357SIG proving to be an unbelievable manstopper???

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

  1. 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.

    More or less the same here. Trying to limit things to what has not been covered. No sense beating dead horses. Move the discussion forward.

    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.

    Dunno what Fackler thinks about it but I suspect that his main complaint would be that the best that could be done, even with good data, is prove the existence of an unreliable phenomenon.

    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.

    The context in which Fackler published has to be taken into account. As you said before, people were routinely throwing around bull**** terms like "knockdown power". SOMEBODY had to put the discussion on firmer ground. I think he should at least get credit for that. You could even look at Courtney's work as an extension of that line of thought, even if you don't agree with it.

    Dunno much about the IWBA or what the FBI thought beyond this:


    You've probably seen it but it bears reading and re-reading.

    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.

    FWIW Courtney does talk directly about TBI being the mechanism on the first page:


    My perspective is that even every thought you have can be traced to a particular physiologic event - a specific set of neurons firing in a specific pattern. There has to be a physiologic explanation to take it beyond just saying "I shoot him & he fall down go boom". What exactly do we mean by incapacitation? Seemingly specific words have a way of meaning less than we think. What does it mean to say a neuron fires? It gets complicated very quickly.

    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.

    All good questions, but specifics are what drives the science. It was asserted earlier in this thread that there is no difference between the type of damage that occurs when sheep butt heads and when BPW causes TBI, which is just silly.

    Slamming the brain against the inside of the skull is very different from a fluid pressure wave passing through the tissue. They both might result in unconsciousness or injury, but for far different reasons. You're right; at this point we don't have a clue why it might happen in any detailed way.

    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.

    It's interesting stuff. I'd like to see it get developed a lot more if for no other reason that to give ER docs something to look for.

    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.

    Yup. It's a step in the right direction.

    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.

    Dunno if I'd completely accept the assertion that there's NO difference but I get what you're saying.

    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.

    The military and LE aren't usually researchers. Sometimes research conducted by military or LE agencies is biased, too. If your boss wants the results to be X, the results have a way of being X, especially if you want a promotion.

    The literature talks about psychological versus physiological factors causing incapacitation. Does a larger BPW simply means it hurts more? Or that it gives the victim a greater sense of "having been shot"?

    I used to have a link (which of course now I can't find) to an article about how hollywood cliches have informed peoples expectation about what happens when someone is shot. People fall down because they think they're supposed to.

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. uz2bUSMC

    uz2bUSMC 10mm defender

    Yea I'm bias of his bad info, period. Fackler and his chronies will say anything to sell his Koolaid. If he's such an angel, and soo concerned for the agents, why did he publicly put down Dr. Roberts?

    I can tell you don't know as much as you'd like people to believe.

  3. uz2bUSMC

    uz2bUSMC 10mm defender

    What accounts for instant incapacitation? Are you going to dodge this question again? When an animal falls instantly or a person, what's happeneing? It doesn't have ****** to do with "Hollywood"... there's no time to process the information.

    And the firearms tactical link is about as rooky of a move that the 9 is fine camper can make, jeez. Good thing Urey's info is so fresh and new
    #323 uz2bUSMC, Feb 10, 2010
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2010
  4. NMGlocker

    NMGlocker BOOM headshot

    Like I give a **** who likes me and who doesn't...
    See above.
    I don't give a **** what you agree or disagree with.
  5. uz2bUSMC

    uz2bUSMC 10mm defender

    :wavey: wanna fight?
  6. Both cause tissue to be forced away from their path at a 90* angle. Further, we are talking about hydraulic pressure in a system (vessels). A system with a myriad of valves, and weak-points all throughout it. The impact of a projectile on a vessel in the chest would cause plenty of other issues before it ruptured something in the brain.

    Further, whether or not one is to accept this, "TBI" as fact, one cannot dispute that it is highly un-reliable. A psychological stop is much more likely than a "TBI" stop, if you will. There are numerous people alive who will attest to that, after having survived a GSW to the thoracic cavity.

    Yes, there are things beyond what jello shows us that occur, and I cannot rule out that ruptured vessels in the brain may occur, but I can say that that is the last thing I want to be banking on as a mechanism of "stopping" someone from their course of action.

