Following a Thread and was wondering who was right? [Archive]

View Full Version : Following a Thread and was wondering who was right?

PA PATRIOT

01-01-10, 22:41

Just wanted to know who is on the correct path here as they debate a subject of hydraulic shock as a wounding factor with a handgun bullet. While I know that HPFF is a junk forum I was interested by the subject. The debate starts at the end of page two into page three.

http://www.hipointfirearmsforums.com/Forum/index.php/topic,25321.0.html

PA PATRIOT

01-01-10, 23:45

For those who can not visit the site here is the thread,

Re: Serious Question about the .45 cal
« Reply #25 on: January 01, 2010, 10:08:40 PM » Quote Modify
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Jackpine Savage on December 30, 2009, 05:35:46 PM
.45ACP hardball worked just fine for Sgt. Alvin York, and Audie Murphy, and hundreds of thousands of US GI's before the politicians decided we need a 9mm. Hollow points may expand and they may not. If they do it's a bonus. If they don't it still makes a hole that is almost half an inch. Either way if you put them between the pockets the threat should end.
***************************************************

Response by Sin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not correct sir, I was told by the same M/E that since tissue is elastic in nature a rounded bunt bullet does only minimal tearing while penetrating and the tissue expands around the bullet and then collapses down to normal except for the destroyed/torn tissue. A bullet that expands and has sharp edges cuts a greater amount of tissue leaving a larger wound track.
***************************************************

Response by Silicon Wolverine
Re: Serious Question about the .45 cal
« Reply #26 on: January 01, 2010, 10:21:36 PM » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Sin on January 01, 2010, 10:08:40 PM
both of you (and the M/E) are fogetting hydraulic shock associated with a high velocity projectile being fired into a mass that is mostly water or water filled tissue. the temporrary hydrostatic cavity associated with a gunshot wound is what does the most damage not the actual physical damage caused by the bullet passing through tissue.
*************************************************

Response by Sin
Serious Question about the .45 cal
« Reply #27 on: January 01, 2010, 10:57:11 PM » Quote Modify
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hydrostatic - relating to fluids that are NOT IN MOTION

shock wave - a pressure wave traveling FASTER than the speed of sound

When a bullet impacts a target, a pressure wave is applied, but unless it is traveling faster than 5,052 ft/s (sonic speed in salt water), it will not cause a shock wave in tissue; it is simply a strong pressure wave. The tissue is obviously in motion, so it is not hydrostatic. Therefore, there is no such thing as true hydrostatic shock. There is hydraulic shock, but only with bullets impacting at greater than 5,052 ft/s. What we normally see is simply a very strong pressure wave that creates tissue damage when the psi level exceeds the natural strength of tissue (widely varied, but you could estimate 500 psi).

No Handgun Ammunition Made reaches 5,052 ft/s to cause true hydrostatic shock, now a pressure wave can cause a temporary stretch cavity but since a handgun round decelerates so quickly on impact this TSC just does not have the juice to cause any serious damage to undisrupted healthily tissue. Now heavy fluid saturated organs like the liver, spleen, kidneys which do not have elastic properties get blown all to hell if the pressure wave exceeds the natural strength of the organ.
**************************************************

Response by Silicon Wolverine
Re: Serious Question about the .45 cal
« Reply #28 on: January 01, 2010, 11:41:41 PM » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wound physics, Col. fackler and about 100 years of medical hostory of gunshot wounds disagree with you

The End, Opinions

DocGKR

01-02-10, 00:38

From the little posted above, Silicon Wolverine does not appear to know what he is talking about...

bkb0000

01-02-10, 01:24

the most shocking revelation here, by far, is that Hi Point has it's own board... and that it's active

PA PATRIOT

01-02-10, 03:14

From the little posted above, Silicon Wolverine does not appear to know what he is talking about...

the most shocking revelation here, by far, is that Hi Point has it's own board... and that it's active

I don't know either of the HPFF members who posted but I was interested who was semi right and who was confused. I check out the HPFF forum once in a blue moon because I own two Hi-Point Carbines, one in 9mm and the other in .40S&W and I look to see if any up-dates or recalls pop up.

DocGKR,

Since I would like to know a bit more on the subject is what they are discussing actual wounding principles or just uninformed chatter?

Molon

01-02-10, 12:12

I find it comical that the ignorant “Wolverine” would invoke the name of Dr. Martin Fackler in defense of his hydrostatic shock nonsense, when in fact, Dr. Fackler has repeatedly debunked the shock wave myth. See the following articles for proof.

The “Shock Wave” Myth

By Dr. Martin Fackler

Wound Ballistics Review, Winter 1991 and the Journal of Trauma, (29[10]: 1455, 1989).

Ballistic Injury

By Dr. Martin Fackler

Annals of Emergency Medicine, December 1986

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE WOUND BALLISTICS LITERATURE, AND WHY

by M.L. Fackler, M.D.
Letterman Army Institute of Research
Division of Military Trauma Research
Presidio of San Francisco, California 94219
Institute Report No. 239
July 1987

bkb0000

01-02-10, 12:50

Response by Sin
Serious Question about the .45 cal
« Reply #27 on: January 01, 2010, 10:57:11 PM » Quote Modify
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hydrostatic - relating to fluids that are NOT IN MOTION

shock wave - a pressure wave traveling FASTER than the speed of sound

When a bullet impacts a target, a pressure wave is applied, but unless it is traveling faster than 5,052 ft/s (sonic speed in salt water), it will not cause a shock wave in tissue; it is simply a strong pressure wave. The tissue is obviously in motion, so it is not hydrostatic. Therefore, there is no such thing as true hydrostatic shock. There is hydraulic shock, but only with bullets impacting at greater than 5,052 ft/s. What we normally see is simply a very strong pressure wave that creates tissue damage when the psi level exceeds the natural strength of tissue (widely varied, but you could estimate 500 psi).

No Handgun Ammunition Made reaches 5,052 ft/s to cause true hydrostatic shock, now a pressure wave can cause a temporary stretch cavity but since a handgun round decelerates so quickly on impact this TSC just does not have the juice to cause any serious damage to undisrupted healthily tissue. Now heavy fluid saturated organs like the liver, spleen, kidneys which do not have elastic properties get blown all to hell if the pressure wave exceeds the natural strength of the organ.

i knew i'd read these exact same words somewhere before

but it wasn't here:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=454780&page=2

There is a severe problem with terminology in this thread.

hydrostatic - relating to fluids that are NOT IN MOTION

shock wave - a pressure wave traveling FASTER than the speed of sound

When a bullet impacts a target, a pressure wave is applied, but unless it is traveling faster than 5,052 ft/s (sonic speed in salt water), it will not cause a shock wave in tissue; it is simply a strong pressure wave. The tissue is obviously in motion, as evidenced in many videos, so it is not hydrostatic. Therefore, there is no such thing as true hydrostatic shock. There is hydraulic shock, but only with bullets impacting at greater than 5,052 ft/s. What we normally see is simply a very strong pressure wave that creates tissue damage when the psi level exceeds the natural strength of tissue (widely varied, but you could estimate 500 psi).

anybody know where? neither of these people are the originator of these words, i don't think.

PA PATRIOT

01-02-10, 16:52

PA PATRIOT

01-03-10, 01:59

Oh well that didnt last long, Silicon Wolverine is a moderator over at HPFF and banned poor Sin for being a civil opposing opinion.

bkb0000

01-03-10, 02:25

screw that place.

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=44227

and

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1165386

going on right now, interesting and relevent