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 02-14-2010, 17:03   #426
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMGlocker View Post
http://www.winchester.com/PRODUCTS/L...s/default.aspx
Winchester Ranger T
.357sig 125gr. @ 1350fps
9mm+p 127gr. @ 1250fps

You guys are saying that 100fps and 2 less grains of bullet weight make ALL the difference.
Seriously?
That's less than a 10% velocity increase.
With a straight face you are going to tell me that the .357sig is an "unbelievable manstopper" yet the 9mm+P is just adequate?
Seriously?
That must mean the standard pressure 124gr. Gold Dot @ 1150fps is downright anemic?
http://www.speer-ammo.com/ballistics/ammo.aspx
It isn't that the standard pressure 9mm is downright anemic. It is just that it is anemic relative to it peak BPW pressue. If you will look back at the data provided by glock20c10mm you will see that he provides a list relating peak pressure to probability of rapid incapacitation. If you will take the trouble to draw a graph through to points given you will see that the probability falls to zero somewhere around 380psi. That is why most standard pressure 9mms are anemic in this respect. They will kill perfectly well provided you don't mind waiting a little. What they are not good at is producing rapid incapacitation from chest shots.

If you will look further up the same post, you will find a 9mm +P with a remarkably high peak pressure. Unfortunately, it achieves this result at the cost of a penetration of only 8.5 inches. In physics, there is no free lunch.

In choosing your examples you select a +P 9mm but a standard pressure 357SIG and so immediately bias the data in the direction you want. If you look at comparable pressures the velocity difference is typically 150fps and not 100fps, but even with a 10% velocity difference the KE difference is 21%. That is enough to take the 357SIG reasonably into the working band of the BPW effect instead of hovering just below it, as do most 9mms, and still leave enough energy to penetrate reasonably well and produce a reasonably high peak pressure. With a more realistic 12% extra velocity the 357SIG has 25% more KE.

If you will look at the title of the thread you will see that it is followed by 3 question marks. I suspect its intention was to collect evidence rather than to state a fact. Since I know that the thread originator is actually a fan of the 10mm rather than the 357SIG, I feel reinforced in this view.

English
English is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 18:10   #427
NMGlocker
BOOM headshot
 
NMGlocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 5,927
I guess you were serious...

__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
NMGlocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 20:17   #428
N/Apower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 585
Courtney shot 10 deer and told us about it. He used "distance ran" to indicate time until incapacitation.

We can all appreciate that with regards to permanent tissue destruction, that a broad-head hunting arrow is superior to pretty much any handgun round, and does about as well as many non-fragmenting rifle-rounds, yet has a VERY poor BPW.

I took the liberty of a sample-size in excess of 200+ deer with my poll. While this information of course is subjective to the honesty and measuring ability of those who responded to my poll, there does emerge a GENERAL trend.

*The deer must have been hit with only 1 shot, the shot must have hit either the heart or both lungs, or a lung and the heart, or both lungs. The shot must not have physically hit the spine.

21% of the deer shot with broadheads dropped on the spot.
34% of the deer shot with handguns (as defined in my poll) dropped on the spot.
49% of deer shot with rifles (as defined in my poll) dropped on the spot.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.htm...&f=23&t=631497

Now, there is no way someone is going to convince me that a 1-1/4" broadhead destroys less tissue than a handgun. Even Fackler seems to agree:
"Anyone yet unconvinced of the fallacy in using kinetic energy alone to measure
wounding capacity might wish to consider the example of a modern broadhead
hunting arrow. It is used to kill all species of big game, yet its striking energy is only about 50 ft-lb (68 Joules)-- less than that of the .22 Short bullet. Energy is used efficiently by the sharp blade of the broadhead arrow. Cutting tissue is far more efficient than crushing it, and crushing it is far more efficient than tearing it apart by stretch (as in temporary cavitation)."

http://randywakeman.com/ballltd47.htm

Ergo, based on my poll, kinetic energy/TC does appear to matter.

On the flip-side, why did the deer hit with an arrow collapse in it's tracks? There is very little PBW, and the TC from an arrow is a joke. So why? There should be almost a 100% "run-off" rate. There isn't. The difference was only a bit over 30%. So we are saying that a BPW that is almost negligble, is only 30% less effective than a considerable PBW (I doubt people were shooting deer with 147gr 9mm's...). Assuming that PBW is responsible for 100% of this difference, which is a laughable assumption.

