quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:

quote:

Originally posted by SgtGold:

quote:

Originally posted by Sheepdogged:
This study, often casually referred to as the West Point Study (or Courtney & Courtney), was conducted by ballisticians with PhD's. I'm not saying that alone makes them right, it doesn't, but the evidence I've heard challenging their work in recent years doesn't come from people equally credentialled, and more importantly, the arguments leave a lot to be desired and sound more to me to be the bravado of 9mm enthusiasts because that cartridge isn't powerful enough to deliver over 500 ft. lbs. of energy (which these and other researchers believe is the minimum [however not even ideal] threshold for delivering hydrostatic shock consistently.

The reliance on ft lbs was a bit misplaced. Much more recent research into this subject has shown that depending on bullet design and construction, a projectile needs to be moving at minimum of 1,800 to 2,200 FPS in order to cause incapacitation via hydrostatic shock. Taken another way, 38 Special and 308 Winchester both use similar weight bullets in the 150 gr range. Which one does more damage at 25 yards? The question is retorical, but I await your long winded reply.

I'd like to read that, SgtGold. Is it available, please?? The more recent research?

Does only velocity matter in causing incapacitating hydrostatic shock, regardless of the size of the target organism? Projectile mass by velocity, ft-lbs is not relevant?

The below article discusses velocity as a primary factor in tissue damage via cavitation, i.e. hydrostatic shock. The minimum velocity mentioned is 800 MPS.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=...bSXd1exBK-mP6J03UFzK



The below article has the following info on handgun velocity woulding:

"Wounds caused by Hand Guns

Comparatively speaking hand guns create wounds that have a small temporary cavity, a direct path of destruction with minimal lateral extension. Typically, the amount of kinetic energy lost in the tissue is insufficient to cause remote injury typical of high muzzle velocity weapons."

https://www.whitemountainforen...jectiles-human-body/

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by Sheepdogged:
Again, well stated dpast32.

Are you guys dating? It's like the buddy system.

"You're terrific!"

"No, you're terrific!"

"No, no, you're the terrific one."

Meanwhile, the efficient little nine keeps ticking along, selling like hotcakes and winning contracts.

Yea, they should all get a room at the 500 ft-lb motel.

Link to original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT_C-iJfMe4

quote:

Originally posted by SgtGold:

The below article discusses velocity as a primary factor in tissue damage via cavitation, i.e. hydrostatic shock. The minimum velocity mentioned is 800 MPS.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=...bSXd1exBK-mP6J03UFzK

Actually, the article says the opposite of that.

"...the use of such terms [low velocity/high velocity] as estimates of the wound itself is inaccurate and potentially misleading, as it is based on the erroneous impression that the extent of wounding is directly proportional to the impact energy of the projectile, which is greatly influenced by its velocity according to the familiar kinetic energy formula (KE=112mv2). In fact, it is only the energy deposited to the tissues that is transformed to work resulting in tissue disruption."

It is validating exactly what I said. It isn't the velocity that is doing the damage, it is the kinetic energy only which is transformed into the work energy that causes the damage.

Ps... this article had nothing to do with hydrostatic shock affecting the CNS. This was a broad talk about how gunshot wounds occur, and how pressure waves effect cavitation. That is an entirely different matter.

Let's look at the conclusion specifically.

"The damage produced by penetrating bullets depends on the amount of their impact energy that is delivered to the tissues, the rate at which this occurs, and the local response of the tissue zone subjected to cavitational effects from high-energy injuries. Although the complex interactions of the projectile with the various tissues result in a wide range of ballistic injury patterns , awareness of the specific mechanisms that cause increased tissue destruction, namely bullet tumbling and deformation, will assist recognition of the less common injuries involving high energy transfer, which are also associated with a higher risk of infectious complications."

In other words, the article was primarily concerned with the primary wounds of the permanent wound channel and the effects of cavitation, etc...

It referenced "complex interactions of the projectile with the various tissues result in a wide range of ballistic injury patterns" (which might include hydrostatic shock), but it endeavored to bring "awareness of the specific mechanisms that cause increased tissue destruction, namely bullet tumbling and deformation" that "will assist recognition of the less common injuries involving high energy transfer" (such as what I am talking about: hydrostatic shock, but the example they gave was related to infection). Anytime the article mentioned velocity, it was getting the lamen familiar with the terms used but was quick to point out how it is misleading.

