What really happens when bullets hit flesh
1 - 20 of 61 Posts
Joined
·
2,968 Posts
Five deer is not even a statistically valid sample size. What a sloppy study.
To top it off, Courtney doesn't even have the courage to call his methodology valid. Instead, in the last sentence of his paper, Courtney actually backs away from his very own experimental design by saying:
"The method presented is widely accessible, relatively inexpensive, and might represent the simplest way to study bullet effects in live, unanesthetized animals."
"Might"? Oh geez. :upeyes:
When a researcher cannot stand behind his own experimental design, there is something very wrong with it. There is a reason that Courtney has been laughed off of every gun board and is now consigned to citing himself on Wikipedia. This paper is a good example of why that is so.
Did you see the picture?
"The effects on tissue were impressive. The
bullet entered just in front of the third rib
(counting from the back) on the left side,
pulverized a large area (1.5” diameter) on the
inside of the rib cage and in the liver, entered
the left lung producing a large (> 1” diameter)
pulverized region, entered the right lung
producing a pulverized region that gradually
shrank in size to the recovered diameter of the
bullet (0.58”
, exited the rib cage just in front of
the 11th rib (counting from the back) and was
recovered in the muscles of the right shoulder.
The direction of the wound agrees with the
account of the shot that the buck was mostly
broadside, but angled slightly away with his
head down eating."
Kinda ruins your theory, does it not? They did that at least 5 times. I've seen it myself too. Of course, there might be a better way, but shooting gel isn't it with higher energy duty rounds.
Shooting gel works for subsonic stuff. He did clear that up.
"The effects on tissue were impressive. The
bullet entered just in front of the third rib
(counting from the back) on the left side,
pulverized a large area (1.5” diameter) on the
inside of the rib cage and in the liver, entered
the left lung producing a large (> 1” diameter)
pulverized region, entered the right lung
producing a pulverized region that gradually
shrank in size to the recovered diameter of the
bullet (0.58”
, exited the rib cage just in front ofthe 11th rib (counting from the back) and was
recovered in the muscles of the right shoulder.
The direction of the wound agrees with the
account of the shot that the buck was mostly
broadside, but angled slightly away with his
head down eating."
Kinda ruins your theory, does it not? They did that at least 5 times. I've seen it myself too. Of course, there might be a better way, but shooting gel isn't it with higher energy duty rounds.
Shooting gel works for subsonic stuff. He did clear that up.
According to the view of handgun bullet
wounding that asserts direct crush is the only
mechanism [PAT89, MAC94, FAC88a, FAC96a],
the bullet wound should be roughly cylindrical in
shape, and have a diameter roughly equal to the
recovered diameter of the bullet. The volume of
this expected wound channel is widely known as
the permanent cavity (PC) and given by the
frontal area of the recovered bullet times the
penetration depth (12”. This gives an expected
wound volume of 3.17 cubic inches.
What we actually observed is closer to a
truncated cone region of pulverized tissue with a
diameter of 1.5” on the entrance side, and
gradually narrowing to 0.58” on the exit side of
the rib cage. The actual volume of this truncated
cone of pulverized tissue is an estimated 12.18
cubic inches, or nearly 4 times the volume
predicted by the PC-only view of wounding via
handgun bullets.
explain that
wounding that asserts direct crush is the only
mechanism [PAT89, MAC94, FAC88a, FAC96a],
the bullet wound should be roughly cylindrical in
shape, and have a diameter roughly equal to the
recovered diameter of the bullet. The volume of
this expected wound channel is widely known as
the permanent cavity (PC) and given by the
frontal area of the recovered bullet times the
penetration depth (12”
. This gives an expectedwound volume of 3.17 cubic inches.
What we actually observed is closer to a
truncated cone region of pulverized tissue with a
diameter of 1.5” on the entrance side, and
gradually narrowing to 0.58” on the exit side of
the rib cage. The actual volume of this truncated
cone of pulverized tissue is an estimated 12.18
cubic inches, or nearly 4 times the volume
predicted by the PC-only view of wounding via
handgun bullets.
explain that
Joined
·
215 Posts
This ^^^^^^^^^^According to the view of handgun bullet
wounding that asserts direct crush is the only
mechanism [PAT89, MAC94, FAC88a, FAC96a],
the bullet wound should be roughly cylindrical in
shape, and have a diameter roughly equal to the
recovered diameter of the bullet. The volume of
this expected wound channel is widely known as
the permanent cavity (PC) and given by the
frontal area of the recovered bullet times the
penetration depth (12”
wound volume of 3.17 cubic inches.
What we actually observed is closer to a
truncated cone region of pulverized tissue with a
diameter of 1.5” on the entrance side, and
gradually narrowing to 0.58” on the exit side of
the rib cage. The actual volume of this truncated
cone of pulverized tissue is an estimated 12.18
cubic inches, or nearly 4 times the volume
predicted by the PC-only view of wounding via
handgun bullets.
explain that
Also I like that he signs his name to material he has written and published. Unlike some that push books through their signature line without attribution...
