Scientific Evidence for "Hydrostatic Shock"

[HowardCohodas]

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.

[DocGKR]

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.

[Rampant Colt]

Paging "Pasteur"

[Jim from Houston]

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.

[HowardCohodas]

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.

[Jim from Houston]

Originally Posted by HowardCohodas

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.

[ToddG]

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.

[DocGKR]

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...

[Jim from Houston]

Originally Posted by ToddG

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....

[ToddG]

Originally Posted by Jim from Houston

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.

[Iraqgunz]

If I understand correctly I am supposed to be dead right now from some "unseen" trauma that occurred when I got shot, right? Or is this another theory?

[Jim from Houston]

Originally Posted by ToddG

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:".

Not the part of his statement that offended me.

"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."

This is most certainly not directed at me, and is the "attitude" to which I refer.

[ToddG]

Originally Posted by Iraqgunz

If I understand correctly I am supposed to be dead right now from some "unseen" trauma that occurred when I got shot, right?

[HowardCohodas]

Sorry to have ducked out just as things got rolling. I am, of late, subject to migraines and had to dose up and leave the keyboard.

A couple of thoughts.

• In reference to my background: I was not the academic. I was the engineering manager with the budget to task our research center and to sponsor research at Case and MIT. As such, I sometimes had to referee academic disagreements. Challenging "conventional wisdom" was my job.
• In reference to my attitude: I was offended by having my question dismissed as tripe when, by my standards, it is still a subject of active research. I did violate my own standards by copping an attitude. For this I apologize. For my attitude toward bullying, I do not apologize.
• Todd: Thanks for speaking up for me. It's been a long time since I was characterized as innocent.
• I'm here to learn, for those of you willing to teach. I learn by asking questions. I am in the process of reading many of the other threads on this subject. I'm amazed that there is so much heat in the posts.

Originally Posted by Arthur C. Clark

Laws of Prediction

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

[Iraqgunz]

Todd,

I guess that would explain the rash and itching sensations that I have.

[Shawn Dodson]

Originally Posted by HowardCohodas

Wow! Two PhDs publishing peer reviewed papers in respected journals and it's all tripe. Go figure.

I figure the papers aren't being very well received which is why the authors feel compelled to promote them to laymen on internet discussion boards.

[HowardCohodas]

Originally Posted by Shawn Dodson

I figure the papers aren't being very well received which is why the authors feel compelled to promote them to laymen on internet discussion boards.

What? Do you have any basis for this conclusion?

I discovered this paper with considerable research. My post is the first I've seen in any forum. I'm not promoting anything. I'm asking questions to get better informed.

Frankly, the purpose of your remark escapes me.

[Shawn Dodson]

Total speculation on my part.

I though I was clear I was commenting about the authors, not you. I apologize for the confusion.

The authors run around internet discussion boards - mostly GlockTalk, and, on rare occasion, this forum, promoting their nonsense.

[ToddG]

Originally Posted by Iraqgunz

I guess that would explain the rash and itching sensations that I have.

Sure it does.

[John_Wayne777]

Originally Posted by HowardCohodas

What? Do you have any basis for this conclusion?

The short version is that Dr. Courtney has posted that information in a number of forums, including AR15.com, TacticalForums.com, etc. While it seems impressive to laymen, when real experts (And I am not one of them) in the treatment of GSW's and ballistics research challenged some of the assertions of the paper no satisfactory explanation could be found.

In other words, a lot of the stuff Dr. Courtney theorizes in his paper doesn't seem to prove true when you examine lots of real life GSWs as DockGKR and others have done. The current state of ballistics knowledge has not been arrived at haphazardly. It's been developed after a lot of careful research including extensive research of real gunshot wounds.