If a 9mm and 357 Sig round have similar penetration and expansion, why carry one over the other. I believe the FBI FTU answered that question.

quote:

Originally posted by 10round:
If a 9mm and 357 Sig round have similar penetration and expansion, why carry one over the other. I believe the FBI FTU answered that question.

If designed well, they all have similar penetration (the goal being 12"-18" for example). One of the reasons handgun bullets have similar permanent wound channels is that they are short. It's the yaw of the bullet that is primarily responsible for the crushed tissue beyond the width of the channel itself that is created by the bullet. Since handgun bullets are much shorter than rifle bullets, the yaw is minimal and thus you won't see a big difference in most handgun calibers. The concept of hydrostatic shock, however, is dealing with a phenomenon independent of the permanent wound channel. It's referring to the excess energy that radiates throughout the body like ripples in a pond by way of the fluid content in the body's cells. .357 SIG and .357 Magnum and calibers that are capable of delivering higher energy without leaving the body are thought by some (like me) to increase incapacitation in this way.

What is the point of all of this mumbo-jumbo? Is the USSS going to reverse their decision and reissue 357 SIG pistols? Is it that you wish to be right? Do you wish to demonstrate that the USSS has made a terrible mistake? Do you honestly believe the effectiveness of the 357 SIG cartridge is so much greater than the 9x19mm cartridge that each and every time the USSS has to use their pistols (which is how often?), that there will be a demonstrable loss of efficiency in any and all shootings which occur from this point on?

Do you really believe that you can map out on paper the effectiveness of the 357 SIG as compared to the 9x19 and demonstrate the difference in such a way to show that the decision to go to the 9x19mm cartridge was a mistake which may get USSS agents or USSS protectees killed?

At the risk of being trite, all shootings are different. People react in many different ways to being shot. Shots hit people in different places on their body and at different angles and at different distances. Motivated, angry and adrenalized or drugged humans will react differently to being shot when compared to people in a more normal state of mind or condition unless the shot or shots are instantaneously incapacitating.

You act as if the 100 or 150 fps difference between 9x19mm and 357 SIG projectiles (both, of course, of the same diameter) is the difference between success and failure. What about the scenarios which involve agents having to empty their pistol all at once without time for a reload? And what if in that split second the last one or two shots from the 9x19mm pistol make the difference, when the 357 SIG pistol had already expended all of its cartridges?

You tell us that you've researched all sorts of various factors and tell us that you are experienced in statistical yadda yadda, as if this means that those individuals or agencies which favor the 9x19 are missing the point, but the reality is that in practical terms, and with the unpredictable nature of shooting projectiles into the human body, the difference between the 9x19 and the 357 SIG doesn't amount to a hill of beans. If you wish to think that you've got it all figured out and that everyone else is a fool, you wouldn't be the first. You cannot predict the unpredictable, no matter how many words you flood this thread with, and no matter what credentials you claim. The 9x19mm and 357 SIG cartridges are in the same class, without any practical difference.

quote:

Originally posted by SgtGold:

The below article has the following info on handgun velocity woulding:

"Wounds caused by Hand Guns

Comparatively speaking hand guns create wounds that have a small temporary cavity, a direct path of destruction with minimal lateral extension. Typically, the amount of kinetic energy lost in the tissue is insufficient to cause remote injury typical of high muzzle velocity weapons."

https://www.whitemountainforen...jectiles-human-body/

You said this is more recent, but it's not. The author is using "Fackler derived wound profiles of bullets of varying mass and velocities" and it literally has an annotation linking it to the 1987 article. This is the guy the Courtney & Courtney study debunked decades later.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
What is the point of all of this mumbo-jumbo? Is the USSS going to reverse their decision and reissue 357 SIG pistols? Is it that you wish to be right? Do you wish to demonstrate that the USSS has made a terrible mistake? Do you honestly believe the effectiveness of the 357 SIG cartridge is so much greater than the 9x19mm cartridge that each and every time the USSS has to use their pistols (which is how often?), that there will be a demonstrable loss of efficiency in any and all shootings which occur from this point on?

