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 12-24-2012, 14:56   #701
clarkz71
Senior Member
 
clarkz71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post

You, Pisces, think that, "The FBI and hundreds if not thousands of LEAs seem to be doing just fine with the protocols being proven every day out on the streets of America." but you don't understand the meaning of proof. We don't know how "fine" the are doing because we are stil not doing the work to find out and because many are still sticking to the idea you share with them and denying such evidence as there is. In the mean time it is very possible that many of those FBI agents and LEOs that have died in gunfights would not have been dead if they had been better armed.

English
Excellent post English.
__________________
Quote:
Real Men of Genius....Here's to you, Mister self proclaimed-genius-surrounded by idiots!
.
G23 gen3 .40/.357 Sig
Florida Glocker #1923

Last edited by clarkz71; 12-24-2012 at 14:56..
clarkz71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 15:31   #702
pisc1024
Senior Member
 
pisc1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
Where indeed! We can start with the idea of "proven". What do you think it means? What it does not mean is that lots of people shot with 9mms have died as a result. Lots of people would die whatever they were shot with. What matters is the time it takes before you can stop shooting them and such evidence as I have seen, none of which is much more than anecdotal with the exception of the BPW work, is that it takes more shots with a 9mm than with a .40S&W or 357SIG to stop someone shooting back. That is practical street results and not some hypothesizing about how quickly and accurately a 9mm can be shot relative to other cartridges.
You and I agree on the idea of proven, I guess we just look at it two different ways. I'm not getting into a caliber war with you, and will not say anything about whether 9 is better or worse. I am merely going to say that your argument comparing the FBI testing criteria to anecdotal evidence is complete BS. That is what the FBI testing dose so well; it takes the anecdote out of the evidence. It is an established set of criteria that can be repeated in a lab and to get a base line of how a particular load will work in specific situations on the street. This has been proven by studies from people like Eugene Wolburg (sorry if I misspelled his name) and others. The fact is that the way a bullet performs in the FBI testing protocols in the lab, correlates almost 100% of the time to how it will perform in a street scenario. It is obvious to me that you don't like that fact because it clashes with your world view specifically when it pertains to pistol wounding.
Quote:
I disliked the FBI protocol long before BPW effects had been heard of so that little idea doesn't fly. See how that works? I have a strong tendency to attack any kind of nonsense and that is nothing to do with my "world view" beyond the general principle that nonsense should not be left around to replicate itself via lazy minds. Fackler's dogmatic ideas have clearly been nonsense from the begining. It shows a great deal for the dominance of his personality that they have become so firmly entrenched in so many minds and organisations.
So your distain for the FBI and other government agencies has been around for a long time. So what? It is obvious to me that you went shopping for an idea that fit into your beliefs political or otherwise. In doing so you have hitched your wagon to the BPW craze which has been around in some shape or form for a very long time. Need I remind you that the FBI was once a fan boy of light and fast, and they paid a heavy price for that? I personally don't care the politics involved with things like bullets; I just know what works, and what doesn’t. Whether you want to admit it or not, LE has almost completely gone to the Fackler/ FBI standard. There are a few hold outs that do so because of political pressure (EFMJ's come to mind).

Quote:
If there is one thing that has been firmly established it is that BPW effects are a significant factor within hangun cartridges. They range from zero through a little to quite a lot. What they don't do is provide a guarantee of a one shot stop, but no one in support of the idea EVER suggested that they did so.
I beg to differ with you on this little gem. BPW has pretty much been completely debunked in ref to handgun stopping power. Once again I'll ask the question that I know you cannot answer: If BPW is so widely accepted and so firmly established then who in the LE/ .mil world believes it?
You or anyone else on this forum has yet to 1. Answer that question. 2. Show any proof that BPW exists in handguns. Keep trying though.

