Five deer is not even a statistically valid sample size. What a sloppy study.
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”. 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
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.So is this the BPW thing again?
Nothing has changed the fact that Courtney can't even stand behind his own experimental design without equivocating. Courtney's last sentence remains unchanged no matter how much you 'spin' the rest of the paper.
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.
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.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.
I'm not sure where I was obnoxious in this thread. I'm just trying to post good info. If you don't like it, I don't really care.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".