The hydrostatic shock theory?

[Odd Job]

Pasteur asks:

Finally, when selecting ammunition, does it really matter whether the mechanism by which the BPW produces more rapid incapacitation is a remote CNS effect or a muculo-skeletal effect or a combination of both? Isn't knowing that increased BPW increases the probability of a positive outcome sufficient even if the mechanistic details are still under investigation?

For a guy buying the ammo it doesn't matter (beyond the premium he might pay for a 3% chance of instant incapacitation if he can place that round just right). Of course, marketing plays a role also. Some stuff sells better. A "brain-scrambler" might sell better than a "shoulder-smasher," who knows.

For a guy trying to get the theory into general acceptance so that he can advocate new treatment for GSW patients, it most certainly matters.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I'm sure that if DRT is as effective as claimed by the owner of the company every LE agency in the country would have it, or demand it.

How would we know if it is as effective as claimed? We'd need the data from many shootings, and that's unlikely to happen without an LE contract.

And LE agencies specify 12-14 inch penetration; no others need apply. So we will not get data for DRT.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I wonder if DRT spent a $1 mil R&D developing their line of ammunition

I'm betting not, with an "About us" that reads as theirs does:

(strikes and red print are my corrections/additions/observations)

ABOUT OUR COMPANY

Dynamic Research Technologies, Llc [strike]has been found[/strike] was founded in 2005 and it's headquarters and main manufacturing plant are located in Grant City, MO.

The key people behind DRT™ have extensive experience and background (redundancy, anyone?) in the worldwide ammunition business, and when the opportunity came to engage in research of what we like to refer to as "a real world alternative to conventional lead-based ammunition", we knew we [strike]are[/strike] were going to change the history. Our ammunition has been sold to law enforcement and government agencies for decade and has been serving our country overseas.

Here’s how it works:

Once the bullet enters the biological [strike]organic[/strike] target, (fancy words for living animal or person), the tissue enters the hollowpoint causing delayed opening of the projectile. The composite powder core is then released in a spray pattern throughout the target, causing massive hemorrhaging. When striking bone, the bullet will penetrate through it and may start to open as it exits the bone, causing the bones to fragment and be thrown through the organs. [strike]Typically[/strike] we find that you can hunt animals with a much smaller weapon than typically used due to these facts. This allows young hunters or inexperienced shooters to feel more comfortable, mainly because recoil is not a factor in accuracy. We believe that not all animals or targets are created equal, with different densities in organs and tissues causing some variation in wound cavities. Under-penetration is not an issue with our premium rounds;[strike].[/strike] All of our rounds will disintegrate on steel and will not ricochet.


The successful law enforcement application of our product led to extensive R&D in the field of hunting, and in 2007 we [strike]have[/strike] introduced just the perfect round for the determined hunter. We have tested our hunting rounds worldwide in different climate conditions, performing terminal shots over 1,000 yards (as opposed to a non-terminal shot that never stops?). We have teamed up with Safari Club International TV in 2007 to get some of the incredible hits on camera (Expedition Safari airing on Versus channel).
At Dynamic Research Technologies, we're introduc[strike]e[/strike]ing the new generation of ammunition to you today. We are very consciousness about our environment, and so is our bullet - it is lead-free!

We are ready to answer any questions and provide you with numerous references. We guarantee[strike],[/strike] you will not be disappointed and the trophy of the lifetime will not be able to get away.


I would not buy anything from a person or company who publishes a profile like this.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Gosh, if only they had a fat government contract, they could afford a copy editor and publicist!

And I think you're being unkind with your red ink (photons). For example, the term "terminal shot" appears to mean a shot that ended the hunt (and the animal), not a shot that eventually stopped.

FWIW: I've never bought a thing from them. I saw the article in American Rifleman back in April.

 

[Kachok]

Guns and Shooting online tested the DRT 9mm rounds and they repeatedly failed to expand even being fired through multiple barriers. In the calibers that did expand their terminal performance was nothing exceptional. If these were some kind of magic bullet that caused enough shock to reliably get DRT kills every LE agency on the planet would be chomping at the bit to get them, alas they do nothing that other pre-fragmented bullets have not done for years now, all of which have failed LE testing over and over again. I thought frag bullets would die off forever after the Strasbourg Tests were found to be a fraud.

 

[pisc1024]

How would we know if it is as effective as claimed? We'd need the data from many shootings, and that's unlikely to happen without an LE contract.

And LE agencies specify 12-14 inch penetration; no others need apply. So we will not get data for DRT.

So you think that LE agencies should go away from the 12-14inch rule just so we might have data on DRT? The 12-14inch requirement has worked now for quite some time, there are many cops who are alive due to this requirement.