Quote:
You know as well as I do that we have been over this before. To some kinds of injuries under some circumstances, animals and humans will react differently. To injuries which produce measurable brain dysfunction they are much the same. How determined you are to fight on in insignificant if you are unconcious beause determination and anger are functions of consciousness. That is as true for animals as it is for men under all circumstances. You, as a fighting man, might take comfort from your fighting spirit, but if you are unconscious it is having no effect.

I agree with you 100% on this. If your brain is damaged significantly, you’re out of the fight. No argument there. Once again, you can't or won't produce evidence that this occurs with handguns in anything but a direct hit to the brain. Put differently: it is simply impossible at handgun velocities to have distant wounding effects.


Quote:
Testing loads on gelatine is useful only if you can correlate the damage done to the gelatine with the probability of those two measures. That work has never been done. The Courtney's BPW work did not attempt to do it and no one else has attempted to do it. Testing on animals can never be a perfect model for results on people but it is the best that we can do. What you are claiming is that because it isn't perfect we should settle for some half baked idea of what works and what doesn't.
You are simply wrong in respects to gel. The fact is that gel is not designed to show you the temporary wound cavity as so many people think. Gel is simply there to provide an effective stand in for a human torso. Bullets fired into gel react almost exactly as they do when fired into a human torso with respects to penetration depth and recovered diameter. That's it.
As for animals, I never said that animal testing didn't have a place. But it is not a good substitute for the FBI testing, which once again, is not half baked, and has been proven effective hundreds of not thousands of times on the street.






Quote:
The tactical and equipment lessons learned from this were obvious and if the FBI had just applied those lessons and changed to high capacity 9mms without doing anything else, that alone would have prevented a similar future catastrophe. Undoubtedly there were some who had been claiming that a .38 snubbie was all a proper agent needed, and their egos would have been hurt, but I suspect there were no where near as many of those as now claim the 9mm is all anyone needs. The thing was that there was no major figure whose reputation and carreer was tied to that idea and so minds could change.

The underlined portion is simply preposterous. If I'm not mistaken there was 3 FBI agents on scene with high cap 9mms Grogan, Dove, and Risner. They were armed with the S&W 459 a 15 shot 9. The fact is the bullets fired from these guns fared no better than the bullets fired from the .38 spc. The only difference if you issued all the FBI high cap 9's would be more ineffective rounds flying around in a shootout. You can go to http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm
If you care to read more about it….


Quote:
You, Pisces, think that, "The FBI and hundreds if not thousands of LEAs seem to be doing just fine with the protocols being proven every day out on the streets of America." but you don't understand the meaning of proof. We don't know how "fine" the are doing because we are stil not doing the work to find out and because many are still sticking to the idea you share with them and denying such evidence as there is. In the mean time it is very possible that many of those FBI agents and LEOs that have died in gunfights would not have been dead if they had been better armed.

English
I have yet to see a situation of a LEO who was killed or wounded where anything but a rifle would have fared better than what he or she had on their hip. Face it there is no magic bullet when it comes to handguns. Sure there are people who are shot in the arm and drop like a ton of bricks. But there are also people who are shot in the heart who run or continue to fight for seemingly inhuman periods of time. I know I have seen it happen, and trust me it scares the **** out of you when you do! The fact is all these are anecdotal; the one x factor that cannot be recreated in the lab is the human, the person who was shot. What was their mind set? What drugs were the on? How did that affect THEM? You see it all the time at your neighborhood pub I'm sure. There is always one dude who gets drunk and wants to fight everything that moves. Then there are those people who get drunk and just laugh their asses of at anything. You just can't repeat that or predict that in a lab. For that reason it can't be tested. I think it falls under the hope for the best, but plan for the worst type thing.

Last edited by pisc1024; 12-24-2012 at 15:39..
pisc1024 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 15:52   #703
Frank V
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: S.W. Montana
Posts: 605
Quote:
Originally Posted by rustytxrx View Post
BTW, I don't know the actual criteria or use of a LEO duty weapon. I am not sure the actual goal is to kill the bad guy. If that were the goal they would be carring a SAW.