Joined
·
2,968 Posts
Yep...
The main reason I posted it is for the damage path documentation. The paper reports a damage path that is not consistent with bullet final diameter. I've seen it. Others have too. Qas says it doesn't happen. M7 says it does not happen. In this paper, it is recorded.
Joined
·
215 Posts
Time for a pithy quote for our friend m7.
"Continuing to believe in a lie is a lot easier than accepting the truth for most people. Some people have difficulty accepting the truth when it's not their truth."
"Continuing to believe in a lie is a lot easier than accepting the truth for most people. Some people have difficulty accepting the truth when it's not their truth."
Again, you misunderstood. A better method might come along is what he's saying. The better method has not come yet. Open your mind and eyes. I realize you have a lot invested in the final diameter of the bullet determining the amount of tissue destroyed.
I get it. You're invested in that. BUT the reality is different from your theory.
I'm pretty sure that anyone with an open mind will look at the wound track presented in the picture and the description given of it and be able to see that the track is way bigger than your model. It really is that simple. All anyone has to do is read the paper presented.
Just because you have not seen it does not mean it does not exist. The author of the paper recorded it. Others here have seen it in game animals, some have seen it at autopsy.
Get over it. Your're simply wrong.
Joined
·
215 Posts
Steve, that's awesome! He can't explain the 1.5" hole and he knows it. We know it, a lot of people know it. He has a hard time with it. I get it. He's invested, but with this many people saying it's wrong he really should reconsider.
I'm going hunting this Sunday, I'll be in the woods and swampy area. Hope to kill a hog with the 31. If I do, I'll put the pics up and he can explain those holes too, lol.
I'm starting to smile a little already. I like getting outside.
I'm going hunting this Sunday, I'll be in the woods and swampy area. Hope to kill a hog with the 31. If I do, I'll put the pics up and he can explain those holes too, lol.
I'm starting to smile a little already. I like getting outside.
Joined
·
5,683 Posts
I read the article. On an academic level I found it interesting. From personal experience, as a former homicide detective (NYPD), it has been my observation that there are too many variables that occur in an actual combat confrontation which would permit the use of the observations presented to be of much utility. I must be honest and tell you that anytime I see a study which grades projectile effectiveness down to the decimal point I question the utility of such studies.
For some reason, when the subject of handgun effectiveness is discussed, there seems to be a great deal of unnecessary angst generated. As a practical matter any of the normally available handgun service rounds on the market (not the exotic ones) will serve for duty use.
Best of luck to all getting this topic straightened out.
:wavey:
For some reason, when the subject of handgun effectiveness is discussed, there seems to be a great deal of unnecessary angst generated. As a practical matter any of the normally available handgun service rounds on the market (not the exotic ones) will serve for duty use.
Best of luck to all getting this topic straightened out.
:wavey:
I understand your position chief. The only point to be made is pointed out in the article. When the bullet does what it's supposed to do at the velocities listed in the paper, more tissue is destroyed than the bullet comes in contact with. It generally leaves a bigger than expanded diameter damage path for the first few inches.
It's almost preached in this forum that the extra damage cannot happen. I've seen it, and I'm almost certain you have too. I see it almost every time I shoot something, except with a bow of course. I never use subsonic ammo to hunt game. I only tried that 1 time. It didn't work out.
I do believe QAS and the others are accurate for the the subsonic heavy for caliber duty rounds. I think the bickering happens at high for duty caliber velocities and standard weight handgun ammo. Nothing replaces shot placement and good tactics and training. I think everyone agrees on that. I also think you implied something important. There's no such thing as a standard fight.
The researchers used a .40, 135 grain JHP bullet at just under 1400 FPS. It penetrated apx 12", and of course left a larger damage path. It crushed about 12 cubic inches of tissue. According to QAS, it should have only crushed about 3 inches. That was the case with the 9mm 147 grain subsonic JHP that expanded. It did exactly what QAS predicted.
Anyway, I'm covering the same ground again. Thanks for the input.
Joined
·
2,968 Posts
I quit. All that you and j3k have is 'straw men', insult, and ridiculous accusations to support your claims. I am sure that both of you will want to count this as a 'win', but winning an argument simply because you are the most obnoxious is certainly not something that anyone with any sense would want to take credit for. In the grand scheme of things neither of you matter and I'm well past giving a damn about the "bilge water" the two of you are trying to pass off as "perfume".
Joined
·
1,226 Posts
I saw this effect last fall with my new crossbow as well. I'm shooting 100gr muzzy's with a 1 3/16" cutting diameter at 330 fps. I shot two does at 25 yds. The entry holes were about 2" and the exits were about the same diameter as my broadhead. One was a poor shot that hit the liver. About half the liver was turned to jelly, and she only made it about 100 yds. The other was a perfect heart shot. She only made it 30 yds. Nearly the entire heart was mush. Both bolts passed comlpetely through with enough force to bury 6" into frozen soil. My old, much slower compound did far less internal damage. I was pretty surprised by what I found when gutting the first one.
1 - 20 of 61 Posts