The data can go both ways here, but I feel that it supports TC having a meaningful impact on incapacitation. Maybe not as much as the Courtney-ites would like, and not as little as the Fackler-ites claim, but it does appear to matter, presuming the data I have provided is valid, and I cannot attest to it as I did not measure it, I only recorded what was reported.

Last edited by N/Apower; 02-14-2010 at 20:35..
N/Apower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 20:59   #429
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
We can all appreciate that with regards to permanent tissue destruction, that a broad-head hunting arrow is superior to pretty much any handgun round, and does about as well as many non-fragmenting rifle-rounds, yet has a VERY poor BPW.
I don't see this happening.

There are alot more "deer shot" videos available than "people shot" videos and ALL the deer vs arrow I've ever seen = deer runs the hell off!

A broadhead may have "span" but it doesn't have "volume" in comparison to smokeless munitions.
__________________
- 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 02-14-2010, 21:02   #430
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMGlocker View Post
I guess you were serious...

I had faith that you were an intellectual poster, all-be-it blunt.

It ends up being just "blunt", my bad.
__________________
- 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 02-14-2010, 22:18   #431
N/Apower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by uz2bUSMC View Post
I don't see this happening.

There are alot more "deer shot" videos available than "people shot" videos and ALL the deer vs arrow I've ever seen = deer runs the hell off!

A broadhead may have "span" but it doesn't have "volume" in comparison to smokeless munitions.
Oh well, now you have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB8Zg3SiQQw

He looks rather confused. BPW cause a TBI?

I would wager that had I said "This is a deer shot with 9BPLE" and you couldn't see the arrow sticking out of it, you would use this video as back-up for your BPW theory. Am I wrong? If I am, explain.

Last edited by N/Apower; 02-14-2010 at 22:21..
N/Apower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 23:46   #432
glock20c10mm
Senior Member
 
glock20c10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Out West
Posts: 5,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
...dishonest science will almost always be found out if it has enough significance to arouse interest. The Courtney's work fits these criteria and, as far as I was concerned, it explained major holes in the claims of earlier, widely accepted, work on terminal ballistics effectiveness which had been obvious to me for a very long time and for which no sound explanation had ever been given.

English
__________________
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 02-14-2010, 23:53   #433
glock20c10mm
Senior Member
 
glock20c10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Out West
Posts: 5,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMGlocker View Post
.357sig 125gr. @ 1350fps
9mm+p 127gr. @ 1250fps
So you cherry pick argueably the most powerful load of the whole 9mm line-up and it's somehow suppose to be relative to the average 9mm load?

Of everyone who carries 9mm, LE, civilian, or military, what % do you believe carry that load which is actually labeled by Winchester as +P+?

I had hopes you'ld come up with a meaningful arguement. Thanks for letting me down.
__________________
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 02-15-2010, 00:31   #434
glock20c10mm
Senior Member
 
glock20c10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Out West
Posts: 5,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by N/Apower View Post
21% of the deer shot with broadheads dropped on the spot.
34% of the deer shot with handguns (as defined in my poll) dropped on the spot.
49% of deer shot with rifles (as defined in my poll) dropped on the spot.
I don't get it. I go to your poll that is currently showing a total of 260 total votes. And so far it only shows that 5% of deer collapsed/expired where hit! How on earth are you coming up with 21%??? Besides that the 5% number doens't really mean much from the standpoint it only account for 1 out of up to who knows how many deer they've shot with broadheads in their lifetime thus far.

Then you list handguns where only 3.5% dropped on the spot and could have been shot with anything from a 5.7FN through the .454 as defined by your poll. For our purposes that is of zero significance besides that it still only accounts for a single deer taken by a someone who may have shot many more with who knows what round or load within a specific cartridge.

And the same sort of minimal to no significance follows with rifle rounds. Here your chart shows 28.1% of deer collapsed on the spot and could have been shot with any rifle round from a 22 Hornet from a 10" barreled TC to a 26" barreled 460 Weatherby Magnum. Heck, by the definition in your poll, someone could have used a 36" barreled 50 BMG.

