close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

357SIG proving to be an unbelievable manstopper???

Discussion in 'Caliber Corner' started by glock20c10mm, Jan 15, 2010.

  1. glock20c10mm

    glock20c10mm

    3,919
    7
    Dec 4, 2004
    Out West
    I can understand you and others feel that way. For myself and some others though, we aren't betting the farm on Dr. Courtney's work alone. A number of us have always believed from what we've seen in the past that Dr. Courtney's work holds water. None of us claim to know the exact parameters of the percentage basis that all this works off of, but myself and some others do feel Dr. Courtney's work is a good start to what we already knew existed.
    I disagree. Before you ever flip a coin it's already known there's going to be a 50/50 chance it'll land heads or tails because there are only 2 possible outcomes reguardless of the amount of times you flip it consecutively. With Dr. Courtney's work each individual outcome is virtually infinite. I think we learn a lot more from individual outcomes that each have infinite possibilities, especially when beginning from a controlled study set up. Even if a data set 10 is a relatively small data set, it still holds statistical value. Maybe not to within the margin of error YOU would like to see, but statistically valid none-the-less.
    Which is exactly why it's ok for us as individuals to decide either yes or no toward applying Dr. Courtney's work to our choice of SD carry round. Heck, I already had it applied before Dr. Courtney's work even existed. Now with his work available I've simply fine-tuned my choice of an SD carry round.
    And hopefully in my lifetime it will have come to that. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it though.
    This may be seen as nitpicking, but in your wording I disagree from you use of the word "criticism". Criticism can be based on fact or fiction. Either it stands up over time or it doesn't. Currently it does. I don't believe you'll ever see a change in that overall, but only in fine-tuning of what we've learned so far.
    DocGKR has credibility at stake if Dr. Courtney's theory holds water at all. And again I strongly disagree with your use of the term "criticism". Criticism can be honest or dishonest. Criticism can also be anecdote and/or opinion therefore contradicting your choice of using the word "criticism". Again, you may see me as nitpicking your choice of wording. But in this specific example of your use of the word "criticism" I don't believe it can be rightly used, particularily in an open forum type setting.
    I can see where it could easily be taken that way. I didn't, but don't feel it will help to spend time expaining it so I'ld just as soon move on...
    First of all, I'm not aware that you're buying into Dr. Courtney's threory in any way whatsoever, as least not so in as much as you'll ever choose to apply it in your choice of carry ammo. Besides the fact that you overall seem to believe Dr. Courtney's work is flawed. That said, how can you even have an opinion on drugs or adrenalin effecting the possible effects of BPW? Heck, at this point there is no one in existance that assumes to know how BPW and it's incapacitating effects even work! But you somehow KNOW that drugs and adrenalin will lessen if not completely negate it's effects all together that you don't even seem to believe exist? Please explain. I guess I'm most specifically wondering what you do or don't believe. Maybe it's that you don't know yourself at this point. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, just saying.
    Fair enough. For me personally though, I don't care how it works as long as it does. Either greater retarding forces promote quicker incapacitation or they don't. Loosely, that's all I really care about. Kind of like my microwave. I don't care to know it's operating principals. All I care to know is that when I put some food in it for a certain amount of time is should come out warmer than when I first put it in the microwave. If you have to know the way everything works before you'll choose to use it, fine. I don't. There is no benefit to me in knowing why more PBPW incapacitates quicker on average, as long as it does.
    Well said.
    True, but like you said; "If."


    Craig
     
  2. glock20c10mm

    glock20c10mm

    3,919
    7
    Dec 4, 2004
    Out West
    Just a quick question for those of you trying to decide if Dr. Courtney's theory on BPW is worth taking a look at, consider this;

    Assuming the same bullet construction for each and that they'll all penetrate around that magical 12" mark, give or take a couple inches, between all of: 380 Auto, 38 Special, 9mm Luger, 9mm Luger +P/+P+, 357 SIG, and 357 Magnum, do you believe all will incapacitate equally on average?

    I don't. I believe 380 Auto and 38 Special will always be on the low end of expectation, and that 357SIG and 357 Magnum will always be on the upper end of expectation. Heck, in my mind for me personally, it's not even opinion, it's fact.
     

  3. glock20c10mm

    glock20c10mm

    3,919
    7
    Dec 4, 2004
    Out West
    +1 :thumbsup:

    I could see that post being made a sticky all on it's own, let alone the rest of the thread!


    Good Shooting,
    Craig :cheers:
     
  4. CynicX

    CynicX

    885
    0
    Feb 25, 2008
    I'd like to add something intelligent to this thread....Then I changed my mind...