Not to mention Dr C REQUIRES 12" in order for his BPW theory to work, so I guess DRT rounds will not cause the phenomenon known as BPW, or am I wrong on that one?

 

[pisc1024]

.....

 

[Loosedhorse]

So you think that LE agencies should go away from the 12-14inch rule just so we might have data on DRT?

Why would you try to build such a strawman? No, I did not say that.

I said that LE has their particular ammo specs. The reason they have them is that the Maimi Shoot-Out convinced them that their previous specs were wrong. and so they decided to find new specs (with the requirement that they be different from the old specs).

So we got what we have now. Barring another law-enforcement disaster that gets blamed on ammo selection, those standards are here to stay.

Doesn't mean that a new bullet couldn't be better; just means that a new, better bullet--if one is ever developed--will not be bought by LE unless it conforms to their current 12-14 inch penetration standard.

A company's R&D dollars can only take you so far. Unless ammo gets issued, you won't get a large database. And non-conforming ammo won't get issued. Just the way it is.

So, if a new better bullet ever comes a long, it may be hard to recognize. In fact, it may be missed. Just the way it is.

 

[Kachok]

I think after the fubar incident with the 115gr silvertips no LE agency wants to issue anything that fragments to any major extent. Those bullets were very poorly designed and have some of the worst terminal performance figures of any 9mm load, not only was their penatration very poor (8 in) but the TWC and PWC were well below avarage despite thier above avarage energy levels. People who judge the 9mms performance off of what happend in 1986 simply don't understand how badly that bullet performs, I honestly would rather be shooting FMJs. In Winchesters defence they did redesign it some time later, but I still won't use them.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Not to mention Dr C REQUIRES 12" in order for his BPW theory to work

Please show us on what page of what report he says that BPW can't happen with less penetration (say, 11.5 inches).

Courtney does use 12 inches in an example, and recognizing that BPW incapacitation is undependable, he states penetration is also needed.

However, Courtney isn't taking about the Fackler-proposed fragmentation-cavitation synergy, which is a direct wounding mechanism--and seems to be what DRT is all about (if it works).

 

[MachIVshooter]

Gosh, if only they had a fat government contract, they could afford a copy editor and publicist!

They could've paid an 8th grader who got a solid "C" in English $20 and had something better than that.

It's one thing to have grammatical and spelling errors in a press release or something similar, where it could be written off as the result of haste (still annoying), but it's quite another when it's your company profile. From the perspective of a business owner, if I got a resume with so many egregious errors, I'd round file it before I even finished reading; It indicates that the person is either not intelligent or is completely apathetic.

If, as a commercial entity, they can't even write an articulate paragraph, I'm not going to trust them to load ammunition for my firearms.

 

[Loosedhorse]

That's fine. I guess not all ammo-selection criteria need to be about the ammo. Grammar is also important.

 

[Kachok]

Well I don't think that I would trust their million dollar reserch if they spent a buck fifty on the press release. Smells fishy to me. If they really did all this reserch why not share the full study so us well read gun nuts can decide for ourselves? I am sorry but it sounds like more snake oil to me. If I find a box of it on the clearence rack I will pop a few traped hogs with it and let you know how it works.

 

[pisc1024]

Please show us on what page of what report he says that BPW can't happen with less penetration (say, 11.5 inches).

Courtney does use 12 inches in an example, and recognizing that BPW incapacitation is undependable, he states penetration is also needed.

However, Courtney isn't taking about the Fackler-proposed fragmentation-cavitation synergy, which is a direct wounding mechanism--and seems to be what DRT is all about (if it works).

Even though Wang et al. document
remote neural damage for low levels of
energy transfer, these levels of neural
damage are probably too small to
contribute to rapid incapacitation.
Courtney and Courtney suggest that
remote neural effects only begin to
make significant contributions to rapid
incapacitation for ballistic pressure wave
levels above 500 PSI (corresponds to
transferring roughly 300 ft-lbs in 12
inches of penetration) and become
easily observable above 1000 PSI
(corresponds to transferring roughly 600
ft-lbs in 1 foot of penetration

I guess the word significant means something different to you than it dose to me...

 

[brickeyee]

It is going to be very difficult to show affects of pressure on nerves.

They are EXTREMELY sensitive to even tiny pressures.

The very slight swelling in the CNS from demyelination in MS is enough to cause major deficiencies.

The temporary symptoms produced by the swelling are often far more extensive then the longer term symptoms produced by the actaul loss of myelin.

The individual damage sights are often very close to the resolution of the best MRI machines we have.

By the time you have actual bleeding into the brain the damage is large.

 

[2zulu1]

I guess the word significant means something different to you than it dose to me...

Some years back Courtney stated that the .357mag/158gr SWC was at or near the bottom of BPW. I asked him directly, "How could two 500lb hogs be taken cleanly with 250/255gr Keith style bullets in .44 Special?"

Courtney's response was, "The hogs must have run 100 yards before falling."

It looks like the words "cleanly" and "significant" have different interpretations with some people.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I guess the word significant means something different to you than it dose to me...

Actually, the word "significant" is not in play. It is your use of the word "requires." As in your claim:

Not to mention Dr C REQUIRES 12" in order for his BPW theory to work

Second mention of your claim, and I'm still waiting for your citation where he REQUIRES 12 inches penetration for a BPW.

 

[481]

Some years back Courtney stated that the .357mag/158gr SWC was at or near the bottom of BPW. I asked him directly, "How could two 500lb hogs be taken cleanly with 250/255gr Keith style bullets in .44 Special?"

Courtney's response was, "The hogs must have run 100 yards before falling."

It looks like the words "cleanly" and "significant" have different interpretations with some people.

Just more of courtney's "fuzzy logic". No surprise there.

Courtney does use 12 inches in an example, and recognizing that BPW incapacitation is undependable, he states penetration is also needed.

For someone that has expended so much effort trying to convince the gullible that an undependable and unproven phenomena is worthy of the same consideration given to the proven mechanics of the wounding mechanism, his refusal to answer such a question directly in defense of his musings suggests that he is unable to argue in support of his claims except to those gullible and uninformed.

I believe that this gives us valuable insight as to why courtney doesn't bother the established authorities (Drs Roberts, Williams, etc.) in the field at another well known forum from which he was "laughed off" with his continued hypothe-fantasizing.

 

[pisc1024]

As in your claim:Second mention of your claim, and I'm still waiting for your citation where he REQUIRES 12 inches penetration for a BPW.

I think I have addressed this in my previous post, we can move on when ever your ready.

 

[JohnKSa]

No, you didn't begin to address it.

The quote you cited has nothing to do with penetration levels required for the effectiveness of BPW nor does it in any way imply anything about the penetration levels normally associated with BPW. The quote is simply noting the fact that 300ft/lbs will generate approximately 500psi of BPW if the bullet comes to a stop after penetrating 12 inches of target medium.

This goes back to the earlier discussion on this thread about calculating applied force by dividing the kinetic energy by the penetration depth and then converting that force into a psi figure. Courtney is simply explaining the figures used in the calculation and being specific about how the BPW figures were obtained.

For someone that has expended so much effort trying to convince the gullible that an undependable and unproven phenomena is worthy of the same consideration given to the proven mechanics of the wounding mechanism...

That's pretty impressive. That partial sentence contains:

1. A strawman argument.
2. An ad hominem against those who note the validity of Courtney's claims.
3. An unfounded claim that is easily disproved with evidence provided by not only Courtney, but also others.
4. A failure to understand that even those experts who espouse penetration as the single most important factor in handgun wounding still recognize that temporary cavity and its effects are also part of "the wounding mechanism".

Ok, one at a time.

1. I'm not aware of any claims by Courtney indicating that BPW should be given the same consideration as all of the other effects that are wrapped into "the wounding mechanism. If you are, please cite them.

2. The fact is that Courtney has done his homework, research and experimentation properly and it is enough to convince anyone with a technical background and a reasonably objective viewpoint (not just the gullible) that BPW is a wounding mechanism that does contribute at least some of the time to incapacitation and therefore needs to be better understood.

3. BPW is a probabilistic effect, but it is not unproven. On the contrary, its validity has been quite well established. Furthermore, "undependable" is a reasonable characterization of any of the wounding mechanism components. There is no single parameter of the wounding mechanism components that will always insure rapid incapacitation.

4. While there are those experts who try to heavily discount temporary cavity and its effects (such as BPW), it is not possible to totally dismiss it. Nor is it possible to completely explain attacker incapacitation without including all of the known wounding mechanisms, to include temporary cavity, BPW, penetration, psychological effects, etc.

 

[481]

Unfortunately, arguing a technical topic competently and coherently requires more than strong personal opinions.

Had you come prepared with more than that (in your post above), I might've been impressed. With what you presented....eh.....not so much.

1. I'm not aware of any claims by Courtney indicating that BPW should be given the same consideration as all of the other effects that are wrapped into "the wounding mechanism. If you are, please cite them.

Neither am I. On the other hand, he must certainly believe that such speculation has some degree of merit or he wouldn't be trying to sell it.

