muzzle blast, more expensive.....ammo is of no benefit to incapactating a BG quicker, and what they buy is based partly on a budget of taxpayer dollars, then WHY???, of the ones that have choosen to go that route? And especially with all the scare of lawsuits and all...Why? There's all kinds, heck, LOADS, of data out there showing the 9mm in various loads to be lacking in the department of incapactating BGs. Yet with the 357SIG, NEVER have I seen a negative comment brought up. None, not any, zero, zilch, nada... Oh sure, you see people claiming the LE depts they know using 357SIG claim there is no difference in it from any other round they've used in the past, but you know what the commonality there is? The ones bringing it up are virtually always diehard 9mm fans, OR, dead set against Dr. Courtney's work, among others. Besides that it's still not a hit against 357SIG.

Why is 357 Magnum recommended for harvesting deer, but 38 Special is NEVER recommended? They can both be loaded with bullets that will poke a hole right through a deer, yet what I said is common knowledge.

What about gravity? Will you stop believing in it when I tell you it isn't proven from all angles? Do you know that the current equations we use for figuring gravity disprove more than they prove? Yet they work out for many purposes too. They're still trying to figure out what gravity is. Some believe it is made up of particles smaller than atoms. Reguardless, you still know what goes up must come down. You don't run around questions all the theories on it, right? I mean, that's all they are, theories. There are all kinds of theories we all take for granted every day.

Now don't get me wrong. I was simply making a general point. I'm not saying all of us have seen evidence of Dr. Courtney's theory at work. That certainly makes it more difficult to take in. Then you have dentists like DocGKR among others preaching agianst it (put a "Dr" in front of anyones name, and they have to be a genious, right? Guess that doesn't work out to well when two Doctors disagree. Who would have thunk it?). Blah blah blah. But at the end of the day, there is zero evidence against what Dr. Courtney showed in a scientifically done study, among other supporting work.

All that said, many seem to be getting a wrong impression from those of us that go along with what Dr. Courtney's work showed. And that is that we're supposedly trying to make you believe in it enough to use it in how you choose a round for SD. That is not the case and should be clearly evident from a number of posts within this very thread alone previous to this one. Again, choose to apply it or not. That's entirely up to the individual. In the end we all make our own choices based on our own individuality. You can throw all the evidence you want out to anyone that conclusively does literally prove something, and there's always someone who won't listen to reason.

What gets most of us is when some member's choose to post against it, while clearly from the context of their post having on clue as to what they're talking about. Those that say they understand Dr. Courtney's theory, yet have never read his study, or that skimmed it and never got anything out of it anyway. Then there are those who have simply been fed the same lie so long that they believe it, no matter what evidence against what they think you can show them. As for BPW, no, nothings been proven. The mechanism it works off is still unclear. But Dr. Courtney's work, among other supporting work, among what some of us have seen with our own eyes, suggests there's something to it. That's all. Again, please stop questioning from the standpoint anything was proven. I myself have plenty of questions I may never see answers for. Yet I still know there's SOMETHING to the theory of BPW.


What's biased??? They use ballistic gel. The ballistic gel is calibrated. The police did all the actual shooting with their own guns. The police themselves chose which barriers they wanted to test against. ATK designed all the barriers around FBI protocol. What conspiracy could you possibly be refering to? Small sample size??? They shot premium ammo into calibrated blocks of ballistic gel, and the numbers I used were they averages of each load for penetration depth and expansion. Seriously bro, I'm not saying it's PERFECT, but GD. Why don't we simply say F everything we've ever known or been told, and all shoot whatever the lowest recoiling load is that will still penetrate to the vitals of a human from any angle including compensating for arms being in the way............c'mon, seriously! Holy nitpicking already. Geez.

Ok, relax, I've regrouped (downed a couple shots and smoked a pack of cigs ).


I simply figured the volume of a hole make by the expanded bullet diameter in conjuncion with the penetration depth up to 12". Granted, it isn't realistic for a host of reasons. Sorry it looks that way. I made this chart up years ago. And it certainly doesn't have anything to do with BPW (not that you said it did, just saying). And no, no studies I'm aware of.