    .357sig > 9mm

    :)

    Seriously. I personally prefer the .357sig that is why I traded in my G17 for a G32. But that doesnt mean everyone should prefer it. The best way I can describe the difference is its a more "potent" round. More devastating while pinking, and flatter trajectory while shooting at distance.

    I hope I dont and doubt I'll will ever need to shoot a human being. But if I do I want a weapon that I can handle properly and that functions reliably, I'll worry about caliber size and ballistic numbers later... :)
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2010
  5. I disagree. Before you ever flip a coin it's already known there's going to be a 50/50 chance it'll land heads or tails because there are only 2 possible outcomes reguardless of the amount of times you flip it consecutively. With Dr. Courtney's work each individual outcome is virtually infinite. I think we learn a lot more from individual outcomes that each have infinite possibilities, especially when beginning from a controlled study set up. Even if a data set 10 is a relatively small data set, it still holds statistical value. Maybe not to within the margin of error YOU would like to see, but statistically valid none-the-less.

    You're getting it but not getting it. The coin flip demonstrates the need for large sample sizes when you CAN'T calculate the probability based on possible outcomes. That is the case that applies. A data set of 10 for such a case is simply insufficient. Statistically, 100 would likely be the bare minimum. Has nothing to do with what I would like to see. Go look at statistical significance on wikipedia. It's a good write up for laymen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significance_testing.

    I ate, drank and slept with this stuff for two years as an undergrad; I don't want this to come off as a personal attack, but it's very obvious to me that you don't quite grasp the statistics or the requirements of good research design.

    I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it though.

    Me neither, but for the opposite reasons.

    This may be seen as nitpicking, but in your wording I disagree from you use of the word "criticism". Criticism can be based on fact or fiction. Either it stands up over time or it doesn't. Currently it does. I don't believe you'll ever see a change in that overall, but only in fine-tuning of what we've learned so far.

    Criticism should be clearly answerable either way fact or fiction. Take apart each point & document it. That's how it's supposed to work. I am using the term in it's technical sense in that I am assuming a serious reasoned critique.

    DocGKR has credibility at stake if Dr. Courtney's theory holds water at all.

    Roberts trained with Fackler as I understand it. Fackler was the anti-BPW so his stance on this isn't surprising. Fackler was trying to make sure more FBI agents didn't get killed due to bad ammo selection criteria. 10MM wasn't designed with BPW in mind but rather the ability to penetrate and make a big hole.


    First of all, I'm not aware that you're buying into Dr. Courtney's threory in any way whatsoever, as least not so in as much as you'll ever choose to apply it in your choice of carry ammo.


    This is true but it doesn't have anything to do with BPW. Basically there is a big drop in my ability to shoot well above a certain caliber. Has nothing to do with BPW and I suspect that any theoretical increase in the percentage likelihood of incapacitation due to BPW would not be sufficient to counterbalance the loss of accuracy.

    Besides the fact that you overall seem to believe Dr. Courtney's work is flawed.

    Not necessarily fundamentally flawed but lacking support of sufficient data. I also think the conclusions we could draw even if that data were better would be very limited.

    That said, how can you even have an opinion on drugs or adrenalin effecting the possible effects of BPW? Heck, at this point there is no one in existance that assumes to know how BPW and it's incapacitating effects even work! But you somehow KNOW that drugs and adrenalin will lessen if not completely negate it's effects all together that you don't even seem to believe exist? Please explain. I guess I'm most specifically wondering what you do or don't believe. Maybe it's that you don't know yourself at this point. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, just saying.

    No problem. Just referring to the numerous anecdotal reports of people being shot and not being instantly incapacitated. Sorry, but I can't provide data, although as you mention BPW may not be the mechanism of incapacitation anyway. Oh, and wasn't it Courtney who brought up the whole TBI from BPW thing? He had pressure transducers and everything. Just sayin' because he is clearly the one person who DOES profess to know how it all works.

    I keep going back to TBI from BPW as the mechanism of incapacitation because that's what Courtney himself talks about and because without a physiologic mechanism we're just talking about magic. If incapacitation occurs because a person simply decides to give up and fall down like they see on TV, BPW doesn't apply but certainly drugs or adrenalin might mitigate that. This is the heart of the problem with the M&S data; we don't really know what caused the "stop"

    If we're talking incapacitation from BPW, there's really nothing interesting to discuss unless the mechanism of incapacitation is TBI. Splitting this hair is crucial because if the mechanism of incapacitation is psychologic rather than physiologic then TBI is irrelevant and so is BPW and we're back to discussing magic.

