Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38

Thread: Scientific Evidence for "Hydrostatic Shock"

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Canton, OH
    Posts
    288
    Feedback Score
    0

    Scientific Evidence for "Hydrostatic Shock"

    Scientific Evidence for "Hydrostatic Shock"

    by Michael Courtney, PhD, Ballistics Testing Group
    and Amy Courtney, PhD, United States Military Academy

    The entire paper is very understandable and is well worth reading. Some interesting quotes:

    Debates between bullets that are “light and fast” vs. “slow and heavy” often refer to “hydrostatic shock," which describes remote wounding and incapacitating effects in living targets in addition to tissue crushed by direct bullet impact. Considerable evidence shows that “hydrostatic shock" can produce remote neural damage and rapid incapacitation.
    Recommendations

    The FBI recommends that loads intended for self-defense and law enforcement applications meet a minimum penetration requirement of 12” in ballistic gelatin.[8] Maximizing ballistic pressure wave effects requires transferring maximum energy in a penetration distance that meets this requirement. In addition, bullets that fragment and meet minimum penetration requirements generate higher pressure waves than bullets which do not fragment. Understanding the potential benefits of remote ballistic pressure wave effects leads us to favor loads with at least 500 ft-lbs of energy.

    With a handgun, no wounding mechanism can be relied on to produce incapacitation 100% of the time within the short span of most gunfights. Selecting a good self-defense load is only a small part of surviving a gunfight. You have to hit an attacker to hurt him, and you need a good plan for surviving until your hits take effect. Get good training, practice regularly, learn to use cover, and pray that you will never have a lethal force encounter armed only with a handgun.
    Howard
    Politically Incorrect Self Defense
    If it is to be it is up to me

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    Posts
    3,347
    Feedback Score
    0
    Please...not this tripe again. Take the time to read the referenced articles--they do not support the claims of this paper. For that matter, the clinical evidence and outcomes of thousands of patients treated for GSW's and hits to body armor in recent combat clearly highlight the irrelevance of this paper, as do the numerous patients treated for domestic GSW's in this Nation.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Area 51
    Posts
    34
    Feedback Score
    0
    Paging "Pasteur"
    beware of the bearers of false gifts and their broken promises

    buckshot for bad guys
    birdshot for birdies
    repeat

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    106
    Feedback Score
    0
    Nominating this one for thread lock:

    This has been amply discussed on other threads right in this very forum...if we have to slog through another nine page epic battle about this stuff I'm going to run out of Rolaids.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Canton, OH
    Posts
    288
    Feedback Score
    0
    Wow! Two PhDs publishing peer reviewed papers in respected journals and it's all tripe. Go figure.

    Thirty-nine (39) referenced papers for this article and I'm to conclude that they all refute the author's position. Probably not, since many of them are by the same two authors on related subjects that develop the arguments and describe the experiments.

    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 come from a scientific/engineering background and am used to passionate academic disagreements. So far, I've not seen any cogent arguments that disprove the author's position. Closing the thread to terminate the discussion is the bullies way out.
    Howard
    Politically Incorrect Self Defense
    If it is to be it is up to me

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    106
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by HowardCohodas View Post
    I come from a scientific/engineering background and am used to passionate academic disagreements.
    So you're an academic?

    Where do you teach? What do you teach? Is it relevant to terminal ballistics?

    On what sort of professional background/experience do you claim the authority to casually discount Gary K. Roberts' professional opinions on matters of terminal ballistics?

    If you're a recognized expert in this field (which I would assume you're claiming due to the dismissive tone you've taken vis-a-vis Gary Roberts, who is one of the world's foremost experts on this subject) you should send your CV to the admins so that they can get you a proper "Industry Professional" or "Subject Matter Expert" tag.

  7. #7
    ToddG Guest
    Whoa ... let's not kill Howard, ok? I know Howard. He's not a partisan, he asked an innocent question without knowing that it's directly related to a major ugly history.

    HC -- These issues have been hashed through on various forums for quite a while, which is why a lot of folks consider it "done to death." Usually, the people who bring this stuff up are either morons or have an ulterior motive. Thus, people who bring this stuff up tend to get treated as demon invaders from Hell.

    I suggest some of you who are well versed in the issue point HC towards some old threads and let him read for himself. Knowing Howard, he'll have thoughts of his own to discuss afterwards.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    Posts
    3,347
    Feedback Score
    0
    I recommend that everyone interested in this subject and that has any doubt, take the time to read the papers referenced by the Courtney's and judge for yourself--are these theories and experimental findings clinically relevant, do they match what is seen in actual GSW's, will they alter outcomes or treatment, etc...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    106
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ToddG View Post
    Whoa ... let's not kill Howard, ok? I know Howard. He's not a partisan, he asked an innocent question without knowing that it's directly related to a major ugly history.
    The question is redundant and has been amply covered, but that is in no way something that I found offensive. It's an honest, good-faith mistake. No big deal.

    What I take offense to is the fact that your friend asked a question, got a solid, concrete answer from a member marked "Industry Professional", and responded to that Industry Professional with a severe dose of attitude...that, in and of itself is violative of M4carbine.net practices as outlined in the user rules.

    I certainly respect your status as an expert Mr. Green...all that I ask is that your friend show the same respect to Dr. Roberts....
    Last edited by Jim from Houston; 07-16-09 at 02:35.

  10. #10
    ToddG Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim from Houston View Post
    What I take offense to is the fact that your friend asked a question, got a solid, concrete answer from a member marked "Industry Professional", and responded to that Industry Professional with a severe dose of attitude...that, in and of itself is violative of M4carbine.net practices as outlined in the user rules.
    Actually, as I read it, he was responding to you, not Dr. Roberts. Reference his last sentence ("Closing the thread to terminate the discussion is the bullies way out.") with your first ('Nominating this one for thread lock:").

    Anyway, let's not turn this into a meta-discussion about HC, IPs, etc.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •