Scientific Evidence for "Hydrostatic Shock"

**DocGKR** · 07-16-09, 14:17

I liked the post by Dr. Williams (http://www.tacticalanatomy.com) in the other thread (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=28142&page=9):

"DocGKR and I--as well as many other learned persons with experience in scientific research--have independently spent hours and hours looking up Courtney's citations to be sure we're not missing something important, and we have independently come to the conclusion that his work is junk science at best. Feel free to keep researching and arguing with Courtney, if you like, but in the end you may feel you've wasted a lot of time and energy that could have been used more productively in other pursuits. Arguing with Courtney is like trying to teach a pig to sing..."

**DMR** · 07-16-09, 15:06

Originally Posted by HowardCohodas

I guess I am to believe that the United States Military Academy at West Point is not too careful about the credentials of those they choose to lecture there.

I worked on the Staff at West Point for two years from 98-00. Much like any other large organization you have some people that are realy good, some that are ok and some that are just a little cut off from the real world.

I don't have the deapth of knowledge to address this issue, but to illistarte the point about being cut off consider the following. ....

Many of the permanent staff, mostly LTC's and COL's have been at USMA for 20+ years at the time. The message that they sent to the cadets about conduct of NCO's (for example) was just a LITTLE off. The first time I swore, I was pulled aside by my peers and told to tone it down. Seems the P's(professers) had the cadets believing that NCO's AND OFFICERs don't swear or even yell at others. Seems I had been doing things all wrong for the last 14 years.

just because you can research, does not always mean you will come to the right conclusion(as I have proven all to often

)

**HowardCohodas** · 07-18-09, 21:23

Thank you all for taking the time to help educate me. At the moment, I remain agnostic about the issue as I feel I am still climbing the steep part of the learning curve. I read your stuff and you have me convinced. Then I read their stuff and I change my mind. And I go back and forth.

I am making efforts to contact those on the other side as well. I don't know where this will end up for me, but the journey is challenging and exciting.

Thanks again, and feel free to point me to resources that will help me in this effort.

**Zhukov** · 07-19-09, 22:30

Originally Posted by DocGKR

I liked the post by Dr. Williams (http://www.tacticalanatomy.com) in the other thread (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=28142&page=9):

Excellent summary.

I just knew this was about Courtney's "findings" as soon as I saw the thread title. First LeMas, now Dr. Courtney rears his ugly head again.

**Shawn Dodson** · 07-20-09, 10:00

Observe the immediate affect in which these animals are quickly incapacitated by the Courtney & Courtney BPW incapacitation hypothesis (especially those shot with rifle cartridges):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8eKyKQPgt0

**DrJSW** · 07-24-09, 09:41

TE: Research done on live animals is an ethical minefield. Accredited research facilities, whether public or private, are subject to laws and regulations at several levels. If you want to conduct trauma research on living animals, the restrictions are even greater.

Part of the reason Dr. Fackler pioneered the use of ballistic gelatin as a test medium was the ethical difficulty of shooting swine, I understand. Not to mention the expense and the natural variations in anatomy, which are a huge hindrance to obtaining reproducible results.

The value of shooting living animals to determine "wounding potential" is minimal at this point in the history of wound ballistics research. We have decades of ballistic gelatin test data available to us, much of which has been correlated with actual "street" shootings that have essentially proven that the FBI bullet performance criteria that have driven police/defensive bullet design since 1987 are valid, and that bullets that meet these criteria are highly effective.

In terms of shot placement, the medical trauma literature and the experience of thousands of trauma physicians has pretty much established the best places to put our bullets to incapacitate people.

As such, the research value of shooting living animals is minimal.

**DrJSW** · 07-24-09, 10:03

Originally Posted by HowardCohodas

Thank you all for taking the time to help educate me. At the moment, I remain agnostic about the issue as I feel I am still climbing the steep part of the learning curve. I read your stuff and you have me convinced. Then I read their stuff and I change my mind. And I go back and forth.

I am making efforts to contact those on the other side as well. I don't know where this will end up for me, but the journey is challenging and exciting.

Thanks again, and feel free to point me to resources that will help me in this effort.

When I first ventured into the study of terminal ballistics over a decade ago I had already been practicing as a trauma physician for quite some time... but that didn't make me a ballistician. I realized very quickly that I had a LOT of reading to do before I would be in any kind of position to offer opinions on wound ballistics in any forum: in court, at trauma grand rounds, or on internet bulletin boards. I would like to encourage you to try to get grounded in the necessary disciplines before you go chasing after someone like Dr. Courtney, who by all appearances is a brilliant--if eccentric and often misguided--man. You won't be able to find the errors in his papers/writings unless you've got enough pertinent background knowledge, so I'd suggest you dust off your library card and get to work.

Being an engineer, I'd think that a good place to start would be Duncan MacPherson's Terminal Ballistics text. I don't have a copy but have read it. I believe it's available through Calibre Press. After you've read MacPherson, I'd recommend that you go to a medical school or university library and get a copy of every paper written by Dr. Martin Fackler, and read them in chronological order. Finally, if you can get your hands on copies of the IWBA Journal, read as much of this short-lived but excellent journal as you can. A broad understanding of human anatomy and physiology would be useful as well, of course. There's no single source I could recommend for that.

It might not be apparent to you or others who have lately become interested in terminal ballistics/effects, but the "stickies" at the front end of this forum written by Dr. Roberts are the result of years and years of research and learned discourse underlying a huge volume of solid research. Many of us know him personally and professionally and run in the same circles, so we can vouch for his authenticity. As such, you can pretty much take Doc's "stickies" at face value. They are a tremendous resource for all of us.

**DrJSW** · 07-24-09, 16:38

Originally Posted by Terminal Effect

Wow, Dr. JSW, that was fun to read. Yeah, I am definitely on a terminal ballistics journey, just like Howard Cohodas.

It was surprising to hear that swine tests are no good. My thoughts would have been that if we take 80kg pigs with similar body fat content and size, the results should speak for themselves.

It's not that live animal testing is no good; rather, you can get more reproducible data from shooting a predictable homogeous medium such as ordnance gelatin.

When you try to reproduce a GSW in a living animal, you're going to get different results every time due to individual characteristics in each animal that produce anatomic and physiologic variation. As such, you need to shoot larger numbers of animals to prove that your findings are statistically significant.

Have fun on your "journey". Don't be afraid to ask questions, but keep in mind that many of the people who post on this forum have been hashing out terminal ballistics/effects issues for many years. We are sometimes a bit less patient with newbies than perhaps we should be. Use the "search" function before posting a question and 95% of the time you'll find the background information to show you the way to the answer you seek, or better yet, a tougher question.