Rusty
Having been in a Sheriff's Dept. for a lot of years I can answer this! The goal is NOT to kill the bad guy! The goal is to stop the threat/fight ASAP, if the bad guy succumbs to wounds inflicted while he was commiting the crime is only incidental. Stoping the fight or threat is the goal!
__________________
U.S.A. "RIDE FOR THE BRAND OR LEAVE!"
Frank V is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 16:12   #704
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by pisc1024 View Post
I beg to differ with you on this little gem. BPW has pretty much been completely debunked in ref to handgun stopping power. Once again I'll ask the question that I know you cannot answer: If BPW is so widely accepted and so firmly established then who in the LE/ .mil world believes it?
You or anyone else on this forum has yet to 1. Answer that question. 2. Show any proof that BPW exists in handguns. Keep trying though..
Can you give a reference to where it has been debunked?

A question that no one on any forum (Facklerites) has answered is what causes a person to drop on the spot without a CNS hit? This has happened with handguns, what is the mechanism that makes this occur?
__________________
- 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 12-24-2012, 16:14   #705
rustytxrx
Senior Member
 
rustytxrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,068
Pisc1024, this officer would surely have done better with rifle.

Base civilian police Sergeant Kimberly Munley, who had rushed to the scene in her patrol car, encountered Hasan in the area outside the Soldier Readiness Processing Center.[32] Hasan fired at Munley, who exchanged shots with him using her 9mm M9 pistol. Munley's hand was hit by shrapnel when one of Hasan's bullets struck a nearby rain gutter, and then two bullets struck Munley: the first bullet hit her thigh, and the second hit her knee.[19][29] As she began to fall from the first bullet, the second bullet struck her femur, shattering it and knocking her to the ground.[19][29] Hasan then walked up to Munley and kicked her pistol out of reach.[33]
__________________
Rusty
Texas, I luv u
rustytxrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 16:19   #706
pisc1024
Senior Member
 
pisc1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by uz2bUSMC View Post
Can you give a reference to where it has been debunked?

A question that no one on any forum (Facklerites) has answered is what causes a person to drop on the spot without a CNS hit? This has happened with handguns, what is the mechanism that makes this occur?
Can you prove what causes this? Is it BPW? I have yet to see anything from the Cournteys that has shown this to be scientific fact. At best it's only a theory. Show me some proof and I'll be more than happy to look at it.
pisc1024 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 16:21   #707
pisc1024
Senior Member
 
pisc1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by rustytxrx View Post
Pisc1024, this officer would surely have done better with rifle.

Base civilian police Sergeant Kimberly Munley, who had rushed to the scene in her patrol car, encountered Hasan in the area outside the Soldier Readiness Processing Center.[32] Hasan fired at Munley, who exchanged shots with him using her 9mm M9 pistol. Munley's hand was hit by shrapnel when one of Hasan's bullets struck a nearby rain gutter, and then two bullets struck Munley: the first bullet hit her thigh, and the second hit her knee.[19][29] As she began to fall from the first bullet, the second bullet struck her femur, shattering it and knocking her to the ground.[19][29] Hasan then walked up to Munley and kicked her pistol out of reach.[33]
I agree 100%.

Last edited by pisc1024; 12-24-2012 at 23:56..
pisc1024 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 17:12   #708
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by pisc1024 View Post
Can you prove what causes this? Is it BPW? I have yet to see anything from the Cournteys that has shown this to be scientific fact. At best it's only a theory. Show me some proof and I'll be more than happy to look at it.
So you admit that the phenomenon exists then, yes?
__________________
- 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 12-24-2012, 17:31   #709
rustytxrx
Senior Member
 
rustytxrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,068
Five shots from 9mm, one to spine....


As the shooting continued outside, nurses and medics entered the building, secured the doors with a belt and rushed to help the wounded.[34] According to the responding nurses, there was so much blood covering the floor inside the building, that they were unable to maintain balance, and had difficulty reaching the wounded to help them.[35] In the area outside the building, Hasan continued to shoot at fleeing soldiers, and civilian police Sergeant Mark Todd arrived and shouted commands at Hasan to surrender.[29] Todd said: "Then he turned and fired a couple of rounds at me. I didn't hear him say a word, he just turned and fired."[36] The two exchanged shots, and Hasan was felled by five shots from Todd,[3][37] who then kicked his pistol out of his hand and placed him in handcuffs as he fell unconscious.[38]
__________________
Rusty
Texas, I luv u
rustytxrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 19:03   #710
rustytxrx
Senior Member
 
rustytxrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,068
FrrankV, thanks. I am not of LEO or military backgound. I shoot practical pistol matchs for all the wrong reasons (it is fun and like video game but I really get to shoot bullets....9mm rabbitpoot loads - gamer)

I don't really have a dog in the fight save the fact that I am a retail pharmacist. been robbed three times. when I call local police I want them to come with evrything they need, know how to use it, and have the best quality of it possible. I am so sorry they are under paid. It makes no sense to me.

I shoot with LEOs, SWATS, Military and private security types. Maybe that old saw about "policeman can't shoot" is true but these guys can pin your ears back unless you are on your A game. Infact the Championship was won by a LEO, Vogle.

LEOs go into the worst part of town that most of us would not even walk down the street. when they get in trouble and have to use the service gun, then there is hell to pay. The public seems to immediately disturst the action of the LEO. will I say give them a pistol and let them walk those streets. Lets see how well they do.

So in reality the LEOs can't carry a gun that would assure their safety (example FN P90 full auto). Public would likely have a fit. I think in Texas especially near the border that is going to change. The bad guys got serious fire power.....we should know we gave it to them.

edit - good example was the bank robbery a few years back in California. Had to shoot the assilant in the foot to bring him down. lack of fire power?? yes I think

rusty
__________________
Rusty
Texas, I luv u

Last edited by rustytxrx; 12-24-2012 at 19:10..
rustytxrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 22:17   #711
pisc1024
Senior Member
 
pisc1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by uz2bUSMC View Post
So you admit that the phenomenon exists then, yes?
Yea, I know for a fact that some people who are shot in non life threatening places drop like a rock. Then there are some people who are shot in the heart and still continue to fight. So yes something happens, is this BPW I don't think so. Your side has yet to prove it if it is.
pisc1024 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 23:18   #712
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by pisc1024 View Post
Yea, I know for a fact that some people who are shot in non life threatening places drop like a rock. Then there are some people who are shot in the heart and still continue to fight. So yes something happens, is this BPW I don't think so. Your side has yet to prove it if it is.
And your side side has yet to debunk mine. Not to insult you but you possess a simplistic view. You earlier stated that BPW would not be seen at handgun velocities (keeping perspective, service calibers), correct? Keeping this question in mind...it should be noted that is is not as simple as velocity or shot placement but rather a combination of of correct factors coming into play. A .22lr to the heart or a 5.56 fragmenting short of the vitals may both prove to have non dynamic stops. In both of these instances, less than desirable trauma is occurring by either lack of trauma (.22lr) or poor bullet performance (5.56). The pieces of the puzzle have to be complete to form the picture. I.e. the 5.56 fragmenting within the vitals, transferring it's energy rapidly would yield much different results. Shot placement, bullet construction and energy is a more complete picture, velocity alone is not enough. You claim that it is not BPW...BPW is merely name to a theory. The best we have at the moment which describes the phenomenon you admit to exist. Would you feel better if the theory was named something else and given by Dr. Fackler? You say it is not BPW but to know that, you would have to know exactly what BPW is. How can you claim what it is not when you ask others to prove what it is?

Remember, your side still has to prove itself, as well. Not that a stoppage will eventually occur from loss of blood pressure (which we can all agree) but that it is the only mechanism, which you admit is not the case.

