Energy Dump - A Self-Defining Term

[Soybomb]

What are SA Patricks credentials that we treat his work as gospel? How many years ago was this?

I don't know a whole lot about him past him being a princeton graduate and and being 2nd in charge at the FBI's firearms training unit. Why are you trying to attack agent patrick though? He wrote a paper and cited many different peer reviewed journal articles that led him to the conclusions he came to. It isn't like he was proposing a new idea himself. Its more like a research paper for college, he did a bunch of leg work and found material from people who are experts in medicine, ballistics, and wounding, and cited them. If you want to discredit his work, at least in the academic sense properly, you need to attack his cited sources. Those are the people with credentials that are considered the experts. Show me why the statements he said and cited are false.

What does age have to do with it? Alright its 20 years old, how has the human body changed in 20 years that now it is wounded differently?

Again, any volunteers to swallow a lit firecracker?

Or maybe stick one somewhere else (your sphincter is elastic, right)?

I'm guessing that we'll get no volunteers.
Why?
Because we all know that it would be painful and would probably damage us in someway.

Can you tell me how ingesting explosive material is the same as a gun shot wound?

You similarly won't get me to cut myself with my pocket knife or shoot myself with a .22, but that really doesn't mean anything either. At the end of the day you're welcome to believe whatever you want. Personally I have a list of doctors, trauma surgeons, and others who are considered experts telling me that handguns don't have enough energy to reliably cause man stopping wounds via temporary cavitation. On the other hand I have a guy on the internet saying since a person shouldn't eat a firecracker and water melons blow up when you shoot them, clearly temporary cavitation from handguns is an effective way to stop attackers. For the time being I'm going with the medical professionals and not the fruit theory. I'd certainly welcome some reading material though showing me that temporary cav from handgun rounds is a reliable stopping and wounding mechanism.

sorry in my original post I asked the poeple who think KE has nothing to do with wounding could explain how
a .357 seams to perform as well as the 45 which has more momentum,penatration and expansion.

I know of no real ranking that reliable, there's the often cited M&S data that says that .357 mag is like a bolt of lightning from god, but that data is junk. I think most people who are considered experts today would tell you that the one that crushes the most tissue is going to be the best bet. That usually means more mass and bigger size.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

357 mag performs as well or better than 45 ACP. It does this because there is enough energy in the 357 magnum to cause violent expansion, which effectively increases the diameter of the wound channel, and causes more tissue damage.

There is not enough energy with 357 magnum to cause devitalization of tissues not directly in contact with the bullet.

Also the design of most of the better performing 357 magnum bullets is more conducive to expansion than 45 ACP bullets. 45 ACP bullets may have the potential to expand to a larger diameter than 357 magnum, but the higher velocity and bullet design of 357 magnum bullets will encourage more consistent expansion. I am basing this on bullets passing through human tissue, not gelatin.

Understand that I am talking about tissue trauma that can be observed and documented, either with the eyes, or a microscope.

 

[Soybomb]

357 mag performs as well or better than 45 ACP. It does this because there is enough energy in the 357 magnum to cause violent expansion, which effectively increases the diameter of the wound channel, and causes more tissue damage.

Can you cite a source for me that goes into detail on how it performs as well or better than, the methodology used, etc? Or is this your work experience? My impression was also that expansion was fairly reliable with today's hollowpoints, bone aside.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I think no matter who's work you read, most everyone agrees that 357 magnum and 45 ACP work about equally.

 

[mavracer]

I'd certainly welcome some reading material though showing me that temporary cav from handgun rounds is a reliable stopping and wounding mechanism.

here you go http://www.ballisticstestinggroup.org

357 mag performs as well or better than 45 ACP. It does this because there is enough energy in the 357 magnum to cause violent expansion, which effectively increases the diameter of the wound channel, and causes more tissue damage.

so if it does not expand to a greater diameter and does not penatrate deeper it will still make a larger wound channel because of greater kinetic energy causes violent expansion.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

mavracer, i dont understand your last post.

 

[boomstik45]

I see what he's trying to say, but it still isn't quite right. In the case of a rifle bullet, it's much more likely to be effective. In handguns...not so much.

It's not that temporary wound cavity doesn't have anything to do with incapacitation. It's that it's not a RELIABLE stopping and wounding mechanism BY ITSELF. It is a PART of the stopping and wounding mechanism as a whole.

Greater kinetic energy and violent expansion are great for temporary wounding cavity and causing pain. But does that result in RELIABLE incapacitation by itself?

Besides, you then put yourself in a bad place with temporary cavity. Why? Because any wound initially caused by a round is all you have to work with. What if the round hits a bone? There goes your incapacitation, in most cases. The key word here is reliable...that's all.