Yes. They used a high speed pressure transducer in live animals at varying distances from the actual projectile path and measured the pressure wave(s) in psi. I don't remember the specific studies to refer you to off the top of my head. If you choose not to believe it, so be it, as that's all I have to say on the matter. Anyone else who may know should feel more than welcome to help me out here. I'm currently on a dial up internet connection, and research can be a serious b1t<H!< p>

Yes. You also asked earlier what the equation was for BPW. The following should help explain alot;

The equation for JHP handgun bullets with 100% mass retention is -
p = (5*E)/(pi*d)

p is the peak pressure wave magnatude on the surphase of a 1" diameter cylinder centered on the wound channel (in psi). E is the impact energy (in ft-lbs) and d is the penetration depth (in feet).

If a JHP bullet fragments then generally whatever % the bullet fragments is the same % you need to add to the PBPW originally figured for nonfragmentation.

For FMJ handgun bullets the equation changes to a reasonable approximation of -
p = (3*E)/(pi*d)

For FMJ rifle bullets there is much more variation because some tumble deep and some tumble at shallow depths and some fragment. The retarding force profile (the more retarding force the greater the PBPW) is dominated by the depth at which a FMJ rifle bullet tumbles.

An FMJ rifle bullet which does not fragment and tumbles late in the penetration (10" or more) will have a peak pressure wave comparable to the formula for FMJ pistol bullets.

An FMJ rifle bullet which does not fragment and tumbles early (first 4") will have a peak pressure wave comparable to the formula for JHP handgun bullets.

You might wonder why PBPW goes up with bullet fragmentation. This involves a bunch more math which I can post if you like, but I don't see that it's necessary. What I do understand is the basic principal which I believe will be simple for you also once you simply basically understand the basic equations above for equating PBPW.

If it is necessary for you, maybe this will help, and it's about as far into as I'ld prefer to get. If kinetic energy and penetration depth are equal, bullets that fragment create a larger pressure wave than bullets that retain 100% of their mass because the average penetration depth is shorter than the maximum penetration depth. Less penetration depth with equal kinetic energy = higher PBPW.


Good Shooting,
Craig
"When you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with..."

Quote:
BOTTOM LINE, THERE IS A REASON HUMANS AND ANIMALS HAVE BEEN INCAPACITATED IN LESS THAN 5 SECONDS WHEN NO PART OF THE CNS (BRAIN OR SPINE) WAS CONTACTED BY THE PROJECTILE.
What reason is that?


Quote:
Forget about the "Goat tests". Forget about the Marshall/Sanow data set. Blah blah blah. Who cares. Reguardless, Dr. Courtney's results correlated to what the other's results shoed. End of story. Doesn't matter if the Goat tests existed or not. Doesn't matter if the Marshall/Sanow data set was cherry picked. It's all beside the point. And the only point is that the data correlated.
The data correlates to something that did not happen or to a data set which has proven to be skewed?

Quote:
What we do know is Dr. Courtney did a study where he shot some deer with two different rounds. One of the rounds effectively incapacitated deer quicker on average, and by a pretty fair margin to boot.
Courtney seems to be able to repeat these test with stunning regularity. Why can't the same be seen on the streets?

Quote:
Yet with the 357SIG, NEVER have I seen a negative comment brought up. None, not any, zero, zilch, nada...
It's been posted; here and on other forums. You choose to ignore them.

Quote:
Then you have dentists like DocGKR among others preaching agianst it (put a "Dr" in front of anyones name, and they have to be a genious, right?
Courtney's degree is related to ballistics how?

Quote:
A Winchester rep has stated 9mm +P+ 127gr has a cult following among LE. Why?
Can you back that up with fact? What LE agencies currently use this round?

Quote:
Then there are those who have simply been fed the same lie so long that they believe it, no matter what evidence against what they think you can show them.
You just described yourself.

Quote:
Why is 357 Magnum recommended for harvesting deer, but 38 Special is NEVER recommended? They can both be loaded with bullets that will poke a hole right through a deer, yet what I said is common knowledge.
How many people hunt deer at contact distances? Is a .357 Magnum a wise choice to shoot deer at 500 yards?

Quote:
They used a high speed pressure transducer in live animals at varying distances from the actual projectile path and measured the pressure wave(s) in psi.
How does this external instrument calculate what is happening inside a living organism? What is the make and model of this transducer so I can refer to it's technical specifications?

