Wound path and "what is directly in the path of" do not express the same thing to me."as what is directly in the path of the bullet."
"The wound path of the projectile is known as permanent cavity"
You do realize the bullet is the projectile
That blew by me. Try again.Momentum can not change form energy can if two bullets have the same momentum and one has more energy they will make similar size permanent cavitys and the one with more energy will make a larger temporary cavity (elastic energy) it'll also produce more heat (heat energy) and make a louder smack (sound energy).
One more time, who has said that it doesn't matter?If the size of the hole doesn't matter then why not a 32?
and why i carry ammo that has passed the FBI tests.
YOU DOOne more time, who has said that it doesn't matter?
And yet after the next great shoot out another witch hunt will be launched. Weapons and ammunition will be blamed, yet again, and a whole new round of expensive testing will ensue.
Sorry if I seem cynical, but...I am.
NO. I have not said that the size of the hole doesn't matter, or that a .32 or smaller would be a good idea.YOU DOOne more time, who has said that it [the size of the hole, bringing a .32 into the discussion] doesn't matter?
Having talked to many EMTs and trauma doctors, and examined a significant amount of pictures/medical reports, there is a negligible difference between the wounding capacity of the 9mm and the .40 S&W.
I referred to the wound path, defined as "path [made by] the projectile", and to neither the "path of the bullet" nor "the bullets path". The distinction would seem to be largely one of semantics, and one more time, we probably all understand what we mean by permanent cavity.And if "path of the bullet" and "bullets path" mean different things to you I give up.
Not sure what it is to which you are referring, but it is all known that misidentifications can and do occur regarding all kinds of laboratory forensic analysis, including hair analysis, bite-mark comparisons, fiber ID, mass spectrometry, fingerprints, voice analysis--on and on, extending even to DNA analysis, widely considered the hole grail of forensic analysis.In view of the failures, intentional and otherwise, of the FBI Crime Lab in matters of evidence I am skeptical of any FBI technical analysis. They have already shown, and apologized for, a history of made to order analyses.
I said that forensic pathologists cannot necessarily determine by examining wounds whether the wound was made by a .40 or a 9MM---I cited this from Rob Pincus:
Arguing that bullet and projectile aren't the same thin isn't semantics it's <edit>I referred to the wound path, defined as "path [made by] the projectile", and to neither the "path of the bullet" nor "the bullets path".
Let's see your evidence.mavracer said:...The forensic pathologists cannot determine caliber from wounds even between the smaller 32s and 380s...
I have no idea what you man by "cherry picking".[In reference to distinguishing wound channels made by different service handguns] Cherry picking information to support your position is extremely disingenuous, Rob is often guilty of this too so probably not the best source.
It is important to note that I am not arguing that a single .40S&W bullet doesn’t hold more potential to stop in any event, rather I believe that the small increase in potential is not worth the absolute known detriments in recoil and capacity.
I'm not aware of whether that is true, but it is irrelevant. The discussion was about larger calibers. You had said "40 S&W and 45 ACP leave a measurably larger permanent wound channel". I responded with "that would seem self evident, though again, it is reported that forensic pathologists often cannot distinguish among them after real shooting incidents".The forensic pathologists cannot determine caliber from wounds even between the smaller 32s and 380s so if you're going to use that for a reference OWN IT.
Who has attempted to do so? I cannot tell whether you are being argumentative on purpose or simply cannot comprehend what is written. The distinction lies in what the wound path made by the projectile means as compared that the path of the projectile means.Arguing that bullet and projectile aren't the same thin isn't semantics it's <edit>
Utter nonsense. You must demonstrate that an analysis, published in 1996, of some apparent deficiencies at the FBI Laboratory is somehow relevant to a study (referenced here) done by the FBI Training Division published in 2014.5thShock said:The OP contained a quote from an FBI technical analysis from "FBI Training Division: FBI Academy, Quantico, VA."
Therefore a comment on the reliability of FBI technical expertise is relevant. So...
DOJ IG report...
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2014/e1404.pdf
Which is does not do. Your citation is irrelevant, and your position is preposterous.5thShock said:The citation is but one of the items of information that are meant to inform the inquiry of the thread,...