 

[boomstik45]

It amuses me to see someone calling out an experienced and noted professional like Special Agent Urey Patrick.

You ask "who is this, and why should we listen to him, it was 20 years ago...blah, blah, blah."

So, who are you, and what professional experience do you have that you may share with us, that is so much more prevalent and updated in comparison to an FBI special agent? Because, if you're gonna talk the game, you better have some serious game. Otherwise, you're not even a forum contributor, just a keyboard commando.

 

[mavracer]

LG,
you said

357 mag performs as well or better than 45 ACP. It does this because there is enough energy in the 357 magnum to cause violent expansion, which effectively increases the diameter of the wound channel, and causes more tissue damage.

a 230gr .45 has more momentum than a 125gr .357 and will concistantly out penatrate and expand to a larger diameter.yet the .357 works as well as a .45
because of energy.kinetic energy from added velocity which causes damage.

NOW to be honest I still think you can take a coked up determaned BG compleatly destroy his heart and lungs and he'll still have 15-20 seconds to do bad things.I say this Because in my personal experiance I have seen animals shot through the chest with .270,30/06 and 45/70 among others, that run 200 yards.having a vet for a hunting partner cleaning game turns into a autopsy.

 

[mavracer]

I see what he's trying to say, but it still isn't quite right. In the case of a rifle bullet, it's much more likely to be effective. In handguns...not so much.

It's not that temporary wound cavity doesn't have anything to do with incapacitation. It's that it's not a RELIABLE stopping and wounding mechanism BY ITSELF. It is a PART of the stopping and wounding mechanism as a whole.

Greater kinetic energy and violent expansion are great for temporary wounding cavity and causing pain. But does that result in RELIABLE incapacitation by itself?

very well put

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Temporary cavity may contribute to incapacitation. Thats not what I am talking about. What I am saying is that temporary cavity (from a low velocity hand gun projectile) will not cause a physical, observable injury to tissue. I don't doubt that it might contribute to psychological incapacitation.

 

[Kentak]

You know. Why can't we all just get along. I think there's a lot of truth in what both sides are saying.

When I was a kid, we played a lot of dodgeball in school. Once, I turned around and got smacked with one of those red rubber playground balls right in the solar plexus. I dropped like a lead weight until I could catch my breath. I bet the best surgeon in the world couldn't see one iota of injury by visual or microscopic examination of my gut. Yet, I was down.

Is it so hard to believe that having your guts spread apart by the temporary cavitation caused by the passing of a high energy round is going to feel like you've been hit with a Mack Truck? Even if there is no permanent wounding, might that add to the physiological and psychological distress that makes an attacker go, "I quit, call 911."?

K

 

[Soybomb]

You know. Why can't we all just get along. I think there's a lot of truth in what both sides are saying.

I don't necessarily agree with the latter part but I love the discussion. I think its great that people are thinking about what they put in their gun, trying to read and research and not just loading their gun with whatever package has the most ninjas and lightning bolts on it.

Is it so hard to believe that having your guts spread apart by the temporary cavitation caused by the passing of a high energy round is going to feel like you've been hit with a Mack Truck?

To some extent it is because blunt trauma is very different than a penetrating wound. What if it does hurt and someone doesn't want to stop? It happens and one instance of it happening in particular is really part of what sparked research to take us to where we are today. I might think it feels like getting hit with a mack truck, but it has nowhere near the energy of a mack truck. If I'm having a bad day, and I am if I'm shooting people, and my attacker doesn't want to agree to stop because I shot him and it hurts shouldn't I be prepared with the round that can force his body to stop? Most attackers are going to quit when they see the gun but you still load your gun. Even if most attackers would stop because they had been shot, shouldn't we be prepared for if they don't?

 

[mavracer]

What I am saying is that temporary cavity (from a low velocity hand gun projectile) will not cause a physical, observable injury to tissue.

you are wrong, I have seen it!

 

[fletcher]

whatever package has the most ninjas and lightning bolts on it.

I only load what has the most ninjas and lightning bolts in it.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

you are wrong, I have seen it!

Are you talking about the boar?

You shot it with a stout 44 magnum... I haven't calculated out the energy of the round you described but it is much much higher than most handgun rounds used in self-defense. It is probably fairly close in energy to a 223. So I think it is unfair to describe that as a low-velocity, low energy handgun round.

I am talking about loads and calibers typically used for self defense.