Quote:
p = (5*E)/(pi*d)


"5" was derived how?

How do you know what the energy on target is?

How is Pi relevant in the equation?

How do you know in advance what penetration depth will be?
DocKWL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 05:40   #247
Blitzer
Cool Cat
 
Blitzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The communist's play ground of OHIO
Posts: 26,617
Send a message via AIM to Blitzer Send a message via Yahoo to Blitzer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Police Marksman View Post
I am not going to argue whether there is a BPW or not, I will leave that up to the terminal ballistic experts. I do believe that penetration of the round is a lot more important, than what any effect the BPW will have.

By the information that English posted, the rounds with the greatest BPW have the less penetration. I shot some DT 115 Gold Dot 357 Sig rounds in some jugs of water, and the bullet came apart shredding in the second jug. Be Careful!!
Water jugs aren't flesh and blood, not much of a comparison are they?
__________________
It doesn't matter what the Joe on the street thinks, it is who pays the biggest bribes to the electoral college gets elected as President! :crying:
Blitzer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 06:46   #248
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
"5" was derived how?

How do you know what the energy on target is?

How is Pi relevant in the equation?

How do you know in advance what penetration depth will be?
If I'm not mistaken, the formula was created to coorelate with the transducer numbers. Kinda like shootin a back azimuth... already have the number, just gotta figure out how to get back to it with math.

The transducer was placed in into the pigs brain, and they were shot in the thigh in the Suneson study.


Why would you need to know the penetration in advance? This doesn't make sense to me, what would you really be asking here?

How does one know the energy on target? What's the relevance of this question? If it's a test, pretty sure a chrono would come in handy. Here again, seems like a rediculous question that you should elaborate on. If your talking about an SD shooting, wouldn't G20 need a bit more info? This sounds like a roleplaying scenario/what if game to me.
__________________
- 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 02-05-2010, 06:49   #249
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
Courtney seems to be able to repeat these test with stunning regularity. Why can't the same be seen on the streets?
There are dynamic stops and dismal failures on the street. So the study is out there. It is being seen on the street. Not everyone is shooting the same loads, guns, or just one shot at their badguys.
__________________
- 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 02-05-2010, 06:54   #250
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
What reason is that?
This is the "reason" or "cause" that all your buddies in the koolaid camp will dodge, flip, or hide to avoid being questioned about. Just like you will offer no explanation for instant incapacitation. Or, and I forgat, if pressed too much, they'll just ban you from their site without "reason" when all else fails.
__________________
- 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 02-05-2010, 09:36   #251
Bones13
Member
 
Bones13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Directly above the center of the ea
Posts: 41
<h!></h!>...THEORY of BPW and it's possible incapacitating effects on humans and animals in under 5 seconds. It's ALMOST like you want to disprove what hasn't been proven yet. See what I'm getting at?

Your admission that it's an unproven theory is a nice start.
<h!>
</h!>SOME of the questions you ask can't be answered by anyone because there aren't answers yet. At this point, yes, there are many unanswered questions. At the same time, plenty of us can directly relate to what Dr. Courtney's THEORY suggests from shooting various animals with different SD cartridges.

There ARE many unanswered questions. If there's any point I'm trying to make it's that there is a LONG way to go before any of this starts looking solid. You can only relate what you see hunting to this theory if you overlook the many, many questions that remain.

THERE IS A REASON HUMANS AND ANIMALS HAVE BEEN INCAPACITATED IN LESS THAN 5 SECONDS

I can read, no need to shout. Psychology is a not insignificant part of this. Humans and animals can and do choose to "quit". Besides, in "The Ballistic Pressure Wave Theory of Handgun Bullet Incapacitation" on page three the chart clearly shows the minimum incapacitation time as 5 seconds. Remember, there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

It's all beside the point. And the only point is that the data correlated.

Garbage in, garbage out. What part don't you understand? You're really emotionally invested in this stuff, aren't you? There must be better data before you can call a correlation sound. Good research design demands it.

What do you think about stopping trying to find everything that either hasn't been answered or hasn't been studied to be answered, and simply objectively look at what we do know?


What do you think about healthy skepticism and valid criticism versus blind acceptance of bad data?

One of the rounds effectively incapacitated deer quicker on average, and by a pretty fair margin to boot.

