close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

"Ballistic pressure wave"

Discussion in 'Caliber Corner' started by cowboy1964, Oct 4, 2010.


Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. cowboy1964

    cowboy1964
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
    19,421
    1,950
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    So Wikipedia has these performance charts for each caliber that sample various rounds. It's kind of interesting to compare and contrast them. One thing caught my eye: the "BPW" value for Federal Classic 125gr .357 Magnum is almost twice that of anything else @ 1487 psi, including other .357 Magnum loads! The TSC (temporary stretch cavity) is also massive at 79.8 cubic inches.

    Apparently BPW is related to penetration. More penetration = lower BPW. Still, I don't get how that load can be so high.

    On a different note, the temporary stretch cavity for .45 ACP is quite a bit smaller than other calibers, even 9mm. Can that be accurate?
     

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

    English
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2005
    4,585
    42
    Location:
    London
    Could you be more specific about the whereabouts of this information in Wikipedia?

    The figures for the .357 Magnum are almost certainly an error.

    English
     

  3. JRI

    JRI
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    72
    0
    Hi English

    Here's the link,scroll down about 1/2 way and you will see the chart,at least for the 357 Mag.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.357_Magnum



    Jeff
     
  4. thegriz18

    thegriz18
    Expand Collapse
    Paper Killer

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    3,065
    0
    Location:
    Friend Zone
    Ibtl..
     
  5. Glolt20-91

    Glolt20-91
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    3,932
    64
    Location:
    Arizona Territory
    BPW is non sequitur.

    Bob :cowboy:
     
  6. English

    English
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2005
    4,585
    42
    Location:
    London
    Bob,
    A non sequitur is a conclusion that does not follow from the prior argument or evidence. Within this thread no such argument or evidence has been presented so the term cannot apply to this thread. In the wider context the BPW effect is a direct consequence of scientific evidence which no one has been able to falsify. The fact that you choose not to accept that evidence does not make it a non sequitur.

    English
     
  7. MSgt Dotson

    MSgt Dotson
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    3,268
    8
    Certainly, something showing up in Wikipedia does not make it factual either...
     
  8. Berto

    Berto
    Expand Collapse
    woo woo

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    24,046
    1,936
    Location:
    WA
    It's like Fuller Index.....
     
  9. English

    English
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2005
    4,585
    42
    Location:
    London
    That is probably true.
     
  10. Glolt20-91

    Glolt20-91
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    3,932
    64
    Location:
    Arizona Territory
    Again you don't understand the english language nor the fact that BPW has no merit and has never been proved.

    79 cubic inches of temporary cavity stretch??? :rofl:

    Explain (show us) the shear velocity formulas used to derive permanent/temporary cavities.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.357_Magnum

    For starters, there's a lot more to come, let's begin with your defense of this fallacy, including population sample data and scientific methods used;

    non sequitur

    Bob :cowboy:
     
  11. Erich1B

    Erich1B
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    86
    0
    Location:
    Tampa
    :popcorn: I love BPW theory debates.
     
  12. BOGE

    BOGE
    Expand Collapse
    Millennium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 1999
    4,622
    0
    People, the same people have beat this horse before and the thread ended nastily.

    Moderator, lock this thread please. :wavey:
     
  13. 481

    481
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    2,003
    0
    +1.

    This thread and the "theory" was a loser from the start. The search function will give one a review of all the sillines they can stomach and then some.
     
  14. uz2bUSMC

    uz2bUSMC
    Expand Collapse
    10mm defender

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    2,398
    2
    Location:
    J-Ville NC
    .....
     
  15. unit1069

    unit1069
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    8,114
    163
    Location:
    So. Central US
    There are many dozens of threads dealing with a subject, yet these same subjects regularly appear in new threads without strong objection. Those Glock Talk members who have "read it a million times" just pass over the new threads without participation.

    I fail to understand why "ballistic pressure wave" creates such hostility. So it's a theory and not proven scientific fact. What would our world be like today had the same hostility to theories like, say, "the earth is round", prevented anyone from discussing it?

    I certainly don't choose any of my carry ammo based upon BPW, but reading the give-and-take between those who favor the theory and those who disparage it doesn't bother me in the least. If I'm no longer interested in a thread I just quit reading it.
     
  16. CanyonMan

    CanyonMan
    Expand Collapse
    In The Saddle

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    5,707
    9

    But unit, what is there to discuss ? I have photo's ! :supergrin:


    [​IMG]



    Have a good one bud.