To be clear, when I say drop on the spot, I'm referring to a stoppage that is too fast for psychological relevance.
__________________
- 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

Last edited by uz2bUSMC; 12-24-2012 at 23:22..
uz2bUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 23:28   #713
Tiro Fijo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,245
No one will be convinced that the other side is right. Data & counter data will be submitted. Claims of doctored tests, cherrypicked results, etc., etc. All one can do is make their own decisions based on their own experiences or the experiences of others who they feel qualified to make said decisions. In the long run there will be other decisions/factors that are far more important than what bullet one has selected. That's not to say that bullet selection is not relevant, as it most certainly is, but more often than not it's the magician & not the wand that rules the day.
Tiro Fijo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 23:35   #714
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiro Fijo View Post
No one will be convinced that the other side is right. Data & counter data will be submitted. Claims of doctored tests, cherrypicked results, etc., etc. All one can do is make their own decisions based on their own experiences or the experiences of others who they feel qualified to make said decisions. In the long run there will be other decisions/factors that are far more important than what bullet one has selected. That's not to say that bullet selection is not relevant, as it most certainly is, but more often than not it's the magician & not the wand that rules the day.
Meh...that's a pretty good post but some of us are here for the long run to see how it pans out...
__________________
- Without idiots, there would be no baseline for common sense.

- "Our country went through a transition during the last election where the parasites came together and outnumbered the hosts." -jdavionic
uz2bUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 23:52   #715
pisc1024
Senior Member
 
pisc1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by uz2bUSMC View Post
And your side side has yet to debunk mine. Not to insult you but you possess a simplistic view. You earlier stated that BPW would not be seen at handgun velocities (keeping perspective, service calibers), correct? Keeping this question in mind...it should be noted that is is not as simple as velocity or shot placement but rather a combination of of correct factors coming into play. A .22lr to the heart or a 5.56 fragmenting short of the vitals may both prove to have non dynamic stops. In both of these instances, less than desirable trauma is occurring by either lack of trauma (.22lr) or poor bullet performance (5.56). The pieces of the puzzle have to be complete to form the picture. I.e. the 5.56 fragmenting within the vitals, transferring it's energy rapidly would yield much different results. Shot placement, bullet construction and energy is a more complete picture, velocity alone is not enough. You claim that it is not BPW...BPW is merely name to a theory. The best we have at the moment which describes the phenomenon you admit to exist. Would you feel better if the theory was named something else and given by Dr. Fackler? You say it is not BPW but to know that, you would have to know exactly what BPW is. How can you claim what it is not when you ask others to prove what it is?

Remember, your side still has to prove itself, as well. Not that a stoppage will eventually occur from loss of blood pressure (which we can all agree) but that it is the only mechanism, which you admit is not the case.

To be clear, when I say drop on the spot, I'm referring to a stoppage that is too fast for psychological relevance.
Your statement is a pretty weak argument. On the one hand you are telling me that I have to prove my side to you. I don't have to prove anything to you, as I have said before there are thousands of LEOs who go to work using ammo that is chosen based wholly or partly on the FBI protocols. Once again I'll point to the fact that there are none who chose ammo based on anything that remotely sounds like BPW. I will also add, that yes I believe that the only way a handgun bullet wounds is by permanent crush. There is no remote wounding save for minor tearing. There are also psychological stops as well. These are where people hear a gunshot and just drop often times before they even realize they are shot. Is this something they are conditioned to do by TV etc? I don't know. I'm not trying to count on that, nor am I attempting to answer why and when this happens.
On the other hand, you are pushing your THEORY as if it is fact. I have read all of Courtney's information that is available on the internet, and none of it is the least bit persuasive to me. Unless you have something that I have not seen which I would love to see, I'll stick with my statement.
Bottom line, thousands of cops put on their guns filled with bullets that are designed around the FBI protocols. These bullets work, and work well. Once again, I say I don't have to prove anything, it's all there for you.
pisc1024 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 23:54   #716
pisc1024
Senior Member
 