Extremely small sample sizes are simply not valid. Sample size for this would need to be in the hundreds if not thousands. Otherwise the statistics are useless.

What we do know at this point is NOBODY has come up with ANYTHING that disproves Dr. Courtney's theory.

Nowhere has your positive bias toward this research been more obvious than in this statement. There is no requirement to disprove, rather the onus is on Courtney to prove. Basic tenet of science.

why would any LE/Gov't Agency choose a +P or +P+ round or 357SIG over 9mm? A Winchester rep has stated 9mm +P+ 127gr has a cult following among LE.


This is related to the science how? The whole point of Fackler's AND Courtney's research is to attempt to provide science based criteria for ammunition selection, as the entire field has long been dominated by hearsay and anecdote. The phrase "cult following" sums this up nicely.

yet what I said is common knowledge.

"Common knowledge" is not science. This entire line of your argument is specious.

What about gravity? Will you stop believing in it when I tell you it isn't proven from all angles?

Ever hear of Occam's razor?

Then you have dentists like DocGKR

Yours and other's repeated ad hominem attacks again betray your extreme prejudice. I don't think you really understand the education health care professionals receive. The basic science portion includes coursework in gross anatomy with cadaver dissection, histology, physiology, biochemistry, neuroanatomy with brain dissection, pathology, microbiology, pharmacology and radiology. Pre-professional training includes chemistry, biochemisty, biology, physics and organic chemistry. Generally, anyone in a profession who is licensed to prescribe medications has a good life sciences base to their education.

there is zero evidence against what Dr. Courtney showed in a scientifically done study, among other supporting work.

No evidence against it? What about the problems with the evidence FOR it? You just can't turn it around like that. The science is in the ability of the research to withstand criticism. Period.

What gets most of us is when some member's choose to post against it, while clearly from the context of their post having on clue as to what they're talking about. Those that say they understand Dr. Courtney's theory, yet have never read his study, or that skimmed it and never got anything out of it anyway. Then there are those who have simply been fed the same lie so long that they believe it, no matter what evidence against what they think you can show them. As for BPW, no, nothings been proven.

This entire rant again betrays your extreme bias for Courtney's work. I've read the studies. It's not a very impressive body of work based on the data he presents. Get better data and it would be more persuasive. Who's being fed lies here? I'm not sure why you seem to think that anyone critical of the research is somehow not qualified to evaluate it, but it's clear that is your opinion.

Yet I still know there's SOMETHING to the theory of BPW.

I agree; there is a basis for further research, a LOT more research, necessary to answer the many valid criticisms. Stating that you already "know" only betrays your bias yet again. Grain of salt, bro.

ATK designed all the barriers around FBI protocol. What conspiracy could you possibly be refering to?


Conspiracy? Any data collected by an entity with a financial stake in the outcome is automatically suspect. That doesn't mean it's invalid but it's only valid if it can be repeated. The federal data looks good but I don't trust it blindly. Take a hint.

You also asked earlier what the equation was for BPW. The following should help explain


I had already found that but thanks for reposting. I understand it, but those equations apply best in a homogeneous material like water or ballistic gel, and the human body is far from homogeneous. I personally think there is a lot we don't fully understand about how tough the body really is. People are very hard to kill. The internal structure is highly resistant to all sorts of trauma. It's flexible, segmented into all sorts of compartments and there's TWO of many important structures.

Think about all the cases where people are shot with multiple high energy projectiles and basically shrug it off. This is part of the reason incapacitation due to TBI from BPW doesn't ring true to me; Drugs and adrenalin shouldn't make a difference but they do.
__________________
The Audacity of Nope
Bones13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 09:47   #252
dahahn
Senior Member
 
dahahn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocKWL View Post
"When you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with..."
What an easy defense. Please, I implore you, find some flaw with the numbers. If there is, and I am leaving it open that there very well could be, I would like to know what it is.

As for pi: when you're dealing with an object with any sort of curved surface, such as a bullet, a wound channel, a gravitational field, etc, pi always figures into it. I am actually aghast as to why you would ask such a question. I can easily interpret that formula, but I could be wrong. Correct me if I am so:

IMPACT ENERGY
---------------
CIRCUMFERENCE

Given that a bullet's circumference would be directly related to a pressure wave, it's very easy to deduce. If I understand BPW correctly, it can be represented by a sinusoidal wave that would experience exponential decay through a viscous medium.