 

[jon_in_wv]

What I wrote was not an attack on SA Patrick. Forget your bias and try to read it again. The point was that he is in charge of the FIREARMS unit. He, by is own admission in his writing is not the foremost scholar on the subject. He merely tried to look objectively at the body of evidence to come to some type of conclusion. That being that penetration of vital organs is the only RELIABLE method of stopping an opponent. I will agree that adequate penetration is the most important issue to address. NOWHERE did he say there are no other factors in stopping power, only that to rely on those methods was not as reliable as penetration. But Patrick also uses some terribly simplistic logic to come to some of his conclusions. Additionally, others have come to many of their own conclusions claiming its what the FBI says and they are full of crap. Also bullet technology has come a long ways in 20 years, so yes, that does make a difference. I don't have to be a genius to see that when people say "KE don't kill" they don't even know what that means. But they will be the first to praise the FBI gospel and attack anyone who disagrees with it or doesn't agree with THEIR interpretation of it.

Finally, A keyboard commando would be people who attack saying, "who are YOU, what are YOUR credentials." I don't need to hear your credentials to respect what you have to say but attacking me and name calling because I questioned a 20yr old report by an FBI agent is not what I would call a forum contributor either. I guess you need a PHD to discuss a subject unless you agree with it. I asked why I should put so much credibility into it that I should ignore other informed sources like I've been told to. Yet no one can answer that without attacking me. I thought a forum was a place where people of differing opinions could meet and speak. I guess not.

 

[mavracer]

You shot it with a stout 44 magnum... I haven't calculated out the energy of the round you described but it is much much higher than most handgun rounds used in self-defense. It is probably fairly close in energy to a 223. So I think it is unfair to describe that as a low-velocity, low energy handgun round.

you are in denial,and I'm done trying to enlighten someone who refuses to belive they think they know everything.obviously you have not managed to read any of Dr.Courtney's work maybe you should. http://www.ballisticstestinggroup.org

 

[Odd Job]

obviously you have not managed to read any of Dr.Courtney's work maybe you should.

The 'research' by Dr Courtney is not relevant to this thread. He and his co-author are suggesting that a 'ballistic pressure wave' can incapacitate a human by remote CNS effects (beyond the range of effect of a temporary cavity). I won't discuss what I think of that suggestion and how they have attempted to support it, because that is off-topic here. I suggest you head over to Tactical Forums/Terminal effects to read up on some of the debate on this.

As regards the question of whether a temporary cavity from a handgun round can damage the tissue in which the cavitation takes place, I have seen it macroscopically and radiologically. HOWEVER there are strings attached.

The first and best case involved a carjacking victim in 2002, Johannesburg. The victim was shot several times and was alive upon arrival in the casualty department. He made it to theatre but when they opened him up they found a lot of damage to his liver, inferior vena cava and one kidney. He died on table. I was there, and I got pictures of the liver. There was definite cavitational damage to the liver with stellate tearing of the liver
'capsule.' They recovered one JHP from the body, all the other shots were perforating. I did not measure the projectile but I photographed it:







The weight of it in my hand and the general dimensions of it were consistent with a service calibre round somewhere around 9mm in diameter.

But before I pat myself on the back and hand the cigars around, you have to realise a few things here:

1) Liver is not elastic. It cannot stretch. It is therefore more prone to the effects of cavitation than muscle or lung tissue.
2) I don't know the velocity of the projectile as it passed through the liver.

The radiological case was a gunshot face where the victim sustained no intracerebral injury but routine angiography detected an anomaly in a facial artery. This anomaly was reported as not being caused by extrinsic compression (haemorrhaging alongside a vessel such that blood flow is affected) or direct injury (no leak was detected). Although this artery was not far from the terminal trajectory of the round, it was not directly in the path of the projectile. The radiologist reported it as a possible tunica intima injury (damage or peeling of the innermost lining of an artery) but there may have been some vessel spasm making the appearances less subtle than noted.

These cases are not common with handgun rounds (at least as far as I have been able to document with my cases) but I submit that they are out there.

 

[jon_in_wv]

What the FBI proponents have done is to say that penetration is the ONLY factor in stopping power. What I and others are trying to say is that whatever you want to call the effect that a high velocity pistol round has on the body. Common sense says it must be beneficial to stopping power assuming the round does penetrate to the desired depth. Years ago the elusive round that penetrated AND expanded were few and far between. Now we have a few modern rounds that are very capable of expanding and penetrating. If the fact it also has a little more speed, momentum, and KE gives it a slight edge than its worth it. SA Patrick said himself that if all our learning only gave us a 1% edge then it was well worth it for that 1%. Some prople have closed their minds to all but the simplest of conclusion from his writing which really does him a disservice for his efforts. I don't attack him for his work, only those too closed minded to appreciate his work for what it is and continue to build on it for the future.

 

[Soybomb]

I guess you need a PHD to discuss a subject unless you agree with it. I asked why I should put so much credibility into it that I should ignore other informed sources like I've been told to. Yet no one can answer that without attacking me. I thought a forum was a place where people of differing opinions could meet and speak. I guess not.