    What accounts for when this doesn't happen? Not every heart/lung-shot deer drops in its tracks. By all logic, this means that TBI is just as likely as it is not, even assuming that is the mechanism at all. Your own example shows the fallacy considering it a quantifiable, reliable wounding mechanism.

    You think Courtney and Courtney and Dr. Roberts aren't peddaling their own kool-aid? Everyone is selling something. Everyone has an agenda. It's just life.

    The fact that there is a debate at all shows that there are things we do not understand. Some scientists stick to measurable, or more easily quantifiable outcomes more strictly than others. Considering the myriad of responses animals and humans have in response to piercing trauma, it is impractical to try to credit the external force with 100% of the outcome. Therefor, I feel that very tangible tests are best when measuring ammunition against ammunition.

    That which produces the largest permanent hole, has better effect than that which produces the smallest, with regard to cessation of target action. As the disparity narrows, so does the effectiveness difference, to the point to where a smaller permanent cavity producing projectile, in a certain circumstance, may do better than a different one, because of immeasurable phenomina, or phenomina that is so numerous and inter-related as to be immesurable.

    At what point does TC outweigh CC? To what extent? Does it ever?

    These are all intangibles.

    If I have a choice between equal CC and TC, and equal CC and larger TC, Obviously I want the equal CC and larger TC, but what if it were reversed?

    Beyond blood volume loss, expansion, and penetration, and tissue crushed, this is a science of grays. The "gello shooters" are not ignoring this, rather they are choosing not to try to measure that which cannot be quantified and sticking with what can.

    Science seeks to quantify what can be observed and measured. If you wish to place your faith in that which cannot, I suggest religion instead.
    #326 N/Apower, Feb 10, 2010
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2010
  7. uz2bUSMC

    uz2bUSMC 10mm defender

    N/A to be honest, I only began reading your response... then quit once I saw you were still lost.

    Do you know what retarding forces are? Do you understand the differences between fmj and hollow points, and what their differences coorelate to regarding retarding forces?

    You don't understand the beginning but wish to debate at the end. I'm not even going to bother repeating everything that has been discussed adnauseum, because someone wants to assume they have a grand understanding of the topics at hand but fail to demonstrate the basics.
  8. NMGlocker

    NMGlocker BOOM headshot

    Dawn tomorrow, ball peen hammers at 10'.
    Good day sir!
  9. uz2bUSMC

    uz2bUSMC 10mm defender

    :rofl: I still might not like you, but I might like the way you think... sometimes.

    Yea, Yea, I know... you don't give a **** !

  10. Yes, I understand retarding-forces. I understand energy transfer. I understand force/time equations.

    However, do you understand anatomy? How much knowledge do you possess of the human body and how it is effected by trauma?

    From what I can tell, you have a good grasp of physics and logic, but a poor grasp of anatomy and trauma, especially with regards to the circulatory system and the brain, and how these organs react to trauma of various types, and how this trauma is detected in a medical setting and manifested in a "victim" of said trauma. I have sat through lecture after lecture on TIA's and brain-bleeds and torsion brain-injuries and whatnot. I spend several days a week in the ICU. I have talked with a Dr who has saved someone who had been shot multiple times in the chest with a .45.

    Admittedly, I have a LOT left to learn.

    I think you have under-sold the human body, it's resilience, and its intricacies and that you are trying to apply a fixed, black-white definition to a dynamic situation, and it's not going to work.
  11. uz2bUSMC

    uz2bUSMC 10mm defender

    Look man, I have a good understanding of anatomy and other things. I have to say that I do not believe that you possess the knowledge of retarding forces that you believe you do. If you did, you would EASILY understand how a fmj would not impart it's energy towards the retarding forces the way an expanding projectile would, period. It's not even a discussion point but yet, here we are.

    Now that doctor you talked to in the ICU ask him what bullets were being used and more importantly, ask him what effect it had on the street.