pisc1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiro Fijo View Post
No one will be convinced that the other side is right. Data & counter data will be submitted. Claims of doctored tests, cherrypicked results, etc., etc. All one can do is make their own decisions based on their own experiences or the experiences of others who they feel qualified to make said decisions. In the long run there will be other decisions/factors that are far more important than what bullet one has selected. That's not to say that bullet selection is not relevant, as it most certainly is, but more often than not it's the magician & not the wand that rules the day.
Honestly, that is the smartest post I have seen on this thread.
pisc1024 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 05:58   #717
4949shooter
Senior Member
 
4949shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New Jersey Republik
Posts: 13,002


Quote:
Originally Posted by pisc1024 View Post
Your statement is a pretty weak argument. On the one hand you are telling me that I have to prove my side to you. I don't have to prove anything to you, as I have said before there are thousands of LEOs who go to work using ammo that is chosen based wholly or partly on the FBI protocols. Once again I'll point to the fact that there are none who chose ammo based on anything that remotely sounds like BPW. I will also add, that yes I believe that the only way a handgun bullet wounds is by permanent crush. There is no remote wounding save for minor tearing. There are also psychological stops as well. These are where people hear a gunshot and just drop often times before they even realize they are shot. Is this something they are conditioned to do by TV etc? I don't know. I'm not trying to count on that, nor am I attempting to answer why and when this happens.
On the other hand, you are pushing your THEORY as if it is fact. I have read all of Courtney's information that is available on the internet, and none of it is the least bit persuasive to me. Unless you have something that I have not seen which I would love to see, I'll stick with my statement.
Bottom line, thousands of cops put on their guns filled with bullets that are designed around the FBI protocols. These bullets work, and work well. Once again, I say I don't have to prove anything, it's all there for you.
This may help:

Quote:
Originally Posted by intecooler View Post
.22 Stinger on the left and Underwood 155 on the right. It was a sight to see!

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...13554585_n.jpg
__________________
"...the men under your command deserve your leadership."-OXCOPS
4949shooter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 07:24   #718
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by pisc1024 View Post
Your statement is a pretty weak argument. On the one hand you are telling me that I have to prove my side to you. I don't have to prove anything to you, as I have said before there are thousands of LEOs who go to work using ammo that is chosen based wholly or partly on the FBI protocols. Once again I'll point to the fact that there are none who chose ammo based on anything that remotely sounds like BPW. I will also add, that yes I believe that the only way a handgun bullet wounds is by permanent crush. There is no remote wounding save for minor tearing. There are also psychological stops as well. These are where people hear a gunshot and just drop often times before they even realize they are shot. Is this something they are conditioned to do by TV etc? I don't know. I'm not trying to count on that, nor am I attempting to answer why and when this happens.
On the other hand, you are pushing your THEORY as if it is fact. I have read all of Courtney's information that is available on the internet, and none of it is the least bit persuasive to me. Unless you have something that I have not seen which I would love to see, I'll stick with my statement.
Bottom line, thousands of cops put on their guns filled with bullets that are designed around the FBI protocols. These bullets work, and work well. Once again, I say I don't have to prove anything, it's all there for you.
You seem to be really angry about BPW, like someone pissed in your Fackler-o's or something.

Anyway, I'll be honest I don't really have any more simple way of discussing this with you and I don't think you will grasp the concept either way.