While I appreciate your enthusiasm toward gathering data, clearly the data you've collected tells us practically nothing in any way shape or form to the definition of significance. Surely you know this? What I really can't figure out is that you didn't use the actual results for deer collapsing on the spot in any catagory.

You've really lost me on that one.


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 02-15-2010, 00:37   #435
glock20c10mm
Senior Member
 
glock20c10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Out West
Posts: 5,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by N/Apower View Post
Is it just my computer with poor video showing capability, or is it impossible to see where the arrow entered the deer? And yeah, I did see what appeared to be an arrow sticking out of the deer after it fell, but at least for me it was still impossible to tell what angle the arrow went throught he deer at.
__________________
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 02-15-2010, 00:41   #436
N/Apower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by glock20c10mm View Post
Is it just my computer with poor video showing capability, or is it impossible to see where the arrow entered the deer? And yeah, I did see what appeared to be an arrow sticking out of the deer after it fell, but at least for me it was still impossible to tell what angle the arrow went throught he deer at.
Trailside camera, and poor quality, but it looks to have hit the deer broadside through the heart/lung area. Again, I won't swear to that as the film quality is poor. It proved the point though.
N/Apower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 00:50   #437
N/Apower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by glock20c10mm View Post
I don't get it. I go to your poll that is currently showing a total of 260 total votes. And so far it only shows that 5% of deer collapsed/expired where hit! How on earth are you coming up with 21%??? It's pretty simple. You divide the number of deer that collapsed instantly when hit with a bow by the total number of deer hit with a bow. This will give the percentage of times that the deer dropped instantly when shot with a bow. Try it. Besides that the 5% number doens't really mean much from the standpoint it only account for 1 out of up to who knows how many deer they've shot with broadheads in their lifetime thus far. But 5 deer with each caliber is a definitive study for Mr. Courtney.

Your argument is "what if they just put up their best/worst/last kill?" Well what if? Are you saying bow-hunters are more prone to talk about failure than rifle-hunters? No, I would say that they are about equal, as a whole. Ergo while the data may be skewed, it is skewed across the board. Noone is claiming that this is a percentage that a deer will collapse when hit with a certain projectile. The goal of the poll is to look at relationships between the 3. You can see that there is indeed a trend between the three, and that is expanded upon below.




Then you list handguns where only 3.5% dropped on the spot and could have been shot with anything from a 5.7FN through the .454 as defined by your poll. For our purposes that is of zero significance besides that it still only accounts for a single deer taken by a someone who may have shot many more with who knows what round or load within a specific cartridge. Very true, but the 5.7-.454 (pick the .44 as an average if it makes you feel better) have less BPW than an average rifle used for deer--say a .270 using a Nosler BT-- don't they? It's about a general trend based on TC and Kinetic energy transfer, not about specific calibers.

And the same sort of minimal to no significance follows with rifle rounds. Here your chart shows 28.1% of deer collapsed on the spot and could have been shot with any rifle round from a 22 Hornet from a 10" barreled TC to a 26" barreled 460 Weatherby Magnum. Heck, by the definition in your poll, someone could have used a 36" barreled 50 BMG.
Again, it's about trends. If you look at the data, a trend emerges. It's not about calibers or ammo brands.

While I appreciate your enthusiasm toward gathering data, clearly the data you've collected tells us practically nothing in any way shape or form to the definition of significance. Surely you know this? What I really can't figure out is that you didn't use the actual results for deer collapsing on the spot in any catagory.

Say huh? I gave you the percentages of deer that collapsed on the spot calculated independant of sample-size and a DIRECT trend emerged, almost linear. To put it in perspective, the bow was 61% as effective as the handgun, and the handgun was 69% as effectve as the rifle. This data has a very significant trend. Yes, it would have been better to see it caliber by caliber, but the sample-size would not be large enough, so we have to assume that the outliers are corrected for by the mean. Is it a study? No. It's an internet poll. It does provide a rough look at things though.


You've really lost me on that one.


Craig
I don't see how I lost you except that you don't understand how I calculated percentages without biasing for sample-size. I outlined that proceedure for you above so you can check the numbers (I can't help if 1 or 2 more people answered, so it might be 1-2% off or something by now). Take the raw data out of the poll, calculate to negate sample-size disparity between the groups, and there you go. Easy as pi.