Do you really believe that you can map out on paper the effectiveness of the 357 SIG as compared to the 9x19 and demonstrate the difference in such a way to show that the decision to go to the 9x19mm cartridge was a mistake which may get USSS agents or USSS protectees killed?

At the risk of being trite, all shootings are different. People react in many different ways to being shot. Shots hit people in different places on their body and at different angles and at different distances. Motivated, angry and adrenalized or drugged humans will react differently to being shot when compared to people in a more normal state of mind or condition unless the shot or shots are instantaneously incapacitating.

You act as if the 100 or 150 fps difference between 9x19mm and 357 SIG projectiles (both, of course, of the same diameter) is the difference between success and failure. What about the scenarios which involve agents having to empty their pistol all at once without time for a reload? And what if in that split second the last one or two shots from the 9x19mm pistol make the difference, when the 357 SIG pistol had already expended all of its cartridges?

You tell us that you've researched all sorts of various factors and tell us that you are experienced in statistical yadda yadda, as if this means that those individuals or agencies which favor the 9x19 are missing the point, but the reality is that in practical terms, and with the unpredictable nature of shooting projectiles into the human body, the difference between the 9x19 and the 357 SIG doesn't amount to a hill of beans. If you wish to think that you've got it all figured out and that everyone else is a fool, you wouldn't be the first. You cannot predict the unpredictable, no matter how many words you flood this thread with, and no matter what credentials you claim. The 9x19mm and 357 SIG cartridges are in the same class, without any practical difference.

Did I make any of those claims? I do think that the military and police would be better off with .357 SIG, but I in no way implied the ridiculous statements you made (e.g."mistake which may get USSS agents or USSS protectees killed?"). As far as the poriton about "Do [I] really believe that [I] can map out on paper the effectiveness of the 357 SIG as compared to the 9x19 and demonstrate the difference in such a way to show that the decision to go to the 9x19mm cartridge was a mistake." What do you think I am doing with my, what did you call it? mumbo-jumbo??? That said, I was not trying to couch it in terms of a "terrible mistake" as you claim, and I certainly wasn't accusing them of making a decision that would cost people their lives. You are obviously trolling with a 9mm chip on your shoulder. For crying out loud, you are using the name "parabellum". It can't be any more obvious than that. Look, there is a right way and a wrong way to challenge someone on their opinion. You just resorted to the wrong way. Get control of your emotions and be better than that. I have no time to waste on people who didn't learn to mind their manners in life.

I've watched this conversation since you entered it and it appears that you think you have all the answers, and I have seen enough. I tried to approach this playfully but that had no effect. I'll not be lectured by you on how to moderate this forum, since it is mine to do with as I please and participate in any threads I please, in the manner that I please. For twenty years, I have monitored and or participated in tens of thousands of threads and read hundreds of thousands of posts, if not- and this is no exaggeration- more than a million individual posts in this forum, and I can see from 50 miles off when someone is swaggering in a thread, though I'm certain that you would not characterize your behavior as such. I have simply seen enough from you in this thread to say that this is pointless and enough is enough.

Your assessment of my manners is inconsequential. I've done alright so far in this life, and I don't have to walk on eggshells for you.

quote:

Originally posted by SgtGold:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by Sheepdogged:
Again, well stated dpast32.

Are you guys dating? It's like the buddy system.

"You're terrific!"

"No, you're terrific!"

"No, no, you're the terrific one."

Meanwhile, the efficient little nine keeps ticking along, selling like hotcakes and winning contracts.

Yea, they should all get a room at the 500 ft-lb motel.

Another example of the wrong way. People out of their element usually resort to ad hominem attacks. You should endeavor to be better than that.

You'll not lecture me or the other members of this forum on how to behave. You might want to consider why you're getting push-back like this, but you seem to have all the answers already.

It's apparent from your approach that you think that the unpredictability of how humans react to being shot is predictable and that there would be no point in attempting to make you try to understand this.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
You'll not lecture me or the other members of this forum on how to behave.

I just did. Twice. And I didn't lecture anyone else, just you because you were rude, so deal with it. Learn how to talk to people constructively who don't see things the way you do.

Thank you for the links to the references, SgtGold.

quote:

Originally posted by Sheepdogged:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
You'll not lecture me or the other members of this forum on how to behave.