Here, try this...can you understand that this argument is not "You can only have BPW or FBI protocol." < Can ya get that right there, homie? If so, let me know and we can move forward.
__________________
- 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 12-25-2012, 07:26   #719
clarkz71
Senior Member
 
clarkz71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,608
Bottom line, thousands of cops put on their guns filled with bullets that are designed around the FBI protocols. These bullets work, and work well.
Once again, I say I don't have to prove anything



Filled with Bullets?, How about filled with ammunition and
that ammunition contains a bullet design that works well?. .Caliber Corner


Merry Christmas everyone. .Caliber Corner
__________________
Quote:
Real Men of Genius....Here's to you, Mister self proclaimed-genius-surrounded by idiots!
.
G23 gen3 .40/.357 Sig
Florida Glocker #1923

Last edited by clarkz71; 12-25-2012 at 09:18..
clarkz71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 07:39   #720
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by pisc1024 View Post
Your statement is a pretty weak argument. On the one hand you are telling me that I have to prove my side to you. I don't have to prove anything to you, as I have said before there are thousands of LEOs who go to work using ammo that is chosen based wholly or partly on the FBI protocols. Once again I'll point to the fact that there are none who chose ammo based on anything that remotely sounds like BPW. I will also add, that yes I believe that the only way a handgun bullet wounds is by permanent crush. There is no remote wounding save for minor tearing. There are also psychological stops as well. These are where people hear a gunshot and just drop often times before they even realize they are shot. Is this something they are conditioned to do by TV etc? I don't know. I'm not trying to count on that, nor am I attempting to answer why and when this happens.
On the other hand, you are pushing your THEORY as if it is fact. I have read all of Courtney's information that is available on the internet, and none of it is the least bit persuasive to me. Unless you have something that I have not seen which I would love to see, I'll stick with my statement.
Bottom line, thousands of cops put on their guns filled with bullets that are designed around the FBI protocols. These bullets work, and work well. Once again, I say I don't have to prove anything, it's all there for you.
There really is no point arguing with you. You can't see that tens or hundreds of thousand of LEOs all doing the same thing does not imply that it is the optimum thing to do. It is just what they are doing because they are told to do so and because the people telling them don't know any better. That is, there is no EVIDENCE that what they are doing is correct and so you do need to show evidence (the thing you call proof) that what they are doing is correct.

You still can't grasp the difference betweena fact and a theory. A theory is an explanation of how or why some observed phenomena exist. For example:

Cumulus clouds are the result of the Sun heating the ground which then heats a layer of air close to it. That heating produces expansion which reduces the density of that air. Because of its reduced density that layer tends to rise but cannot do so until it is replaced by colder air. Once that proces starts by one part of the less dense air rising a little. surrounding less dense air flows in to take its place and incleases the upwards force of what is now a short column and so more air flows in and increases the upwards flow to create a rising column of air. As the air rises its pressure falls and hence so does its temperature. If it rises far enough it falls below the dew point of the air that was at ground level and the excess moisture condenses out in the form of microscopic droplets which appear as clouds. This is why newly forming cumulus clouds have flat bottoms - that is because the air was all at much the same humidity and so reached its dew point at very much the same altitude. It is also why the altitude of the base of such clouds over a very large area of fairly flat land is remarkably consistent on any particular day and time.

That is a theory and it is constructed from several other theories. Some of it is fact, and an example of that is the microscopic droplets of water which form the cloud itself since they are demonstrable, but as a whole it is a theory and not a fact. In contrast we can say that cumulus clouds can often be seen forming and decaying in fine weather. This needs no explanation since it is a matter of simple observation and so it is a fact.

So anyone talking about how bullets incapacitate or whether 9mms are as effective as .40S&Ws and so on is talking theories. When you claim that you don't need to "prove" anything about your claims because it is standard practice you too are talking theories but in this case you are saying that your theory stands without need for argument or evidential support. In other words, you are talking nonsense as usual.