Last edited by N/Apower; 02-15-2010 at 01:00..
N/Apower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 05:21   #438
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by N/Apower View Post
Trailside camera, and poor quality, but it looks to have hit the deer broadside through the heart/lung area. Again, I won't swear to that as the film quality is poor. It proved the point though.
Honestly though, the buck did as you said... he looked confused. That is why I wouldn't use that as a BPW backup. And I'm not trying to just argue out of it. Don't know what to say really, that's just a wierd example, man. It looks like he just freaked the hell out and was in instant shock. I mean, he went down and all but....

I'll look for some more vids like that later since I'm off today. Never seen, whatever that was, with a bow before.
__________________
- 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 02-15-2010, 05:25   #439
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Eh, you guys can have all that math crap. When you guys are done with all the crasy talk with numbers and such, I'll jump back in as if I were following right along.
__________________
- 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 02-15-2010, 07:32   #440
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by N/Apower View Post
.....

We can all appreciate that with regards to permanent tissue destruction, that a broad-head hunting arrow is superior to pretty much any handgun round, and does about as well as many non-fragmenting rifle-rounds, yet has a VERY poor BPW.

I took the liberty of a sample-size in excess of 200+ deer with my poll. While this information of course is subjective to the honesty and measuring ability of those who responded to my poll, there does emerge a GENERAL trend.

*The deer must have been hit with only 1 shot, the shot must have hit either the heart or both lungs, or a lung and the heart, or both lungs. The shot must not have physically hit the spine.

21% of the deer shot with broadheads dropped on the spot.
34% of the deer shot with handguns (as defined in my poll) dropped on the spot.
49% of deer shot with rifles (as defined in my poll) dropped on the spot.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.htm...&f=23&t=631497

Now, there is no way someone is going to convince me that a 1-1/4" broadhead destroys less tissue than a handgun......

Ergo, based on my poll, kinetic energy/TC does appear to matter.

On the flip-side, why did the deer hit with an arrow collapse in it's tracks? There is very little PBW, and the TC from an arrow is a joke. So why? There should be almost a 100% "run-off" rate. There isn't. The difference was only a bit over 30%. So we are saying that a BPW that is almost negligble, is only 30% less effective than a considerable PBW (I doubt people were shooting deer with 147gr 9mm's...). Assuming that PBW is responsible for 100% of this difference, which is a laughable assumption.

The data can go both ways here, but I feel that it supports TC having a meaningful impact on incapacitation. Maybe not as much as the Courtney-ites would like, and not as little as the Fackler-ites claim, but it does appear to matter, presuming the data I have provided is valid, and I cannot attest to it as I did not measure it, I only recorded what was reported.
There is no doubt that the energy efficiency of a broad-head is far ahead of a bullet but your experiment, if it can be called that because you were unable to control it, has several flaws.

The first flaw is the same one that invalidated the Marshall and Sanow data set. The responders are self selected and are more likely to respond if they have an interesting experience than if they have an uninteresting experience. In both cases this seems to be a well meaning attempt to gain information on a recalictrant topic.

You specify that "The deer must have been hit with only 1 shot, the shot must have hit either the heart or both lungs, or a lung and the heart, or both lungs. The shot must not have physically hit the spine." The Courtney experimants took car that the deer were not hit in the heart and so there is a major difference here. In the Courtney experiments, none of the deer collapsed because of a rapid drop of blood presure to the brain.

You say, "Now, there is no way someone is going to convince me that a 1-1/4" broadhead destroys less tissue than a handgun." and that is not actually relevant to the argument and neither is my quibble, but I will make it anyway. The broad head actually destroys very little tissue since it makes a fine, energy efficient, cut that produces a lot of functional damage but destroys very few cells. The whole idea of comparing bullets to broad-heads on the basis of energy expended is simply silly and Fackler demonstrates the same silliness. Bullets and broad-heads use totally different modes of injury.

But back to the main program! You say, correctly (sorry Craig!):

21% of the deer shot with broadheads dropped on the spot.
34% of the deer shot with handguns (as defined in my poll) dropped on the spot.

