Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Caliber Corner' started by glock20c10mm, Jan 15, 2010.
Just my .02
Thanks for the info.
I always did wonder how sitting up or standing up to quickly would/could cause dizzyness.
If you experience this it is probably/possibly because:
your bloodpressure is on the lower side (not a bad thing at all, unless you are below 90 systolic, at which point your kidneys are at risk of not perfusing properly).
for some reason your baroreceptors are responding slowly (genetic, medication, long periods of inactivity, etc.)
You have a fluid volumn defecit (bleeding, dehydration, etc.)
Winchester Ranger T
.357sig 125gr. @ 1350fps
9mm+p 127gr. @ 1250fps
You guys are saying that 100fps and 2 less grains of bullet weight make ALL the difference.
That's less than a 10% velocity increase.
With a straight face you are going to tell me that the .357sig is an "unbelievable manstopper" yet the 9mm+P is just adequate?
That must mean the standard pressure 124gr. Gold Dot @ 1150fps is downright anemic?
That is an interesting suggestion about kidney damage and should be worth investigating but I don't think it is directly related to this discussion. It would show subtle levels of remote damage but that would not give us any relationship to the level of damage which would produce rapid incapacitation.
You are very concerned with blood vessel damage and it should be easy enough to determine typical distance from the center of maximum pressure that observable damage goes to with different bullets and velocities, but I don't think anyone is claiming such a connection as far away as the brain. The simple fact behind all of this is the experimental data set that shows a clear correlation between increasing peak pressure and probability of rapid incapacitation. The Courtney's work makes no claim beyond that. It does not presuppose the actual mechanism and does not even claim that it a hydraulic displacement effect. If we could detect kidney damage, I don't see how we could decide whether it was caused by a hydraulic effect or direct damage caused by the distortion of the kidneys as the wave passed through them.
Fundamental to this whole argument is the experimental data. It happened as described or it didn't and there are only two ways to attack it. One is by repeating the experiment independently of the Courtneys in the hope of showing a significant incongruity between the two sets of data; that is, after all, why scientists are required to give sufficient detail for their experiment to be repeated. The other is to design and do some other experiment which would show a lack of correlation between peak pressure of a ballistic pressure wave above 400psi and probability of rapid incapacitation. It is surely significant that no body has done any such thing.
I am a reasonably trusting individual of scientific experiments provided that the experiment does not require some unique skill, such as the infamous human cloning work, or unique access to some particular data, and provided that there is no other great barrier to someone else repeating the work. Given such circumstances, dishonest science will almost always be found out if it has enough significance to arouse interest. The Courtney's work fits these criteria and, as far as I was concerned, it explained major holes in the claims of earlier, widely accepted, work on terminal ballistics effectiveness which had been obvious to me for a very long time and for which no sound explanation had ever been given.
As we have seen with the climate science fiasco, peer revue is no safeguard for sound science. Strangely enough it institutionalises a primary logical fallacy - the appeal to authority. As I have said elsewhere, the peer revue process is a back covering convenience for the editors of learned journals and it can be very easy for a group with a particular consensus view point to hijack the system. As a side comment, this is analogous to what the socialists have managed to do over the last hundred years with regard to education, the philosophy of deprivation, the concept of fairness and so on and on.
Science stands on it own merits as defined by K.R. Popper. It is independent of personalities and scientists themselves. We cannot prove any scientific hypothesis or theory to be true in an abslute sense but we can test such hypotheses to an extent that allows us to treat them as most probably true. The more we can find independent avenues of evidence that lead to the same conclusion the more we are able to trust that conclusion. The more a hypothesis explains things that were not previously explained, the more we tend to trust the hypothesis. The Courtney work fits these criteria remarkably well. Its experimental method was ingenious and I find it hard to disbelieve its results.
It isn't that the standard pressure 9mm is downright anemic. It is just that it is anemic relative to it peak BPW pressue. If you will look back at the data provided by glock20c10mm you will see that he provides a list relating peak pressure to probability of rapid incapacitation. If you will take the trouble to draw a graph through to points given you will see that the probability falls to zero somewhere around 380psi. That is why most standard pressure 9mms are anemic in this respect. They will kill perfectly well provided you don't mind waiting a little. What they are not good at is producing rapid incapacitation from chest shots.
If you will look further up the same post, you will find a 9mm +P with a remarkably high peak pressure. Unfortunately, it achieves this result at the cost of a penetration of only 8.5 inches. In physics, there is no free lunch.
In choosing your examples you select a +P 9mm but a standard pressure 357SIG and so immediately bias the data in the direction you want. If you look at comparable pressures the velocity difference is typically 150fps and not 100fps, but even with a 10% velocity difference the KE difference is 21%. That is enough to take the 357SIG reasonably into the working band of the BPW effect instead of hovering just below it, as do most 9mms, and still leave enough energy to penetrate reasonably well and produce a reasonably high peak pressure. With a more realistic 12% extra velocity the 357SIG has 25% more KE.