  12. The Dr. I spoke with was not in the ICU setting I am currently in. You will further discover many cases "from the street" (one involving Officer Coates, another involving the Miami Shootout) of rapidly expanding, high-energy (if you can call them that) handgun rounds being fired into the thoracic cavity and having no effect leading to incapacitation due to TBI.

    Regardless of the forces involved, the evidence of this wounding mechanism appears spotty.

    Given your claimed understanding of human anatomy, vessels, and the responses and signs of increased pressure within them as well as the manifestations of TBI's and brain-bleeds and other traumatic injuries to the human body resulting from increases in cellular and intravascular pressure, I think that you can see for yourself why I am so skeptacle based on the evidence (or lack) provided to support it as a reliable mechanism of incapacitation.
    #332 N/Apower, Feb 10, 2010
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2010
  13. uz2bUSMC

    uz2bUSMC 10mm defender

    Oh, and I'm not trying to apply a fixed black nd white solution... if you read the thread you would know, once a friggin' 'gain. I have said it is an added friggin advantage. I'm tired of a bunch of lazy ****s commin' into threads thinkin they got the answers but haven't got the first clue of what's been explained over and frickin over again. Do your damn homework first and then come to discuss, don't waste me ****in time!
  14. uz2bUSMC

    uz2bUSMC 10mm defender

    No, I see that you are unable to put all the pieces together just like everyone else. Do you understand that it is not just expanding? It's not just energy. It's not just "torso".

    It's what bullet... what path discerned from the autopsy...how much energy... was their incapacitation. It's all of these things TOGETHER

    You are doin what everyone else likes to do, give a bland example...

    -This guy kept going after being hit with a .45

    -This guy dropped from a .380

    -This guy got shot 15 times

    ...so what, where are the other details, the other pieces?

    Making long ass posts doesn't solve the problem or make you sound more believable or knoledgable
  15. I have read your posts in this thread and feel that there nothing I can gain from you, nor do I wish to attempt to impart anything. Nothing you have posted is from your own understanding, but rather from the observations of others. I would rather read their observations than your cliff-notes of said observations. Good day to you.
  16. But, on the internet everybody's an expert!

    At least this thread is going better than the thread here where the poor guy asked what a good 380 load was and people chastised him for using 380 because they were, in fact, impervious to being shot with a 380 (well, might be a slight exaggeration but not by much)....or the thread where a guy who bought 100 rounds of Federal had 80 failures with it but it wasn't significant to contact Federal or where he bought....lol
    #336 remat, Feb 10, 2010
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2010
  17. The internet allows you to be whatever you can convince people that you are. The only way to get anything useful from it is to become adept at figuring out who is really who.

    All that being said, the best .380 load is the one that hits the perp in the eye-socket.
  18. I have the Glock 35 and I brought a .357 sig barrel for it. Like having two guns in one.I just got some LEE .357 sig dies to add to the loading corner. its is a little bit more tricky to load the .357 sig brass as it is necked down .I am in the process of collecting some .357 sig brass as I do not have a lot on hand.
  19. Owned one, G33. Hands outgrew it. Called it "Thumper". I really like that cartridge.

    The way it was explained to me years ago...

    Bottom line... The 357 mag was king of the hill on one shot stops for years in police shootings, a round I also like. (125 grain bullet at 1325 fps I think)

    This round was eventually supplanted by the 40 S&W. (Yep, another darn good round)

    The 40 did not beat the 357 stats because of superiority. Officers began carrying semi-autos rather than revolvers. Not a lot of 357 semi's out there.
    The 40 began racking up "stats" while the 357 revolvers were phased out.
    It simply had more chances at bat...

    I own 9mm, 357, 40, and 44mag.
    I hit my targets more frequently with the 9mm.
    I get more recoil with the others.
    I don't feel undergunned with any of them...

    ------As the frog said to the scorpion- "You stung me, now we will both drown... Why?
    Thrashing in the water the scorpion replied- "I am a scorpion, that's what I do!
  20. uz2bUSMC

    uz2bUSMC 10mm defender

    Yes , if you do not understand why a fmj is not a good example of BPW then there is certainly nothing you can impart.

    Good day to you aswell.

Share This Page