Here we have several problems. The first is that according to many reports from people who have been shot or stabbed, a large proportion, perhaps a majority, do not realise that they have been shot of stabbed. That is, they feel a minor thump but feel no pain at the time. After an interval of some 20 minutes gun shot wounds are, of course, extremely painful and can remain so for months but at the time, pain cannot be relied upon as an indicator of serious injury. If you have read the report from the Strasborg tests, which might or might not have actually happened, there is a telling report on the test of a .380ACP. The goat that was shot twitched a little as though surprised and then continued feeding within 2 seconds. After the 30 seconds alowed by the protocol, if I remember the time correctly, the goat was put down humanely but showed no sign of distress throughout. This is a small detail that, amongst others, makes me suspect that the tests were conducted.

As a consequence, many deer that are shot with a broad-head will not realise that they have been shot and will not be frightened and so will not run away. As such they are quite likely to stand where they are shot and then collapse. What your data set lacks, and cannot be expected to have, is the time to collapse. Incidentally, the Courtneys did not use distance run as a measure of time to collapse. They had a timer sensor close to the deer that started a timer with the sound of bullet impact and the time was then stopped manually from the hide at the point of collapse.

The video you reference is informative but not informative enough. The deer makes two distinctive movements before it collapses. I believe the first was a, "What just bumped into me? I thought I was alone here!" and the second was, "What was that odd noise or movement?" I say this because the first movement seemed related to itself and the second seemed to be focused on a fixed point at some distance. The rapid collapse then fits the result of a heart shot and abrupt drop of blood pressure before a flight response has been generated. This is supposition of course but what is clear relative to traumatic brain injury collapse is that the deer is clearly alert and reactive to stimuli until it collapses in complete contrast to a boxer who has just been punched to the head enough to daze him rather than knock him out.

The situation with a deer which has just been shot at with a pistol is that it will immediately run from the bang whether it has been hit or not. If it drops right there it is because its control system has been switched off and so the difference between 21% and 34% is actually not as simple as it seems.

The next problem is one of cartridge and bullet selection for hunting. Hunters who are hunting for meat are very reluctant to use bullets which damage too much meat and so their criteria are not the same as those slecting a round for self defence. They are much more likely to choose a round which will shoot through and through. They also have a tradition of using heavy for caliber hard cast bullets. Both result in very poor BPW levels. Your data set has no control of these factors and makes no attempt to control for them by sleection criteria. I am almost surprised that as many as 34% dropped on the spot from a single handgun bullet.

All in all, I fear we can draw very little in the way of sound conclusions from your poll. As the statisticians say, "Talk to us before you do your experiment. Not afterwards!" Probably more important than that is your acceptance of the wide spread belief that getting shot hurts enough to produce an immediate flight or fight reaction.

English
English is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 07:42   #441
Brucev
Senior Member
 
Brucev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 9,189
The video of the deer hit with an arrow is certainly not very clear. But from what I see, the buck appears to be reacting to the hit in the same way I've seen bucks and does react when shot with a slow heavy bullet in the heart/lung area. I have watched them fall down and try but fail to rise up. Perhaps in this case the arrow pierced the heart or cut one or more arteries which would immediately lead to a dramatic loss of blood pressure. Perhaps the arrow pierced one or both lungs. Either or both together would account for the confused reaction of the buck as well as its inability to stand up. JMHO. Sincerely. Brucev.
Brucev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 09:14   #442
NMGlocker
BOOM headshot
 
NMGlocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 5,927
Just thing how AWESOMELY DEVASTATING "Extreme --Shock" .357sig ammo must be

The reason I'm not debatng you in a serious manner?
Because the entire premise of your argument is so vapid and devoid of substance as to be ridiculous.
Same reason I don't argue with 9/11 "Truthers", Scientologists or Obama voters.
Mocking pseudo-intellectualism was amusing for a few posts but now that the weather has cleared I'll be at the range, enjoy your little "debate".
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
NMGlocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 09:38   #443
N/Apower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by uz2bUSMC View Post
Honestly though, the buck did as you said... he looked confused. That is why I wouldn't use that as a BPW backup. And I'm not trying to just argue out of it. Don't know what to say really, that's just a wierd example, man. It looks like he just freaked the hell out and was in instant shock. I mean, he went down and all but....