If you will look at the title of the thread you will see that it is followed by 3 question marks. I suspect its intention was to collect evidence rather than to state a fact. Since I know that the thread originator is actually a fan of the 10mm rather than the 357SIG, I feel reinforced in this view.
I guess you were serious...
Courtney shot 10 deer and told us about it. He used "distance ran" to indicate time until incapacitation.
We can all appreciate that with regards to permanent tissue destruction, that a broad-head hunting arrow is superior to pretty much any handgun round, and does about as well as many non-fragmenting rifle-rounds, yet has a VERY poor BPW.
I took the liberty of a sample-size in excess of 200+ deer with my poll. While this information of course is subjective to the honesty and measuring ability of those who responded to my poll, there does emerge a GENERAL trend.
*The deer must have been hit with only 1 shot, the shot must have hit either the heart or both lungs, or a lung and the heart, or both lungs. The shot must not have physically hit the spine.
21% of the deer shot with broadheads dropped on the spot.
34% of the deer shot with handguns (as defined in my poll) dropped on the spot.
49% of deer shot with rifles (as defined in my poll) dropped on the spot.
Now, there is no way someone is going to convince me that a 1-1/4" broadhead destroys less tissue than a handgun. Even Fackler seems to agree:
"Anyone yet unconvinced of the fallacy in using kinetic energy alone to measure
wounding capacity might wish to consider the example of a modern broadhead
hunting arrow. It is used to kill all species of big game, yet its striking energy is only about 50 ft-lb (68 Joules)-- less than that of the .22 Short bullet. Energy is used efficiently by the sharp blade of the broadhead arrow. Cutting tissue is far more efficient than crushing it, and crushing it is far more efficient than tearing it apart by stretch (as in temporary cavitation)."
Ergo, based on my poll, kinetic energy/TC does appear to matter.
On the flip-side, why did the deer hit with an arrow collapse in it's tracks? There is very little PBW, and the TC from an arrow is a joke. So why? There should be almost a 100% "run-off" rate. There isn't. The difference was only a bit over 30%. So we are saying that a BPW that is almost negligble, is only 30% less effective than a considerable PBW (I doubt people were shooting deer with 147gr 9mm's...). Assuming that PBW is responsible for 100% of this difference, which is a laughable assumption.
The data can go both ways here, but I feel that it supports TC having a meaningful impact on incapacitation. Maybe not as much as the Courtney-ites would like, and not as little as the Fackler-ites claim, but it does appear to matter, presuming the data I have provided is valid, and I cannot attest to it as I did not measure it, I only recorded what was reported.
I don't see this happening.
There are alot more "deer shot" videos available than "people shot" videos and ALL the deer vs arrow I've ever seen = deer runs the hell off!
A broadhead may have "span" but it doesn't have "volume" in comparison to smokeless munitions.
I had faith that you were an intellectual poster, all-be-it blunt.
It ends up being just "blunt", my bad.
Oh well, now you have.
He looks rather confused. BPW cause a TBI?
I would wager that had I said "This is a deer shot with 9BPLE" and you couldn't see the arrow sticking out of it, you would use this video as back-up for your BPW theory. Am I wrong? If I am, explain.
So you cherry pick argueably the most powerful load of the whole 9mm line-up and it's somehow suppose to be relative to the average 9mm load?
Of everyone who carries 9mm, LE, civilian, or military, what % do you believe carry that load which is actually labeled by Winchester as +P+?
I had hopes you'ld come up with a meaningful arguement. Thanks for letting me down.
I don't get it. I go to your poll that is currently showing a total of 260 total votes. And so far it only shows that 5% of deer collapsed/expired where hit! How on earth are you coming up with 21%??? Besides that the 5% number doens't really mean much from the standpoint it only account for 1 out of up to who knows how many deer they've shot with broadheads in their lifetime thus far.
Then you list handguns where only 3.5% dropped on the spot and could have been shot with anything from a 5.7FN through the .454 as defined by your poll. For our purposes that is of zero significance besides that it still only accounts for a single deer taken by a someone who may have shot many more with who knows what round or load within a specific cartridge.
And the same sort of minimal to no significance follows with rifle rounds. Here your chart shows 28.1% of deer collapsed on the spot and could have been shot with any rifle round from a 22 Hornet from a 10" barreled TC to a 26" barreled 460 Weatherby Magnum. Heck, by the definition in your poll, someone could have used a 36" barreled 50 BMG.
While I appreciate your enthusiasm toward gathering data, clearly the data you've collected tells us practically nothing in any way shape or form to the definition of significance. Surely you know this? What I really can't figure out is that you didn't use the actual results for deer collapsing on the spot in any catagory.
You've really lost me on that one.
Is it just my computer with poor video showing capability, or is it impossible to see where the arrow entered the deer? And yeah, I did see what appeared to be an arrow sticking out of the deer after it fell, but at least for me it was still impossible to tell what angle the arrow went throught he deer at.
Trailside camera, and poor quality, but it looks to have hit the deer broadside through the heart/lung area. Again, I won't swear to that as the film quality is poor. It proved the point though.