I answered you without attacking you. I am somewhat confused though. You feel as though we shouldn't have to be certifiable experts in ballistics to talk about it, but you also dismiss agent patrick for being unqualified to talk about ballistics while ignoring the 50 or so citations of experts in his paper. I would welcome a dialogue that has some supporting quality evidence like his. Usually its just someone saying "well I suppose...."

But Patrick also uses some terribly simplistic logic to come to some of his conclusions.

Please elaborate. To my knowledge it remains a respected document even among the experts. Doctor Gary Roberts says "Anyone interested in this topic should read and periodically re-read, “Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness” by Urey Patrick of the FBI FTU, as this remains the single best discussion of the wound ballistic requirements of handguns used for self-defense." Why is it of such lower quality to you?

Also bullet technology has come a long ways in 20 years, so yes, that does make a difference.

I would agree, it has been influenced tremendously by the works that patrick cited and those like it. Ammunition makers have tried to meet the guidelines they laid out.

What I and others are trying to say is that whatever you want to call the effect that a high velocity pistol round has on the body. Common sense says it must be beneficial to stopping power

What evidence are you bringing to the table that shows me that service caliber handgun rounds can reach a velocity high enough to cause incapacitation outside of their effect on inelastic tissue? Saying common sense isn't proof and historically fails.

I don't attack him for his work, only those too closed minded to appreciate his work for what it is and continue to build on it for the future.

Alright what are we building on it with? If you're interested in respecting the work I think you need to challenge or augment it with work thats equally rich with documentation and supporting research. You're aware that the general dismissal of M&S's work isn't the result of flipping a coin, its that it isn't academic quality work with the proper documentation and methodology. Its like if I turned in a grade schoolers "research paper" for a masters level class. Once again along the lines of respecting work, a great many people have published reports documenting the numerous flaws of M&S work including MacPherson, Fackler, and van Maanen. Give these gentlemen some credit for their work instead of suggesting there is no valid reason to dismiss the M&S work. If you'd like to read some of it, and I assure you there are no coins involved try http://www.firearmstactical.com/streetstoppers.htm http://www.firearmstactical.com/sanow-strikes-out.htm http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm http://www.firearmstactical.com/undeniable-evidence.htm http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-statistical-analysis.htm

 

[Lone_Gunman]

you are in denial,and I'm done trying to enlighten someone who refuses to belive they think they know everything.

I don't know everything, but I think you are making a bad comparison when trying to apply your experience with a hot 44 magnum load to the handgun calibers normally used for self defense.

 

[mavracer]

I don't know everything, but I think you are making a bad comparison when trying to apply your experience with a hot 44 magnum load to the handgun calibers normally used for self defense.

I don't know everything either ,a couple things I am pretty sure of
A:200 ft.lbs is bearly enough to cause a temporary cavity let alone cause trauma from hydrolics.hence .32 acp and .380 need to perforate somthing important.
B:1000 ft.lbs.even at 1000-1200 fps will do signifigant damage outside of the bullets path,I've seen that.
In my opinion it would make more sense that radial damage,done without direct contact with bullet,happens more and more as you go up in power from
200 to 1000 ft.lbs. not just magicly appears at 1000 ft.lbs.
I think IMHO .357 and 10mm can make enough energy to have a effect,how much I got no clue.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

In my opinion it would make more sense that radial damage,done without direct contact with bullet,happens more and more as you go up in power from
200 to 1000 ft.lbs. not just magicly appears at 1000 ft.lbs.

My hypothesis on that would be that cells and tissue are able to aborb a certain amount of energy, and remain viable. After a certain threshold is reached, the cells and tissue die. I don't think the change is gradual... either the cells survive the energy, or they die. Its binary.
I freely admit this is just my opinion, based on taking care of gunshot wound victims. But either there is a large amount of dead tissue around a wound channel (as with a high powered rifle) or there is none (as with most handgun rounds).

 

[mavracer]

none

wrong
BTW are you told what caliber your victoms are shot with do you know what ammo was used.if you have have you compiled data on the different ammo.or are you going off the shear # of handgun wounds you have seen.because statistically speaking I doubt you yourself(as you admited to)have seen a .357 mag wound from a doubletap or buffalo bore full house 125 golddot or this monster
DoubleTap 10mm 165gr Gold Dot JHP @ 1400fps - 14.25" / 1.02" those last 2 # are penatration/expansion in gelatin/denim per FBI protacol.
I would suspect that the majority of the wounds you have treated, have been with the crap(if its even that good) I practice with.and statistics would also lead me to think the majority of the wounds you treat are 9mm FMJ or less damaging.
IE. you haven't seen many wounds in the 600-750 ft.lb. range if any, most have been <400.
I will agree theres not much perifial damage below 400 but I guarentee that that double tap 10mm load will take the wind out of most BGs sails it did the whitetail I shot last dec.