I'll look for some more vids like that later since I'm off today. Never seen, whatever that was, with a bow before.

My point exactly. If a bow can cause what I view as the same result you are describing a "TBI" to be, in this context (The deer was scared as it obviously tried to flee, yet when he got set down, he didn't even try to run again. He didn't try to crouch down or hide or something. He just sat there not knowing what to do. Confused is the only way to describe it as the deer ceased all efforts to flee, yet we know it didn't wish to remain in the area either. Kindof like a violent attacker stopping their attack.), then there are more factors at work here, and BPW's effectiveness cannot be measured at this present time. Ergo, it's all supposition.

Last edited by N/Apower; 02-15-2010 at 09:42..
N/Apower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 09:41   #444
N/Apower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
There is no doubt that the energy efficiency of a broad-head is far ahead of a bullet but your experiment, if it can be called that because you were unable to control it, has several flaws.

The first flaw is the same one that invalidated the Marshall and Sanow data set. The responders are self selected and are more likely to respond if they have an interesting experience than if they have an uninteresting experience. In both cases this seems to be a well meaning attempt to gain information on a recalictrant topic.

You specify that "The deer must have been hit with only 1 shot, the shot must have hit either the heart or both lungs, or a lung and the heart, or both lungs. The shot must not have physically hit the spine." The Courtney experimants took car that the deer were not hit in the heart and so there is a major difference here. In the Courtney experiments, none of the deer collapsed because of a rapid drop of blood presure to the brain.

You say, "Now, there is no way someone is going to convince me that a 1-1/4" broadhead destroys less tissue than a handgun." and that is not actually relevant to the argument and neither is my quibble, but I will make it anyway. The broad head actually destroys very little tissue since it makes a fine, energy efficient, cut that produces a lot of functional damage but destroys very few cells. The whole idea of comparing bullets to broad-heads on the basis of energy expended is simply silly and Fackler demonstrates the same silliness. Bullets and broad-heads use totally different modes of injury.

But back to the main program! You say, correctly (sorry Craig!):

21% of the deer shot with broadheads dropped on the spot.
34% of the deer shot with handguns (as defined in my poll) dropped on the spot.

Here we have several problems. The first is that according to many reports from people who have been shot or stabbed, a large proportion, perhaps a majority, do not realise that they have been shot of stabbed. That is, they feel a minor thump but feel no pain at the time. After an interval of some 20 minutes gun shot wounds are, of course, extremely painful and can remain so for months but at the time, pain cannot be relied upon as an indicator of serious injury. If you have read the report from the Strasborg tests, which might or might not have actually happened, there is a telling report on the test of a .380ACP. The goat that was shot twitched a little as though surprised and then continued feeding within 2 seconds. After the 30 seconds alowed by the protocol, if I remember the time correctly, the goat was put down humanely but showed no sign of distress throughout. This is a small detail that, amongst others, makes me suspect that the tests were conducted.

As a consequence, many deer that are shot with a broad-head will not realise that they have been shot and will not be frightened and so will not run away. As such they are quite likely to stand where they are shot and then collapse. What your data set lacks, and cannot be expected to have, is the time to collapse. Incidentally, the Courtneys did not use distance run as a measure of time to collapse. They had a timer sensor close to the deer that started a timer with the sound of bullet impact and the time was then stopped manually from the hide at the point of collapse.

The video you reference is informative but not informative enough. The deer makes two distinctive movements before it collapses. I believe the first was a, "What just bumped into me? I thought I was alone here!" and the second was, "What was that odd noise or movement?" I say this because the first movement seemed related to itself and the second seemed to be focused on a fixed point at some distance. The rapid collapse then fits the result of a heart shot and abrupt drop of blood pressure before a flight response has been generated. This is supposition of course but what is clear relative to traumatic brain injury collapse is that the deer is clearly alert and reactive to stimuli until it collapses in complete contrast to a boxer who has just been punched to the head enough to daze him rather than knock him out.

The situation with a deer which has just been shot at with a pistol is that it will immediately run from the bang whether it has been hit or not. If it drops right there it is because its control system has been switched off and so the difference between 21% and 34% is actually not as simple as it seems.