I'm not aware of whether that is true, but it is irrelevant. The discussion was about larger calibers. You had said "40 S&W and 45 ACP leave a measurably larger permanent wound channel". I responded with "that would seem self evident, though again, it is reported that forensic pathologists often cannot distinguish among them after real shooting incidents".
Well exactly what distinction are you trying to make.Who has attempted to do so?
Well, no one has said, so far, that larger holes aren't "better". The entire discussion has been about how much better, and about whether the advantage offsets the disadvantages.Here we go again it doesn't support Old Marksman's position it's irrelevant.
Larger holes aren't better because the ME can't tell, but smaller holes aren't as good even though ME's can't tell.
Well, it sure isn't that a bullet is not a projectile.Well exactly what distinction are you trying to make.
Yes, you did.I originally said "when you define the permanent cavity as what is directly in the path of the bullet"
Yes, he did.and Fackler says The main aim of a bullet is to crush, i.e., destroy the tissue actually hit by the bullet, ... The wound path of the projectile is known as permanent cavity ...
So the question, if you really want to keep bringing this up, would be whether the bullet destroys--wounds--creates a permanent cavity--in proportion to its diameter in whatever it hits.IF the bullet/projectile hit's it it's in the path of the bullet/projectile.
Let's see your evidence.
Her's a quote from Ralph J. Riviello, MD, MS, FACEPNo one but you has asserted that medical examiners cannot distinguish between wounds created by small diameter handgun bullets and bullets from service rounds. Frank asked for a basis for that opinion.
Can you tell the caliber of the bullet based on wound size or radiographs?
The simple answer is no. The size of any gunshot wound, entrance or exit, is primarily determined by five variables: the size, shape, configuration, and velocity of the bullet at the instant of its impact with the tissue, plus the physical characteristics of the impacted tissue itself. Importantly, because of the elasticity of skin, the size of the entrance wound will not coincide with the caliber of the bullet. The wound may be smaller, larger, or the same size as the bullet. When a bullet hits the skin surface, it causes indentation before perforation. Following perforation, elasticity causes the skin to recoil, and the resulting round, circular defect is not the same size as the diameter of the bullet.
now let's see Rob's.Variation in wound size resulting from such factors as bullet shape, surface treatment, strength characteristics, loss of gyroscopic stability, intermediate targets, tangential impacts, and existing fractures are discussed. Also, the large variety of calibers available are noted as complicating the prediction of caliber from wound size. In view of these factors caution is recommended in any attempt to determine precise bullet caliber from the minimum dimensions of the cranial gunshot entrance wound.
Well Rob Pincus isn't here. But when OldMarksman quoted Pincus, OldMarksman linked in post 23 to his source for the quote.mavracer said:...now let's see Rob's.
Frank Ettin said:...Also see the FBI paper entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness", by Urey W. Patrick. Agent Patrick, for example, notes on page 8:......Psychological factors are probably the most important relative to achieving rapid incapacitation from a gunshot wound to the torso. Awareness of the injury..., fear of injury, fear of death, blood or pain; intimidation by the weapon or the act of being shot; or the simple desire to quit can all lead to rapid incapacitation even from minor wounds. However, psychological factors are also the primary cause of incapacitation failures.
The individual may be unaware of the wound and thus have no stimuli to force a reaction. Strong will, survival instinct, or sheer emotion such as rage or hate can keep a grievously wounded individual fighting....
Frank Ettin said:...Dr. V. J. M. DiMaio (DiMaio, V. J. M., M. D., Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier Science Publishing Company, 1987, pg. 42, as quoted in In Defense of Self and Others..., Patrick, Urey W. and Hall, John C., Carolina Academic Press, 2010, pg. 83):...In the case of low velocity missles, e. g., pistol bullets, the bullet produces a direct path of destruction with very little lateral extension within the surrounding tissue. Only a small temporary cavity is produced. To cause significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet must strike that structure directly. The amount of kinetic energy lost in the tissue by a pistol bullet is insufficient to cause the remote injuries produced by a high-velocity rifle bullet.