Facts vary in their certainty since some facts are the conclusion from direct observation, some facts are no more than probabilities derived from observation, and some are conclusions from the application of theory to secondary observation. The existence of clouds is a direct observation. A statement such as, "After shooting 1,000 adult men of heights between x and y, weght between p and q, and age between s and t in the thorax with 180gn .40 caliber bullets travelling at 1000fps 17.7% were still standing 90 seconds later, 26.3% collapsed between 60 and 90 seconds later, 32% collapsed between 45 and 60 seconds later, 6% collapsed between 30 and 45 seconds later, 8% collapsed between 15 and 30 seconds later, 8% between 8 and 15 seconds later and 2% between 0 an 8 seconds later." Is fact but it is fact based on a particular experiment which will not guarantee that a future experiment conducted as close to identically as possibly will replicate. A statistician, using theory, could probably give us ranges for each entry being met by some particular percentage of repetitions. And then we have statements about things such as the composition and structure of stars where we can never go and observe or do comparative experiments. Here the chain of logic and testable knowledge is so strong and so simple, if you are clever and knowledgeable enough, that the statements are virtual facts.

If the experiment had actually been done, the invented data set above would be fact. If you needed to shoot someone with a .40S&W it would not help you very much because there is no way of knowing which category your opponent is going to come in. If, on the other hand, you had similar data sets for the 9mm, the 357SIG, the .45ACP and the 10mm for each of a range of available loadings, it could be very useful to you because you could make a rational choice, based on the proportion that collapse within 8, 15 and 30 seconds say, and weigh that against your ability to shoot those rounds quickly and accurately enough and the ease of carrying the pistol concerned.

Suppose that, relative to the 9mm, twice as many collapse within 15 seconds of being shot with a .40S&W and three times as many collapse from a 357SIG and so you choose the 357SIG. You accept the fact that you can fire the 357SIG with 0.2 split times relative to the 0.17 split times with a 9mm as a worthwhile trade off. Where are you now when you need to shoot somone. You still can't guarantee that your opponent will drop within 15 seconds because the data say that only happens, say, 20% of the time, but it is still a big advance on happeneing 6% of the time and you will have a better probability of survival.

If the data existed, that would all be fact modified by some factor of variation which gets smaller as the number in the experiment goes upwards. The Courtney's work did no more than that, and in some ways did less because they could not shoot thousands of deer and the only events they counted as rapid collapse were those less than 5 seconds. The result was that their data set was affected more strongly by the fact that they necessarily used relatively small numbers and so their potential variability was higher but statistically significant. I don't know if you count statistical calculations as theory but if you allow that as mathematical fact then their data set was fact. That data set showed that their working hypothesis was correct. It showed that rapid collapse was a function of the peak pressure of the ballistic pressure wave. For Facklerites it showed a lot more than that because it showed that rapid collapse, that is, without direct impact on the CNS and well within time for blood pressure fall to cause collapse, actually existed. That is, it was not a fault of observation caused by distorted time sense and it was not any of the other unbelieveable "reasons" put forward by the Facklerites.

You need to understand that it is your side of this argument that is putting forward unbelievable theories without foundation and it is therefore you who needs to justify them or renounce any belief in them. That is the other thing you fail to understand about theories. One fact that does not fit the theory destroys the theory.

Courtney demonstrated scientifically that one shot rapid collapse exists without direct CNS impact. Your side denies the possibility of such phenomena and so your side's theory has been destroyed unless you can show that Courtney's work is wrong. In principle, this would be quite easy to do since, in standard scientific method, he has explained how he conducted his experiment. Your side can just repeat it. You don't even have to do all of it. You can just do the bit with the 357SIG and if you get no rapid collapses you would have very good grounds for saying that his work is invalid. As it is, no one has done this, but many of you have rubbished Courtney's work quite disgracefully. You repeat this by your statement that his work has been discredited. There is only one way to discredit a scientific work and that is to show by experiment that it is false. The fact that it does not convince you has as much significance as saying that it does not convince a five year old. Only evidence works.

It is worth noting that you don't even say what part of it fails to convince you, but since you demonstrate your inability to understand the concepts of evidence, fact, theory, proof, and scientific method in every post you make, I suppose that would not be enlightening either.

English
English 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 04:29.




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


Users Currently Online: 648
171 Members
477 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31