The next problem is one of cartridge and bullet selection for hunting. Hunters who are hunting for meat are very reluctant to use bullets which damage too much meat and so their criteria are not the same as those slecting a round for self defence. They are much more likely to choose a round which will shoot through and through. They also have a tradition of using heavy for caliber hard cast bullets. Both result in very poor BPW levels. Your data set has no control of these factors and makes no attempt to control for them by sleection criteria. I am almost surprised that as many as 34% dropped on the spot from a single handgun bullet.

All in all, I fear we can draw very little in the way of sound conclusions from your poll. As the statisticians say, "Talk to us before you do your experiment. Not afterwards!" Probably more important than that is your acceptance of the wide spread belief that getting shot hurts enough to produce an immediate flight or fight reaction.

English
My "experiement" (poll) obviously has many holes. I would not try to pass it off as anything but "something fun" that was compiled. However, you cannot argue that there is a visible trend. That's all I was going for--is there a trend, or not? There was, according to my poll, which I agree with you is VERY subjective. Still, the error is one of accuracy and not consistancy. So while the frequency of results is subjective, the relative frequency is less so (but I agree, still subjective).
N/Apower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 09:41   #445
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
but now that the weather has cleared I'll be at the range, enjoy your little "debate".
We will, don't shoot your eye out, kid.
__________________
- 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 02-15-2010, 09:47   #446
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by N/Apower View Post
My point exactly. If a bow can cause what I view as the same result you are describing a "TBI" to be, in this context (The deer was scared as it obviously tried to flee, yet when he got set down, he didn't even try to run again. He didn't try to crouch down or hide or something. He just sat there not knowing what to do. Confused is the only way to describe it), then there are more factors at work here, and BPW's effectiveness cannot be measured at this present time. Ergo, it's all supposition.
Then our difference will be in the eye of the beholder because I don't view incapacitation to look the same as that (video). I view it to look more like "dazed" and confused, not confused and "assessing". More like your analogy of your fights, well aimed punches have more of a desired effect. The "blank" stare is where it's at, a loss of situational understanding. That deer was just confused.

I really just think that video is a bad example for anyone's case.
__________________
- 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 02-15-2010, 09:50   #447
N/Apower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by uz2bUSMC View Post
Then our difference will be in the eye of the beholder because I don't view incapacitation to look the same as that (video). I view it to look more like "dazed" and confused, not confused and "assessing". More like your analogy of your fights, well aimed punches have more of a desired effect. The "blank" stare is where it's at, a loss of situational understanding. That deer was just confused.

I really just think that video is a bad example for anyone's case.
Video quality is poor.

The deer "changed it's channel". That's what I looked at.
N/Apower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 09:53   #448
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by N/Apower View Post
My "experiement" (poll) obviously has many holes. I would not try to pass it off as anything but "something fun" that was compiled. However, you cannot argue that there is a visible trend. That's all I was going for--is there a trend, or not? There was, according to my poll, which I agree with you is VERY subjective. Still, the error is one of accuracy and not consistancy. So while the frequency of results is subjective, the relative frequency is less so (but I agree, still subjective).
The problem I see with your poll is the subjective viewpoints of the "boholder", again. I've listened to too many redneck stories recounting outlandish events to believe just anyones oppinions in a poll. I've known too many people that have killed in combat that don't really know what they saw... to be able to except random deers hunters oppinions one click away on a poll.
__________________
- 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 02-15-2010, 09:54   #449
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
The deer "changed it's channel". That's what I looked at.
It did, but not the right way in my oppinion, if you get what I mean?
__________________
- 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 02-15-2010, 12:13   #450
N/Apower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by uz2bUSMC View Post
The problem I see with your poll is the subjective viewpoints of the "boholder", again. I've listened to too many redneck stories recounting outlandish events to believe just anyones oppinions in a poll. I've known too many people that have killed in combat that don't really know what they saw... to be able to except random deers hunters oppinions one click away on a poll.
I agree that the opinions are subject to question, but they are equally so, yet the results are not equal. Not only are they not equal,but they trend.
N/Apower 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 02:44.



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


Users Currently Online: 667
182 Members
485 Guests

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