Funny that gravity should be mentioned as this same case arose in the early 1900s during the hot debate over relativity. In fact, even to this day, the solar eclipse that confirmed relativity is contested. Does this change the fact that satellites have to use special relativity to maintain the accuracy of their clocks, and thus their placement coordinates (for GPS satellites)? It does not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocKWL View Post
Courtney seems to be able to repeat these test with stunning regularity. Why can't the same be seen on the streets?
I mean no offense, but is this question legitimate? May I quote Bones13, who brings up a legitimate point?

Quote:
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.
Short answer to a non-question: these data aren't "seen on the streets" because Courtney records the data of his experiments and uses a method previously derived to interpret the results. They don't think of doing such "on the streets." Also, as Bones13 has already pointed out, correlating this with data "on the streets" would be a poor choice for any experimenter, as, and I quote, "People's recollections of events are notoriously poor."

Quote:
BOTTOM LINE, THERE IS A REASON HUMANS AND ANIMALS HAVE BEEN INCAPACITATED IN LESS THAN 5 SECONDS WHEN NO PART OF THE CNS (BRAIN OR SPINE) WAS CONTACTED BY THE PROJECTILE. AND IT ISN'T BECAUSE OF OXYGEN LOSS TO THE BRAIN THROUGH BLOOD LOSS (WHICH TAKES AT LEAST 15 SECONDS IN THE MOST "PERFECT" BEST CASE SCENARIOS, TO MUCH MORE COMMONLY 30 SECONDS OR MORE)
Apparently Goransson et al. agree that there is something at work:

Quote:
Preliminary observations show that under certain circumstances high-energy missile trauma to soft tissue causes a transient depression of the EEG. Similar effects on the central nervous system elicited by the pressure and shock waves might be the cause of the acute behavioural and mental blockage reported in man by nonfatal wounds from missiles of this type.
Abstract: Remote Cerebral Effects on EEG in High-Energy Missile Trauma. The Journal of Trauma. 28(1 Supplement):S204-S205; January 1988.

Last edited by dahahn; 02-05-2010 at 09:53..
dahahn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 10:18   #253
dahahn
Senior Member
 
dahahn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones13 View Post
<h!></h!>Extremely small sample sizes are simply not valid. Sample size for this would need to be in the hundreds if not thousands. Otherwise the statistics are useless.
I disagree here. When only small sample sizes are to be had, then one must work with what one is given. In an earlier post you stated that reaction to testing in unanesthetized animals would illicit a backlash, thus it's possible that a data set may be derived based on a sample size that is smaller than intended. The next logical step would be to use the data for what it is: data derived from a small sample that shows an obvious trend in said sample. This is the case in pioneering areas of astrophysics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones13 View Post
<h!></h!>I don't think you really understand the education health care professionals receive. The basic science portion includes coursework in gross anatomy with cadaver dissection, histology, physiology, biochemistry, neuroanatomy with brain dissection, pathology, microbiology, pharmacology and radiology. Pre-professional training includes chemistry, biochemisty, biology, physics and organic chemistry. Generally, anyone in a profession who is licensed to prescribe medications has a good life sciences base to their education.
This argument could also be used to support a medical doctor submitting a paper on the atmosphere of a newly discovered exoplanet. Again, I disagree. Because someone has education that, along the way, has covered microbiology, physiology, etc. does not give them authority outside of their chosen profession. Again, by this logic, since a dentist has taken neuroanatomy it would qualify him/her to publish papers on neuroscience. I believe we can agree that this would not be acceptable in the scientific community. I don't mind seeing data from people without doctorates, or even degrees, but it should be handled as such, much the same as data from someone with a degree in an entirely unrelated field.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones13 View Post
No evidence against it? What about the problems with the evidence FOR it? You just can't turn it around like that. The science is in the ability of the research to withstand criticism. Period.
This argument is weak, from any party (no offense). People used the same argument to try to prove that we did not go to the moon. I agree that the onus is on the theorist to prove the theory, but we can also agree that if you want to "disprove" something, you must enter empirical evidence against it.

