Example Of How Pistol Rounds Suck

[Shawn Dodson]

How does the temporary cavity caused by a rifle bullet cause rapid incapacitation if it doesn't damage or destroy the heart, major blood vessels, or CNS?

Go back and read my previous reply for your answer.

 

[Jeff White]

Well I think it is on topic. And I'd like to hear from Shawn.

However, you're suggesting that a rifle bullet can break apart and create a larger wound channel, that will cause rapid incapacitation. But that still doesn't hit the heart, major blood vessels, or CNS?

How does the temporary cavity caused by a rifle bullet cause rapid incapacitation if it doesn't damage or destroy the heart, major blood vessels, or CNS?

It’s all in the links to Dr Roberts work that I posted. A detailed discussion would be more appropriate in rifles or handguns. We really don’t want to go down that rabbit hole here.

 

[WrongHanded]

It’s all in the links to Dr Roberts work that I posted. A detailed discussion would be more appropriate in rifles or handguns. We really don’t want to go down that rabbit hole here.

Okay Jeff, I hear you. Never challenge the church of Fackler.

 

[Jeff White]

Okay Jeff, I hear you. Never challenge the church of Fackler.

You can challenge Fackler all you want, just do it in the right subforum. Those discussions always end up like 9mm v .45 discussions.

 

[WrongHanded]

Go back and read my previous reply for your answer.

I read it. I'd describe it as vague. Possibly intentionally so. Can you answer the question directly, or can you not?

 

[Shawn Dodson]

I read it. I'd describe it as vague. Possibly intentionally so. Can you answer the question directly, or can you not?

Paragraph 2.

 

[WrongHanded]

You can challenge Fackler all you want, just do it in the right subforum. Those discussions always end up like 9mm v .45 discussions.

I have done. Doesn't matter where it is. No one can provide evidence disproving the Courtney's findings. Yet they still insist on disregarding those findings.

And if this thread isn't about cartridge efficacy, what is it about?

 

[WrongHanded]

Paragraph 2.

This?!

Secondly, many rifle bullets produce a temporary cavity approximately the size of a volleyball, which exceeds the ability of all soft tissues to tolerate without tearing or rupturing.

Which means and what exactly? That the heart, major blood vessels, and CNS can be damaged without showing any signs of damage?!

If they aren't tearing or rupturing, how do you know high velocity and high energy handgun bullets that dump all their energy into the body aren't doing the same thing? Seriously, how do you know that?

 

[Jeff White]

I have done. Doesn't matter where it is. No one can provide evidence disproving the Courtney's findings. Yet they still insist on disregarding those findings.

And if this thread isn't about cartridge efficacy, what is it about?

It’s about how we deal with the fact that handguns, regardless of caliber, bullet composition and velocity are poor fight stoppers. It’s about learning to hit vital areas from a variety of positions. It’s about using the right engagement technique. Those are things we can actually train on.

That would be a productive on topic discussion. We aren’t going to get into bullet selection, velocity v. mass or any other aspect of this. IIRC Courtney posted here years and years ago. But not in this subforum. It was in either handguns or general.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

This?!

Which means and what exactly? That the heart, major blood vessels, and CNS can be damaged without showing any signs of damage?!

The temporary cavity produced by a centerfire rifle bullet, depending on its wounding characteristics, can cause the heart and great vessels to tear and rupture (without the bullet or its fragments physically touching them), producing massive internal hemorrhage.

In addition, a centerfire rifle bullet's temporary cavity, depending on its wounding characteristics, can cause spinal bones to violently collide with the spinal cord causing a condition known as "concussion of the spinal cord" which temporarily disrupts nerve transmissions causing instant flaccid paralysis.

 

[hoardingthemanual]

I have begun to invest in bonded rifle rounds for 223/5.56. 600 so far.

 

[Ed4032]

Back on subject… never assume that there is only one attacker. The officer did good in my opinion.

 

[bearcreek]

So this thread is basically another regurgitation of people's opinions on stopping power, right?

This is an internet gun forum so...... yeah.

 

[Kleanbore]

"Honest" meaning that the data has not been manipulated or falsified. Which means that one can come to their own conclusions about what the data means, without worrying that it may be fake.

Why would anyone be worried about that?

Which is why I then explained it

Not convincingly, I'm afraid. You mentioned blood flow. Would a slight difference matter in trying to effect an immediate physical stop? You mentioned the "potential" for hitting something vital. How much might the likelihood vary, realistically? It would seem intuitive that there might be some difference, but is it material? However, the literature does not seem to say so.
One thing that can be tested is the impact of rapidity of fire on the probability of hits. That is a major reason for the FBI selection of the 9MM over the .40. I would much rather go with aa chance for an additional wound than one that may be slightly wider.

That a wound channel of 1.5" diameter is more than twice as wide as a wound channel of 0.68" (optimistic expansion for a 9x19mm through clothing). Which would be 1.767 square inches of surface area, versus 0.363 square inches. We could then develope a wound volume based on the penetration depth of the faster round, and based on a cone shaped wound channel due to deceleration. Then compare that to the tubular wound channel of the slower bullet that is only crushing tissue directly in front of it. Guess which one wins that calculation.

I don't see any discussion of that in the literature of handgun wounding mechanics. In fact, any assumed advantage of a larger diameter is almost entirely discounted.

 

[WrongHanded]

Why would anyone be worried about that?

Based on history, it seems any study that provides data challenging Fackler's assertions is looked upon with skepticism, or outright called falsified without substantive evidence to back up such claims. That's why.