I just did. Twice. And I didn't lecture anyone else, just you because you were rude, so deal with it. Learn how to talk to people constructively who don't see things the way you do.

Dude,
You are insulting the gracious owner of this place.

I would suggest you shut the fuck up now
or your handle will be "shitdogged"

Geeezus, give it a break

I worked ER duty in a few hospitals (San Antonio, Fort Worth, Boston and Washington, DC) and I can attest that I was stupefied when I saw the damage a .22lr could do to large muscle groups like the thigh and upper arm/shoulders...not to mention the further damage doctors would need to do in order to clean up the trouble/stop the bleeding.

For what it's worth, I have three .22lr handguns and every time I shoot them at the range, I reflect back on some of those patients and I could not imagine stepping in front of a .22lr with the notion they are 'Whimpey" - it's my long story on why the 9mm is completely powerful enough...no one wants to leak.

Having nothing else to do at the moment, I'll say it ONE more time, for all of those who I appear to have made upset. If you have CAREFULLY read my prior Posts, you will see that I stated multiple times, if you shoot well with a 9mm, then use one. Me personally, when using either a P226 or P229, I choose to utilize it in .357 Sig, which of course equates to an 9mm+P++, period ! If you don't like that, use whatever you wish. The only SIG pistol I currently use in 9mm is my P228. I also stated that perhaps my most carried weapon these days is my KAHR PM9, 9mm, with 147+P HST's. That, along with my S&W 642 amount to my 'primary ' everyday armament. To me, a weapon is a tool. Sometimes you need a small ball peen hammer, other times you require a sledgehammer, it's as simple as that. If I'm toting a big P226 / P229, I will use in .357 Sig. With a Mec Gar magazine, it carries 15+1, which is just fine with me. As for 9mm's, I have a G17, G26, P228, PM9, P1 (P38), & that's just the shooters, not counting collector pieces. But, as I have also said before, my favorite calibers are .45 GAP / ACP, & .40 S&W, which has been proven to be an outstanding balance of penetration & expansion, while remaining relatively controllable for most people, provided the standard 180 grain loading is used. Another SIMPLE point I was attempting to make is that as a CIVILIAN shooter, if you shoot well with something other than the 'suddenly magical 9mm', you may continue using it, or them. A great many shooters are influenced by the recent adoptions of a caliber by the Law Enforcement community at large.What I was, & am attempting to do was enlighten people as to WHY large Agencies / Dept.'s change duty calibers, & many times it has very little to do with a caliber or cartridge being not effective. There are many interests & influences involved in the adoption of a duty round, & they do not necessary related to the public at large. BOTTOM LINE, Shoot the caliber / load you shoot the best with ! If you happen to be someone who shoots extremely well with a .45 ACP, you don't have to run down to your local gun shop to swap for a 9mm. I'm just not interested enough to attempt to argue back & forth with all the people who champion the newest thing on the market. I use what I'm most comfortable with, but, in deference to the '9 people', I will state for the record that of all my present crop of handguns, nothing is as accurate & just plain pleasant to shoot of my stock, Glock 17 Gen. 2, while loaded up with WW 115 JHP+P+. My initial foray with it produced a ONE ragged hole group at 15 yard line. It was almost like shooting a laser gun. Sadly though, it's been determined that the 115+P+ loads just don't penetrate enough to be truly effective. So, there we are, & now I'll finish watching the news & having my coffee.

Best, dpast32

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
Thank you for the links to the references, SgtGold.

Hey, I just lay it out so you guys can play it out.

quote:

Originally posted by Sheepdogged:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
You'll not lecture me or the other members of this forum on how to behave.

I just did. Twice. And I didn't lecture anyone else, just you because you were rude, so deal with it. Learn how to talk to people constructively who don't see things the way you do.

Well, I'll put it to you this way- if you post again in this thread, I'll remove your posting rights. You don't call the shots here, no matter how many studies you cite nor how many words you post. So, there's nothing for me to "deal with" except two mouse clicks to make you vanish, so, deal with it.

It seems you think you're some kind of guru on the subject of ballistics, and we're all to just take it in, but as my ol' dad usd to say, you can't see the forest for the trees.