2. The fact is that Courtney has done his homework, research and experimentation properly and it is enough to convince anyone with a technical background and a reasonably objective viewpoint (not just the gullible) that BPW is a wounding mechanism that does contribute at least some of the time to incapacitation and therefore needs to be better understood.

No, he has not. His dubious research methodology and his misleading supporting citations have been called into question as being dishonest by several notable authorities (Drs. Roberts, Williams, Fackler, MacPherson, etc.) in the field of terminal ballistics.

3. BPW is a probabilistic effect, but it is not unproven. On the contrary, its validity has been quite well established. Furthermore, "undependable" is a reasonable characterization of any of the wounding mechanism components. There is no single parameter of the wounding mechanism components that will always insure rapid incapacitation.

If it is not unproven, then it must have been proven. It has to be one or the other, Chief.

"Probabilistic" is a far, far cry from "proven". The validity of the concept being speculated upon is not well established either unless of course one is willing to accept as valid the scientifically unrepeatable test methodology that he employs or his misleading use of the supportive references that are offered in support of the concept.

4. While there are those experts who try to heavily discount temporary cavity and its effects (such as BPW), it is not possible to totally dismiss it. Nor is it possible to completely explain attacker incapacitation without including all of the known wounding mechanisms, to include temporary cavity, BPW, penetration, psychological effects, etc.

Please show me where I stated that I discounted the effects of the temporary cavity anywhere in my post (#293). TC is not the same as the unproven phenomena being suggested and putting words into my mouth is worse than arguing with no facts at all.



Hmmm....so much for arguing one's position with nothing more than strong personal opinions....

 

[Loosedhorse]

I think I have addressed this in my previous post, we can move on when ever your ready

I begin to see that you are deluding yourself, not simply trying to delude us.

No matter. You are wrong. You say "REQUIRES." The quote you use as support says "suggest," as in:

Courtney and Courtney suggest that remote neural effects...[my emphasis]

Funny: in that quote, despite many underlinings, you didn't underline the word "require". Because it's not there.

And even the quote you used (while it disproves your claim) is a secondary source; someone else's take on Courtney's words.

So, please go find us the words where Courtney says, as you claimed (third mention)

Dr C REQUIRES 12" in order for his BPW theory to work

Or admit you made a false claim, and he doesn't require that for a BPW.

Then we can move on.

(A bit of encouragement: As you look, and educate yourself, you'll find you have it completely wrong: Courtney says less penetrative, fragmenting bullets achieve a 1000psi pressure wave more readily than bullets that penetrate more.)

 

[pisc1024]

No, you didn't begin to address it.

The quote you cited has nothing to do with penetration levels required for the effectiveness of BPW nor does it in any way imply anything about the penetration levels normally associated with BPW. The quote is simply noting the fact that 300ft/lbs will generate approximately 500psi of BPW if the bullet comes to a stop after penetrating 12 inches of target medium.

So I see where you and loosedhorse have an issue with what I said. Perhaps I miss spoke when I said it REQUIRED 12". What I should have said is this:
Courtney knows his claims are nothing more than B.S., so he saddles them with a PROVEN criteria. That criteria is the FBI recommendation of a min of 12" of pen. He dose this presumably so that he can sleep at night knowing that none of the people, like your selves, who he has suckered into buying into this crap will be killed or maimed due to using his THEORY in the selection of their bullet. This theory advocates the use of fragmenting bullets, and praises bullet deigns that FAIL to hold together in the human body.
These designs have been proven to be a poor choice time and time again, you need look no further than the FBI's Miami shoot out.
This is a theory that claims that bullets strikes are comparable to the use of high explosives against your target.
This theory that was "proven" by experiments that are dubious at best and out right crazy at worst. The raccoon study, ***???
This theory has claims that pressure waves can be transmitted from the chest to the brain through miles, yes miles of blood vessels and veins.
Gents, lets get real here, if the best argument you have going for you is me, and my lack of writing skills, then you should give it up.


I also might add that I'm still waiting on anyone who is willing, to try and explain how a bullet strike is akin to strapping high explosives to the leg of an animal, or anything else for that matter. Any takers?

 

[dcarch]

I really thought this was a cool thread when I tagged onto it and I was interested to see what had to be said about this subject, but after 12 pages of non-stop argument, this is my opinion of this thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLpfbcXTeo8&ob=av3e
Anybody else in the same boat?

 

[hatt]

The problem with the argument is no one on either side knows what actually goes on when a bullet hits someone. Clearly if blood loss was the only factor most gunfights would last until everyone was out of ammo. A perfect hit to the heart wouldn't have any effect for 10+ seconds. Clearly energy isn't the only factor or deer wouldn't run off after a good hit from a .300 mag.