    CM
     
    #16 CanyonMan, Oct 8, 2010
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2010
  17. English

    English
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2005
    4,585
    42
    Location:
    London
    I understand the English language very well but it is clear that you are not able to read what others actually write. To try to make this clear, this is not my thread and I expressed doubt about the size of the temporary cavity and asked where in Wikipedia the information came from. Then in a second post I complained about your strange use of "non sequitur". That has been the limit of my involvement in this thread so far apart from an agreement with MSgt Dotson that we can't trust what appears in Wikipedia.

    With regard to your post quoted above, it is clear that you still have not gained any understanding of the nature of sientific proof. Let me repeat in case it eventually sinks in; it is not possible to prove a hypothesis or theory to be true but only to prove it to be false. In general it is opponents of a hypothesis who do the work to prove someone else's hypothesis or theory to be false and not its originator, who often has an emotional attachment to it. All an originator can do is the equivalent of saying, "Look at this interesting idea! These are the reasons and evidence which make me think it is probably true." He or she can never "prove" it to be true but you keep asking for proof! Even legal proof, a much more flimsy affair, is declared on the "ballance of the evidence" and "beyond all reasonable doubt."

    If you want to attack the work of the Courtneys or numerous other workers in the BPW field you, and others of like mind, have had plenty of opportunity to do so. In all this time and mean minded ad hominem atacks in which various scientists have been accused of being charlatans and out to make a quick buck by means which are never specified, none of you have done anything to call into dispute the data set or the scientific method. Do, by all means, tell us what is wrong with the "population sample data and scientific methods used" and how that affects the scientific conclusions of the work. I have not seen this done so far and don't expect to see it now. I do expect to see more smears, ad hominem attacks and nonsensical demands for "proof".

    You could even, "Explain (show us) the shear velocity formulas used to derive permanent/temporary cavities." if you wish but since the article talks of temporary cavities in balistic gelatin I would hope that they were measured rather than calculated and so your demonstration of your knowledge would be away from the point. Do give us enough information to understand the technical terms, symbols and concepts.

    English
     
    #17 English, Oct 8, 2010
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2010
  18. BOGE

    BOGE
    Expand Collapse
    Millennium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 1999
    4,622
    0
    The forums are surely a place to discuss thoughts & ideas. However, when topics such as this repeatedly delve into infantile & childish bantering, if not outright indignation, then it´s time to close the thread & fire a warning shot across some bows.
     
  19. Dreamaster

    Dreamaster
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    643
    23
    Location:
    Outer Space
    English would it be fair to say that "field experience" can be used as counter-proof to the theory? And exactly which theory?

    As someone with limited hunting experience, I have mostly my knowledge of accoustics, Physics, and logic to observe various effects of ammunition through... well... youtube.com videos, and also reading of the different articles about what "ammo works best" etc. Just letting everyone know where I'm at knowledge wise before I go shooting off my mouth.

    A Ballistic Pressure Wave is FACT... I have no doubts there... one viewing of a video where some guys shot a 30-06 at a block of gel, only to see the gel not only explode, but the damn table broke in half! Secondary cavities are a direct result of waves of force traveling outward from the point of impact caused by the sudden change in velocity and transfer of motion into the object.

    The theory in question though, is whether or not there is a BPW "EFFECT" right? This "effect" theory, being that sudden impact of a BPW in an animal/human body can travel through the bloodstream with enough force to traumatize the central nervous system and produce immediate incapacitation.

    What's interesting to me, is anecdotal evidence that I have seen actually supports this theory somewhat, but does not prove it by any stretch. I mean, most of us agree that a 10mm loaded hot with a good hollow point tends to one shot stop better than a 9mm that gets the same penetration depth, but why? Doesn't this theory partially explain the difference?

    However, guys like Canyonman DO vehemently deny this theory's credence.
    Unlike English (hope you don't take offense bro) I tend to listen carefully to what he has to say about it. Why? Because he's killed tons of critters with all kinds of different weapons and load outs and he knows what works. Typically he will say "penetration and shot placement is key" (I think LOL).

    But surely, Canyonman, have you ever noticed that higher velocity rounds that expand tend to do more damage and kill quicker? Have you had situations where an animal dropped right there with a non-optimal shot?

    What bakes English's noodle is that people verbally attack him and the other proponents of the theory by simply "saying they're crazy" instead of offering up the reasons, scientifically (but for me anecdotal evidence is valuable as was my point with Canyonman) and most of times they don't offer up anecdotal evidence.

    As adults we shouldn't lower ourselves to childlike behavior when debating a theory. And if you really want an insult, you guys act like girls by resorting to emotion instead of fact.
     
  20. uz2bUSMC

    uz2bUSMC
    Expand Collapse
    10mm defender

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    2,398
    2
    Location:
    J-Ville NC
    Or the people who do not like them can just stay out of them. This takes the least amount of work when dealing with a thread topic you do not like. If you see BPW, don't click on it, it's not that hard.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.