    For me personally though, I don't care how it works as long as it does. Either greater retarding forces promote quicker incapacitation or they don't. Loosely, that's all I really care about.

    That's ok. The problem I have with ALL of the street stop stuff is in the quality of the data. Collect good data and it's a whole different ball game, but that is extremely difficult to accomplish. Rigorous collection standards and large sample sizes are hard to come by as we have already discussed.

    Kind of like my microwave. I don't care to know it's operating principals. All I care to know is that when I put some food in it for a certain amount of time is should come out warmer than when I first put it in the microwave. If you have to know the way everything works before you'll choose to use it, fine. I don't. There is no benefit to me in knowing why more PBPW incapacitates quicker on average, as long as it does.

    I'd argue that why it works matters a lot. All research is ultimately about prediction. Predictability is the essential quality we're seeking here. That requires quality data; you can't demonstrate a predictable effect without it. Specific, repeatable physiologic events allows us to manipulate those events to our advantage. YOU don't have to know why it works, but to design better ammo SOMEBODY does.

    Saying that if you shoot N people with caliber C1 will result in incapacitation X% of the time, but shooting them with caliber C2 incapacitates Y% of the time is only part of the story. If you can explain WHY there is a difference in the rates of incapacitation you can exploit it, e.g. design better ammo. Otherwise you're just blindly recording the difference. And Courtney has attempted to do explain the "why". It's much easier to show the "what" than the "why" but even explaining the "what" needs better data than he currently has.

    It's all about the data.
     
  6. glock20c10mm

    glock20c10mm

    3,919
    7
    Dec 4, 2004
    Out West
    The reason I'm quoting less than all you posted is simply because I don't take issue with the vast majority of what I didn't quote of your post.
    To my knowledge Fackler has never openly commented toward Dr. Courtney's work which would include anything related to terminology including the phrase ballistic pressure wave. IIRC, what he did take issue with were stuff like: energy dump, hydrostatic shock.....and stuff like that which was really never defined. I believe Dr. Fackler is generally staying out of the public eye.

    As for what Fackler's true intentions were from the start of the International Wound Ballistics Association (IWBA), I'm not sure anyone truely knows. Seems to me the FBI couldn't particularily stand having him around. Aside from any of those questionables, all of Fackler/Roberts/McPhearson among others in the IWBA did bring some excellent insight to the table which we've all learned from and probably would have never existed to the rest of us if it weren't for them.

    As for Dr. Roberts.......he's kept the Fackler legacy alive and well, but when it comes to Dr. Courtney's work, he doesn't care if it holds water or not, but simply refuses to acknowledge it other than side BS commentary now and then which is getting rarer as time goes by. At any rate I have yet to see DocGKR bring anything intelligent to the table against Dr. Courtney's work, and I have followed it since the beginning.
    True! Dr. Courtney did bring it up and has never shyed from doing so. I have no problem with that, nor do I disagree in any way. What I'm saying is is that the TBI part of it wasn't even part of the theory and is nothing more than a hypothetical. Probably a good hypothetical, but none the less a hypothetical.

    The thing is, I don't care who anyone is, they can throw around terminology like "Traumatic Brain Injury" which is probably dang near 100% true in one way or another in the context we're bringing it up, yet doesn't tell you anything definitive in any way whatsoever. TBI is an EXTREMELY broad concept and only a generality at best. So sure, it probably is TBI, but what specific TBI.

    IOW, we have a starting point, but not much better than if starting from scratch in the first place. My intention is not to be arguementative with you, but only to point out what little in the way of a mechanism we even have a clue of even if it practically has to be some form of mild to moderate TBI. Especially from the standpoint that there doesn't have to be brain injury for brain damage to occure that may last as minimally as seconds before the brain has repaired whatever misfire occured.
    I'm going to answer to this in an unconventional way. Bottomline why I so heavily in general buy into Dr. Courntey's work.

    What things haven't proved over plenty of time to incapacitate BGs quicker? Well for one, caliber size (..., .355, .357, .400, .451, ...) by itself doesn't appear to matter at all. Nor by itself does expanded bullet diameter in any caliber. Seems they all just need to penetrate CNS or vital organs to have any amount of success. Obviously the CNS hits will usually create a DRT scenario. The vital organ hits have proved to much of the time to leave some to be desired in quickness of incapacitation. And just so no one freaks out that I'm missing something major, yes, plenty of BGs do quit fighting by their own free will, but those cases are beside the point.