I don't see how I lost you except that you don't understand how I calculated percentages without biasing for sample-size. I outlined that proceedure for you above so you can check the numbers (I can't help if 1 or 2 more people answered, so it might be 1-2% off or something by now). Take the raw data out of the poll, calculate to negate sample-size disparity between the groups, and there you go. Easy as pi.
Honestly though, the buck did as you said... he looked confused. That is why I wouldn't use that as a BPW backup. And I'm not trying to just argue out of it. Don't know what to say really, that's just a wierd example, man. It looks like he just freaked the hell out and was in instant shock. I mean, he went down and all but....
I'll look for some more vids like that later since I'm off today. Never seen, whatever that was, with a bow before.
Eh, you guys can have all that math crap. When you guys are done with all the crasy talk with numbers and such, I'll jump back in as if I were following right along.
There is no doubt that the energy efficiency of a broad-head is far ahead of a bullet but your experiment, if it can be called that because you were unable to control it, has several flaws.
The first flaw is the same one that invalidated the Marshall and Sanow data set. The responders are self selected and are more likely to respond if they have an interesting experience than if they have an uninteresting experience. In both cases this seems to be a well meaning attempt to gain information on a recalictrant topic.
You specify that "The deer must have been hit with only 1 shot, the shot must have hit either the heart or both lungs, or a lung and the heart, or both lungs. The shot must not have physically hit the spine." The Courtney experimants took car that the deer were not hit in the heart and so there is a major difference here. In the Courtney experiments, none of the deer collapsed because of a rapid drop of blood presure to the brain.
You say, "Now, there is no way someone is going to convince me that a 1-1/4" broadhead destroys less tissue than a handgun." and that is not actually relevant to the argument and neither is my quibble, but I will make it anyway. The broad head actually destroys very little tissue since it makes a fine, energy efficient, cut that produces a lot of functional damage but destroys very few cells. The whole idea of comparing bullets to broad-heads on the basis of energy expended is simply silly and Fackler demonstrates the same silliness. Bullets and broad-heads use totally different modes of injury.
But back to the main program! You say, correctly (sorry Craig!):
21% of the deer shot with broadheads dropped on the spot.
34% of the deer shot with handguns (as defined in my poll) dropped on the spot.
Here we have several problems. The first is that according to many reports from people who have been shot or stabbed, a large proportion, perhaps a majority, do not realise that they have been shot of stabbed. That is, they feel a minor thump but feel no pain at the time. After an interval of some 20 minutes gun shot wounds are, of course, extremely painful and can remain so for months but at the time, pain cannot be relied upon as an indicator of serious injury. If you have read the report from the Strasborg tests, which might or might not have actually happened, there is a telling report on the test of a .380ACP. The goat that was shot twitched a little as though surprised and then continued feeding within 2 seconds. After the 30 seconds alowed by the protocol, if I remember the time correctly, the goat was put down humanely but showed no sign of distress throughout. This is a small detail that, amongst others, makes me suspect that the tests were conducted.
As a consequence, many deer that are shot with a broad-head will not realise that they have been shot and will not be frightened and so will not run away. As such they are quite likely to stand where they are shot and then collapse. What your data set lacks, and cannot be expected to have, is the time to collapse. Incidentally, the Courtneys did not use distance run as a measure of time to collapse. They had a timer sensor close to the deer that started a timer with the sound of bullet impact and the time was then stopped manually from the hide at the point of collapse.
The video you reference is informative but not informative enough. The deer makes two distinctive movements before it collapses. I believe the first was a, "What just bumped into me? I thought I was alone here!" and the second was, "What was that odd noise or movement?" I say this because the first movement seemed related to itself and the second seemed to be focused on a fixed point at some distance. The rapid collapse then fits the result of a heart shot and abrupt drop of blood pressure before a flight response has been generated. This is supposition of course but what is clear relative to traumatic brain injury collapse is that the deer is clearly alert and reactive to stimuli until it collapses in complete contrast to a boxer who has just been punched to the head enough to daze him rather than knock him out.
The situation with a deer which has just been shot at with a pistol is that it will immediately run from the bang whether it has been hit or not. If it drops right there it is because its control system has been switched off and so the difference between 21% and 34% is actually not as simple as it seems.
The next problem is one of cartridge and bullet selection for hunting. Hunters who are hunting for meat are very reluctant to use bullets which damage too much meat and so their criteria are not the same as those slecting a round for self defence. They are much more likely to choose a round which will shoot through and through. They also have a tradition of using heavy for caliber hard cast bullets. Both result in very poor BPW levels. Your data set has no control of these factors and makes no attempt to control for them by sleection criteria. I am almost surprised that as many as 34% dropped on the spot from a single handgun bullet.
All in all, I fear we can draw very little in the way of sound conclusions from your poll. As the statisticians say, "Talk to us before you do your experiment. Not afterwards!" Probably more important than that is your acceptance of the wide spread belief that getting shot hurts enough to produce an immediate flight or fight reaction.