Scientific Evidence for "Hydrostatic Shock" [Archive]

HowardCohodas

07-15-09, 22:36

Scientific Evidence for "Hydrostatic Shock" (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.3051.pdf)

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

07-15-09, 23:38

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

07-15-09, 23:45

Paging "Pasteur" ;)

Jim from Houston

07-16-09, 00:00

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

07-16-09, 00:28

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

07-16-09, 00:48

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

07-16-09, 01:00

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

07-16-09, 01:08

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

07-16-09, 02:32

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

07-16-09, 02:51

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

07-16-09, 02:56

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

07-16-09, 03:02

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

07-16-09, 03:55

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

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m191/zombieben/zombie20soldiers.jpg?t=1247733567

HowardCohodas

07-16-09, 05:04

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.

Laws of Prediction

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.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Iraqgunz

07-16-09, 08:58

Todd,

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

Shawn Dodson

07-16-09, 09:03

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

07-16-09, 09:15

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

07-16-09, 09:36

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

07-16-09, 10:22

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

Sure it does. ;)

John_Wayne777

07-16-09, 10:30

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.

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

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

Zhukov

07-19-09, 22:30

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

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

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.

DrJSW

07-25-09, 11:49

I don't believe an apology is necessary. Questions are what they are. Glad to have you participating here.

Terminal Effect

07-25-09, 15:58

Glad to have you participating here.

An honor to hear that from you, sir. Thank you!
-David.

Shawn Dodson

07-27-09, 19:40

Just for the record:

In reply to a claim by gun writer Massad Ayoob (p31, Feb 93 Handguns), in which he claimed "...Fackler developed his 'improved' gelatin because animal rights activists had 'all but shut down' his ability to work with living animals:"

It is simply untrue that animal rights activists had any significant effect on my research. I stopped doing live animal shots in San Francisco because the French Army Medical Corps invited me to collaborate with them in performing live animal experimentation in Marseille. They were better equipped and had much more help that I had at LAIR, so I had no further need to do these shots in the USA. The gelatin is a lot less costly and is a far more ideal test medium than animals: this was the reason I calibrated and standardized it.

-- Martin L. Fackler, Personal Communication, 2/93

DrJSW

07-28-09, 09:18

Shawn:

Thanks for sharing Dr. Fackler's personal comms with us. I do have a comment, though.

Just for the record, we need to keep in mind that Fackler's transition to ballistic gelatin occurred two decades ago. At that time trauma physicians who took the Advanced Trauma Life Support course (a national requirement for all ER docs, trauma surgeons, etc) used live anesthetized dogs or swine for training on placing central lines, chest tubes, endotracheal tubes, etc. Since then we've had to switch to plastic dummies, which are a damn poor substitute, in my opinion. Although no one will officially admit it, this transition was entirely due to pressure from the animal rights movement.

In the research world of 2009, the practical, regulatory, and ethical convolutions one has to go through to use live animals in research has increased enormously, again in no small part due to pressure from animal rights activists and their propaganda which the mass media are all too eager to parrot. I have had some involvement in training protocols for certain military personnel that involve using live anesthetized animals to demonstrate & train emergency medical procedures. These sessions are done under very tight security & secrecy and at staggering financial cost. Such work could not be accomplished outside the military.

I sincerely doubt that Dr. Fackler could start up a research operation such as the one he had at LAIR in today's politically-charged research science community.

Zhukov

07-28-09, 11:12

What a bunch of whackos. I'm so glad they're saving the animals so that people can die instead. :mad:

I don't see what's wrong with using pigs. After they're put to sleep, you can BBQ the remnants! :D

Glock17JHP

07-28-09, 13:40

Zhukov,

I'll bring the BBQ sauce!!! :p

John_Wayne777

07-29-09, 08:10

In the research world of 2009, the practical, regulatory, and ethical convolutions one has to go through to use live animals in research has increased enormously, again in no small part due to pressure from animal rights activists and their propaganda which the mass media are all too eager to parrot.

This is true. The volume of paperwork a junior Biology major has to go through to do something as simple as study the effect of fertilizer on the growth of a species of newt is staggering.

DarrinD

07-29-09, 17:24

Glock17JHP

07-30-09, 13:46

There are always 'fuzzy' things when dealing with GSW's, and an analogy that may help to understand it can be explained...

Sometimes a child needs an 'attitude adjustment' from a parent. Sometimes the 'adjustment' is more aggressive, yet the response is to tighten the lip and stand in defiance. The next time the 'adjustment' may be 'light', yet the response is quite 'dramatic'.

Think of the terms: FIGHT and FLIGHT...

In the examples above, the first response is FIGHT, the latter is FLIGHT. Humans can have a mindset (caused by anger, defiance, shock, drugs, etc.) that can cause (or prevent) the FIGHT response, and the reaction to being shot can appear to others as minimal. The physiological damage is there just the same, but the psycological resonse is not. In another seeming identical situation, the response can evoke a response that is very different. Think of someone cowering after being hit that is begging for their life... this is the FLIGHT response. This is the response that can make it look like a non life-threatening wound is having a HUGE impact physiologically. In reality, the response is mostly psycological.

This is why real-life shooting results can be quite misleading. Two near identical shootings can vary drastically in the response by the shooting victim.

This is just one more reason to be sure to have a 'warrior mindset' when defending a life (ie: SA Mireles, Miami 1986)...