    So if any BG quit fighting in less than 5 seconds with proper shot placement does it mean they had to have quit by their own free will, or sometimes can there be more to it than that? I say there can be more to it than that. Some will argue that we hardly ever see it or they've never seen it. My arguement there is that the vast majority of common LE loads wouldn't be expected to produce the effects Dr. Courtney speaks of, especially after the bullet already penetrated a barrier which is relatively common with LE. Nor should LE be expected to arm their officers with the likes of 10mm. Their best chance is with 357 SIG.

    Also, I don't buy into the hype that all handgun rounds aren't capable of the retarding forces required for the possible effects of BPW to take place. Many want to base everything they believe on LE shootings. Problem is they're already limiting themselves to the most popular loads LE carry which mostly all end up being around the same BPW level. Where some of us common civilians come out ahead of that game is with hunting/animal control. And plenty of us have seen what a 10mm will do that a 40S&W won't, or what a 357SIG/Magnum will do that 9mm doesn't.

    And this is where the equation(s) Dr. Courtney has come up with really shed light. Those equations take all of the following into account and then some: velocity, kinetic energy, penetration depth, bullet weight, bullet construction.....and show us in psi a close approximation to what the expected peak ballistic pressure wave is. No one elses work has ever showed us this level of refinement toward a certain power level of the ammo you're using.

    Most equations developed in the past (Taylor Knockout Formula...) simply equate to a reletively arbitrary number and don't take half into account as Dr. Courtney's do.

    Dr. Courtney's equations show us why there's never been any apprecialbe difference between, 9, 40, or 45, against BGs. And for the first time, Dr. Courtney's equations actually take into account specific bullet design along with all other specific individual pertinent load properties. I believe it's the most comprehensive way to measure the power of a round in any media it's fired into.

    At the end of the day, I believe the single biggest downfall for people trying to decide if this should mean anything to them or not, is relying on LE/military to provide all the answers. And that is about the last place you'll get the info you're looking for because of the rounds and loads they limit themselves to in terms of handguns.


    Craig
     
  7. uz2bUSMC

    uz2bUSMC 10mm defender

    2,398
    2
    Oct 21, 2005
    J-Ville NC
    Bunes13 wrote:

    And he discusses peripheral wounding. Also you mentioned people and animals quit or give up. People more so than animals. Animals doen't have a sense of their mortality, the go off of instinct. This is what makes a deer run until it simply can't. Even if they did give up, this would not acccount for instant incaoacitation, there is not enough time to process the information to account for this.
     
  8. swede1945

    swede1945

    15
    0
    May 30, 2008
    TBI is one of three (not necessarily mutually exclusive) proposed physiological mechanisms for the rapidly incapacitating effects of ballistic waves. It has garnered the most attention, because there is considerable published evidence showing brain injury resulting from bullet impacts distant from the brain. The second physiological mechanism is remote spinal injury, which has been documented by a shock wave expert at Cal Tech, and strongly suggested in case studies by others, including the US Army. The third physiological mechanism was described as “neurogenic shock” by neurologist Dennis Tobin, and is basically an overload of the neural system from internal effects of the wave leading to temporary shutdown and collapse. This effect also has some support in experiments that demonstrate reduced remote cerebral effects in animal studies where the vagus nerve is disconnected.

    The statistical confidence of any scientific finding increases with sample size. Proponents of the causal relationship between ballistic waves and rapid incapacitation have cited much more data than detractors. How much published incapacitation data is cited by Urey Patrick’s “Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness” or Dr. Roberts’ published advocacy of the 6.8x43mm SPC over the 5.56x45mm NATO? If zero published incapacitation data is cited, the statistical confidence is zero.

    It has been correctly pointed out that while there is sufficient data for confidence in the conclusion that increasing the energy transfer from 400J (147 grain 9mm subsonic) to 700J (125 grain .357 Sig) over 30 cm of penetration confers a significant advantage with equivalent shot placement, this advantage has not been quantified with sufficient accuracy to make a well-informed decision in cases where recoil tolerance creates significantly less accuracy or slower shot times with the more powerful load. Each shooter should practice sufficiently to understand the recoil levels where their accuracy degrades, and take care to choose a combination of gun and load that functions well, performs well, and does not significantly degrade accuracy or shot times. However, the published data is sufficient to support choosing a load with larger ballistic wave, other factors being equal (if one shoots that load as well as loads with smaller ballistic waves.) Is there any ammo recommendation based on more published incapacitation data than this one?
     
  9. uz2bUSMC

    uz2bUSMC 10mm defender

    2,398
    2
    Oct 21, 2005
    J-Ville NC
    Yea, I don't see him as beng the "Save the Agents" type. He needed money going into retirement time.

    Didn't the rounds penetrate on Platt just fine? Thought it was bad placement?