I conclude with this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones13 View Post
I agree; there is a basis for further research, a LOT more research, necessary to answer the many valid criticisms.
We can all agree on this, and I applaud you for both being skeptical AND realizing the need to look further into this. Unfortunately it seems as if there is a limited minority of people here that can say the same. It seems to me that if a phenomena, such as BPW, is discovered by multiple sources in multiple fields of expertise, it deserves much more research. Unfortunately, it seems as if more people would like to disprove it than look any further into it.
dahahn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 11:04   #254
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Bones, you say this, as many do, but it's not really relavant. High energy projectile isn't enough info. Bullet construction plays a HUGE part. This has been said many times already... high energy means little if the bullet cannot impart it's energy to the target?

Quote:
Think about all the cases where people are shot with multiple high energy projectiles and basically shrug it off. This is part of the reason incapacitation due to TBI from BPW doesn't ring true to me; Drugs and adrenalin shouldn't make a difference but they do.
__________________
- 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 02-05-2010, 12:03   #255
Police Marksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 529
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.

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.

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

Speer 38special+P GD, 135gr, 860fps, KE=222, P=11.75, E=.59, 3.2ci, 361psi
Win 38spcl T Series+P, 130gr, 925fps, KE=247, P=12.00, E=.67, 4.2ci, 393psi

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
Federal 9mm HST,,,, 124gr, 1150fps, KE=364, P=13.90, E=.64, 3.9ci, 501psi
Win9mm+P T Series, 124gr, 1180fps, KE=383, P=13.90, E=.67, 4.2ci, 526psi
Win9mm +P Bonded, 124gr, 1180fps, KE=383, P=18.70, E=.54, 2.7ci, 392psi
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
Federal 9mm HST,,,, 147gr, 1000fps, KE=326, P=14.40, E=.66, 4.1ci, 433psi
Speer 9mm GD,,,,,,,, 147gr,, 990fps, KE=320, P=15.25, E=.58, 3.2ci, 401psi
Win 9mm T Series,,,, 147gr,, 990fps, KE=320, P=14.50, E=.66, 4.1ci, 422psi
Win 9mm Bonded,,,,, 147gr,, 995fps, KE=323, P=16.50, E=.59, 3.3ci, 374psi

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 357mag Gold Dot, 125gr, 1600fps, KE=710, P=12.75, E=.69, 4.5ci, 1063psi
Speer SB 357magGD, 125gr,,, 990fps, KE=294, P=14.50, E=.65, 4.0ci, 388psi
Win 357magSilvertip, 145gr, 1290fps,, KE=536, P=12.50, E=.59, 3.3ci, 819psi
DT 357mag Gold Dot, 158gr, 1400fps, KE=688, P=19.00, E=.56, 3.0ci, 692psi

DT 9X25 Gold Dot, 115gr, 1800fps, KE=827, P=10.00, E=.64, 3.2ci, 1579psi
DT 9X25 Gold Dot, 125gr, 1725fps, KE=826, P=15.00, E=.74, 5.2ci, 1051psi
DT 9X25 Gold Dot, 147gr, 1550fps, KE=784, P=17.50, E=.68, 4.4ci,, 856psi

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
Win 40S&W Bonded, 165gr, 1140fps, KE=476, P=19.00, E=.55, 2.9ci, 479psi
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
Win40S&W T Series, 180gr,,, 990fps, KE=392, P=14.30, E=.70, 4.6ci, 524psi
Win 40S&W Bonded, 180gr,, 1070fps, KE=458, P=21.80, E=.51, 2.5ci, 402psi

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
Federal 45auto HST, 230gr,, 890fps, KE=405, P=14.40, E=.86, 7.0ci, 537psi
Speer 45auto G Dot, 230gr,, 890fps, KE=405, P=13.50, E=.70, 4.6ci, 573psi
Rem45auto G Saber, 230gr,, 875fps, KE=391, P=14.00, E=.74, 5.2ci, 534psi
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
Win 45 auto Bonded, 230gr, 905fps, KE=418, P=15.80, E=.67, 4.2ci, 506psi



Good Shooting,
Craig

I could be wrong, but doesn't the Courtney formal for BPW seemed to be flawed? The less penetration a round has the greater the BPW! A round traveling 1400 fps, and expands to .68 diameter and penetrates only four inches will have a much greater BPW, than the same round penetrating fourteen inches. We know that four inches of penetration will not be as effective, so whats up?

It seems to promote less penetrating rounds for the so called BPW! But like I said I could be wrong, I am no scientist.

Last edited by Police Marksman; 02-05-2010 at 12:15..
Police Marksman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 12:29   #256
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Police Marksman View Post
I could be wrong, but doesn't the Courtney formal for BPW seemed to be flawed? The less penetration a round has the greater the BPW! A round traveling 1400 fps, and expands to .68 diameter and penetrates only four inches will have a much greater BPW, than the same round penetrating fourteen inches. We know that four inches of penetration will not be as effective, so whats up?

It seems to promote less penetrating rounds for the so called BPW! But like I said I could be wrong, I am no scientist.
First off, it doesn't "promote" less penetration. You are correct in that less penetration between to equally waited bullets with equal energy will have a higher PBPW. If it penetrates less that would mean it distributied it's energy more rapidly thus having a higher Peak Ballistic Pressure Wave.
__________________
- 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 02-05-2010, 12:30   #257
dahahn
Senior Member
 
dahahn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Police Marksman View Post
I could be wrong, but doesn't the Courtney formal for BPW seemed to be flawed? The less penetration a round has the greater the BPW! A round traveling 1400 fps, and expands to .68 diameter and penetrates only four inches will have a much greater BPW, than the same round penetrating fourteen inches. We know that four inches of penetration will not be as effective, so whats up?

It seems to promote less penetrating rounds for the so called BPW! But like I said I could be wrong, I am no scientist.
As I understand it, and again, I encourage people to correct me if I'm wrong, is BPW is independent of penetration. Case in point: a 22lr bullet that could have potential OVER penetration would have a low PSI for BPW. Pressure decays exponentially from the initial impact of the round. Therefore one would search for a round that has good penetration AND a good BPW.

EDIT: I see uz2bUSMC beat me to it.
dahahn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 20:36   #258
remat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by glock20c10mm View Post
Then you have dentists like DocGKR among others preaching agianst it (put a "Dr" in front of anyones name, and they have to be a genious, right? Guess that doesn't work out to well when two Doctors disagree. Who would have thunk it?). Blah blah blah. But at the end of the day
...
At the end of the day I would trust the "Dr" that is NDIA published.
remat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 22:54   #259
glock20c10mm
Senior Member
 
glock20c10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Out West
Posts: 5,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by remat View Post
At the end of the day I would trust the "Dr" that is NDIA published.
The question to me is if you really believe that or if you were simply being arguementative. In the end, how truthful anyone is has no dependence whatsoever on an added title to their name or credentials or where they were or weren't published. Please tell me you didn't really believe that?
__________________
Free Men Don't Need To Ask Permission To Bear Arms

The Glock 29 is the most versatile handgun yet produced.
glock20c10mm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 23:11   #260
glock20c10mm
Senior Member
 
glock20c10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Out West
Posts: 5,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Police Marksman View Post
I could be wrong, but doesn't the Courtney formal for BPW seemed to be flawed? The less penetration a round has the greater the BPW! A round traveling 1400 fps, and expands to .68 diameter and penetrates only four inches will have a much greater BPW, than the same round penetrating fourteen inches. We know that four inches of penetration will not be as effective, so whats up?

It seems to promote less penetrating rounds for the so called BPW! But like I said I could be wrong, I am no scientist.
That's a honest question I guess. But it's written directly into the writeup of the study Dr. Courtney performed and wroteup that; (I'm paraphrasing here) Load selection should not be based on BPW alone, as a load much be choosen that will reach vitals organs above all else. So why would anyone that actually read the study disreguard penetration depth for greater BPW? Unless of course one hadn't closely read the writeup.

Can it not be that it's simply a fact, all else being equal, that less penetration depth equals greater peak ballistic pressure wave in psi? I don't see, nor have I ever seen anyone on GT promoting a load that doesn't penetrate far enough to promote greater PBPW. If you have, sorry. At least now you can correct them if you see it come up again.
__________________
Free Men Don't Need To Ask Permission To Bear Arms

The Glock 29 is the most versatile handgun yet produced.
glock20c10mm 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 12:40.




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


Users Currently Online: 1,258
306 Members
952 Guests

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