Not convincingly, I'm afraid. You mentioned blood flow. Would a slight difference matter in trying to effect an immediate physical stop? You mentioned the "potential" for hitting something vital. How much might the likelihood vary, realistically? It would seem intuitive that there might be some difference, but is it material? However, the literature does not seem to say so.
One thing that can be tested is the impact of rapidity of fire on the probability of hits. That is a major reason for the FBI selection of the 9MM over the .40. I would much rather go with aa chance for an additional wound than one that may be slightly wider.

Firstly, I'm not talking about a 180gr at 1000fps such as the .40S&W. And you know that perfectly well because I've detailed bullet weights and velocities. So have both the links I provided. A bullet moving at that slow of a speed is going to do the same thing as a slow moving 9mm and only crush what's in front of it. Add velocity and wounding gets disporoptionately larger. Which is my entire point! So if you want to know how much more likely a significantly larger wound track has of hitting something vital or causing more rapid blood lose, then do the math. Speaking of that....

I don't see any discussion of that in the literature of handgun wounding mechanics. In fact, any assumed advantage of a larger diameter is almost entirely discounted.

Then you didn't read the Courtney paper I linked. Did you even look at the size of the wounds in the photos of both links? The Facklerite 'crush cavity only' concept does not apply to faster moving projectiles, that can be described as traveling at magnum handgun velocities. I'm not sure why you're struggling with this. I'm providing evidence of larger wounds produced by faster bullets. Larger wounds are more likely to contact something vital, and create more surface area of wounding inside the body to bleed from, causing faster blood loss. These are simple concepts.

 

[Kleanbore]

So if you want to know how much more likely a significantly larger wound track has of hitting something vital or causing more rapid blood lose, then do the math

On the latter point--blood loss is most unlikely to have any meaningful effect in stoping a person attacking from Tueller distance at five meters per second. There just isn't time.

On the second, the studies in the forensic literature really discount that. I would much rather bank on a second, third, or fourth hit.

Then you didn't read the Courtney paper I linked.

I did, and I think it is hogwash. I know of no one in the field who puts any stock in it.

For those who study, design, test, recommend, procure, and carry defensive weapons for law enforcement, this is not just a subject for a doctoral paper. It concerns life and death, and a lot of time an effort is put into it every year.

 

[WrongHanded]

On the latter point--blood loss is most unlikely to have any meaningful effect in stoping a person attacking from Tueller distance at five meters per second. There just isn't time.

So tell me where you are going to aim, and what you hope to hit that would incapacitate a person in such a scenario?

 

[WrongHanded]

I did, and I think it is hogwash. I know of no one in the field who puts any stock in it.

For those who study, design, test, recommend, procure, and carry defensive weapons for law enforcement, this is not just a subject for a doctoral paper. It concerns life and death, and a lot of time an effort is put into it every year.

Earlier you said you weren't suggesting it was fake data or falsified. Now it's "hogwash"? What makes it so? Be specific. Are you claiming those wounds are from different bullets, or traveling at different speeds?

 

[WrongHanded]

The temporary cavity produced by a centerfire rifle bullet, depending on its wounding characteristics, can cause the heart and great vessels to tear and rupture (without the bullet or its fragments physically touching them), producing massive internal hemorrhage.

In addition, a centerfire rifle bullet's temporary cavity, depending on its wounding characteristics, can cause spinal bones to violently collide with the spinal cord causing a condition known as "concussion of the spinal cord" which temporarily disrupts nerve transmissions causing instant flaccid paralysis.

So you're saying that remote wounding is possible. If the bullet or its fragments are not touching organs or other body parts, but those are still being damaged, that is remote wounding. Right? If not, give me another name to call it and explain how it differs from remote wounding.

Regardless of the nomenclature, you are claiming that wounding that is not directly physical caused by the bullet is real. But such wounding can only be caused by the rapid transfer of a significant amount of energy into the body. Right? And velocity is just one component of that energy and its rate of transfer. Right?

 

[Kleanbore]

So tell me where you are going to aim, and what you hope to hit that would incapacitate a person in such a scenario?

Those who have availed themselves of good defensive shooting training have been taught to try to shoot at center mass of a rapidly attacking assailant-- anywhere in the upper chest area, if possible, and to fire several times very rapidly.

One cannot "aim" at any critical body elements in such a situation, because they are hidden and invisible, they re small, and they are moving rapidly in six axes. What one hits will be a matter of chance, and the likelihood of hitting something important will be increased by the number of hits.

We know that a CNS hit would be most effective, but the target is extremely small and moving irregularly, and it is likely much easier to miss than to hit.

Targeting the CNS is best employed in hostage rescue when the target is mostly stationary, and it is best left to a trained team with a scoped rifle and a spotter.

 

[WrongHanded]

Those who have availed themselves of good defensive shooting training have been taught to try to shoot at center mass of a rapidly attacking assailant-- anywhere in the upper chest area, if possible, and to fire several times very rapidly.

So just like last time we had this conversation, you're planning to shoot at center of mass. Well I got news for you bud, unless you hit the spine and therefore disrupt the spinal cord and in turn the nervous system, there's nothing in the COM that's going to effect an immediate physical stop. So you're aiming in the wrong place, and your point about blood loss and hole size is moot, because whether it's a bigger hole or a small one, it's not going to do any good either way. No matter how many shots you get in there.

Before you consider that some small victory, remind yourself that in a situation where a person is running at you at "5 meters per second" intent on doing you serious physical harm .... you've been trained to shoot at an area of the body mostly void of a target capable of causing an immediate stop. Which is a really bad plan.

....unless something else is going on that the cultist Facklerite dogma isn't accounting for. But you don't believe in any of that stuff. Which means it's the spine or nothing right?

 

[Jeff White]

I was going to move the wound ballistics posts to a new thread in handguns, but since we're calling names I'm going to close the thread.