    I like Macpherson, just not the others. Well, in all fairness... I suspect I wouldn't give a crap about what Fackler has to say but family issues apparently have him away from such debates.
     
  10. uz2bUSMC

    uz2bUSMC 10mm defender

    2,398
    2
    Oct 21, 2005
    J-Ville NC
    +1. People get too caught up on just penetration or just caliber or just energy or just one whatever. It's a cartridges ability to have multifaceted capabilities that becomes advantageous. The key element is how the .357sig's energy can use bullet construction to it's advantage in both penetration plus BPW. The 9mm can only do one thing thing at a time just barely "ok".
     
  11. NMGlocker

    NMGlocker BOOM headshot

    2,014
    0
    Jun 29, 2001
    New Mexico
    357SIG proving to be an unbelievable manstopper???
    Yes... unbelievably average.
     
  12. uz2bUSMC

    uz2bUSMC 10mm defender

    2,398
    2
    Oct 21, 2005
    J-Ville NC
    I liked you, now I don't.
     
  13. glock20c10mm

    glock20c10mm

    3,919
    7
    Dec 4, 2004
    Out West
    Was that simply an off the cuff generalized opinion with nothing to back it up, or are you hiding something you could share with the rest of us to help us understand why you would think that?
     
  14. remat

    remat

    2,049
    0
    Mar 19, 2006
    Seattle, WA
    Exactly! I think you got it. There is a fine line between truth and opinion and a lot of "truth" is in fact only "opinion" -- but being subjective/interpreted may be good enough for what ever purpose is needed.

    Let's be honest, 115gr +P+ has been shown to work. Let's also be honest that 147gr subsonic has also been shown to work. Is it possible that they both work depending on circumstances? If, that is the case then which one is "better" is really only opinion.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2010
  15. PghJim

    PghJim

    1,935
    49
    Apr 21, 2005
    Pittsburgh
    NMGlocker's tag line:

    Just so you know I disagree with that also. Hunter put a 45 slug though his head, indicating he was a real stable person. Also, having a son now in battle, I find it offensive. You should rather thank God for people like him that make the sacrifices that allow you to put such inane statements on your posts.
     
  16. THplanes

    THplanes

    333
    0
    Sep 1, 2009
    DFW
    This is simply wrong. There is still high pressure gas in the barrel. The gas has mass and velocity and does contribute to recoil. In most pistols this effect is small because the powder charge is much lower than the bullet mass. In small bore diameter-large case capacity bottle neck cases the effect is much more noticeable.
     
  17. N/Apower

    N/Apower

    585
    0
    Jan 17, 2010
    Don't have much to add other than I lived with a guy who was shot in the thigh with a G32 at contact distance. The FMJ-FP passed within a few inches of his sciatic nerve. He was around 9-10% body-fat, runner-type build. He walked to his car, and drove to the hospital. If a GSW of that nature cannot disrupt the sciatic nerve, I highly doubt it will do anything to the brain if it hit him in the chest.

    If it were causing an increase in pressure, we would note ruptured vessels in the eye on autopsies. Further, we would see venous valve prolapse, quote possibly, as well as other tell-tale signs of "over-pressure" in the circulatory system.

    Recoil: Felt-recoil is a function of mass, velocity, and mass of the platform you are launching a projectile from which determines the duration of that recoil.
     
  18. N/Apower

    N/Apower

    585
    0
    Jan 17, 2010
    Imagine how pissed I was to find that the 300 lvl research class I took last semester cited wikipedia in our text-book as a reference. I about **** myself.

    At any rate, based on police-usage, I would ask:

    TX DPS gave up the .45 for the 357SIG almost 15 years ago. They still have the 357SIG. I take this to mean that they are happy with it, because 15 years is plenty time to recognize and correct a poor choice of that nature, if indeed it was one.
     
  19. uz2bUSMC

    uz2bUSMC 10mm defender

    2,398
    2
    Oct 21, 2005
    J-Ville NC
    This means you did not read the thread, you're all wrong. The operative acronym in your post is FMJ. If you read the post you'll understand what I am talking about.
     
  20. Needed money? Your bias is showing. Again.

    BTW try reading this:

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1581604904/ref=oss_product

    That way you won't be talking out of your ass.

    I find this post of yours to be particularly irritating in the way it combines your extreme prejudicial bias with your lack of knowledge.

    Fackler, a trauma surgeon, tried to limit the discussion of terminal ballistics to what could be explained by known physiologic principles specifically to counter the arguments and opinions of people with no medical background who relied on data that was both incomplete and haphazardly collected.

    Sound familiar?