Marshall & Sanow: What to do with a book I wish I had not bought?

[Dr. Courtney]

Yep. And great deal of his work was based on first hand observations of actual gunshot wounds on actual human beings

How many human beings did Fackler observe who were shot by JHP handgun bullets?

In how many cases did Fackler perform the sensistive microscopic imaging or biochemical tests required to detect remote CNS damage?

In how many cases did Fackler have opportunity to accurately observe and record incapacitating effects in the first 20 seconds after bullet impact?

Martin Fackler was a military trauma surgeon. He had ample opportunity to observe bullet wounds after the fact from FMJ bullets. He had little or no opportunity to observe humans shot by JHP handgun bullets in the first 20 seconds or so after bullet impact.

Similarly, Fackler did not perform the sensitive microscopic imaging or biochemical tests required to detect remote CNS damage produce by the ballistic pressure wave. In contrast, Suneson et al. and Wang et al. did use sensitive microscopic imaging and biochemical tests that are well documented in their ability to detect traumatic brain injury. There work was in animal models, but other medical professionals have documented remote pressure wave effects in humans.

We need to get away from the folly of comparing credentials. Rather than paying homage to the opinion of one expert (who claims a null result, but wasn't really performing any sensitive tests for traumatic brain injury), we need to consider the totality of the published scientific evidence.

Michael Courtney

 

[juliet charley]

Not only does it often draw attack from animal rights proponents, but also by those who really have nothing against hunting but don't like the results of the research.

Not the point at all:

1. Extrapolating the results (in terms of incapacitation) from an unsuspecting, very high strung, female herbivore to a top of the food chain, aggressive, prepared, normally male, predator with a totally different fight or flight reflex is at best very, very iffy .
   
2. Even though the velocity may be approximately the same, the use of a sabot and muzzle-loading rifle could introduce other unforseen or unaccounted performance variables .

I think, for the most part, the pressure wave research is primarily of a "sideshow" nature that will end up providing very little actual enlightenment into what really happens in the aftermath of a gunshot wound. Unfortunately, what probably is a far more important determining factor (the psychological make-up and psychological reaction of the individual) in how a subject will react when shot will be even harder to quantify and document than the relatively minor (if any) effects of the pressure wave.

 

[JohnKSa]

Extrapolating the results (in terms of incapacitation...

I don't see where that's being done. Describing the pressure wave effects through animal experiments and correlating those effects to existing data sets is not the same as extrapolating incapacitation from animals to humans. That may one day be possible, but I think it's a bit premature to shut down the experiment or quash the results because we can't get ALL the answers on the first try.

Even though the velocity may be approximately the same, the use of a sabot and muzzle-loading rifle could introduce other unforseen or unaccounted performance variables.

Let's see. Your last post was complaining that the pressure wave effect was such a "very minor factor" that we shouldn't concerne ourselves with it. Now we see that "very minor factors" ARE a concern to you in that you speculate that firing an identical bullet at identical velocities but from a different platform could introduce effects significant enough to skew the conclusions. That's not even a "very minor factor", that's speculation about the possibility of the existence of a very minor factor.

Either "very minor factors" are important or they're not. You can't have it both ways at the same time.

I think, for the most part, the pressure wave research is primarily of a "sideshow" nature that will end up providing very little actual enlightenment into what really happens in the aftermath of a gunshot wound.

Fortunately we don't have to rely on speculation and opinion, there are qualified researchers doing experiments to determine the effects. If your speculation is correct then the results of the research will confirm it--that's how science works.

Unfortunately, what probably is a far more important determining factor (the psychological make-up and psychological reaction of the individual) in how a subject will react when shot will be even harder to quantify and document...

Of course! It's been WELL documented that the psychological response can completely swamp virtually ALL physiological effects short of CNS hits--at least in the short term. Are we to use that knowledge to halt all research on terminal ballistics? Hardly.

Not the point at all:

Well, if that's what you meant to say then that's what you should have said rather than implying that the researchers were employing unethical means to gather data. Comments about "ambushing" deer or shooting fish "in a bucket" are hardly likely to be interpreted as your objective complaints about problems with scientific methodology (as you would like us believe at this point) and are quite correctly going to be viewed as an attack on the researcher.

 

[juliet charley]

I don't see where that's being done.

That may not have been the intent, but it is definitely being done. I know of at least one active thread (on another forum) and more than one inactive thread in which a certain .40 S&W is being recommended for LE/defence based on Dr. Courtney's deer shots.

That may one day be possible, but I think it's a bit premature to shut down the experiment or quash the results because we can't get ALL the answers on the first try.

I wasn't advocating shutting down the research (though I was questioning the validity of it--there is a difference).

Either "very minor factors" are important or they're not.

You are really talking apples and oranges. In the big picture of wounding and incapacitation pressure may indeed (and by every inidication is) a very minor factor. In the very limited research, a minor factor may indeed lead to very erroneous conclusions.

Fortunately we don't have to rely on your speculation,

It's all speculation at this point.

Of course! It's been WELL documented that the psychological response can completely swamp virtually ALL physiological effects short of CNS hits--at least in the short term.

Which supports the very minor (if any) part pressure wave actually plays in incapacitation--and my contention that the psychological aspect really could bear some additional research (and you're wrong about it being well documented--there's been very little research it that area).

Well, if that's what you meant to say then that's what you should have said rather than implying that the researchers were employing unethical means to gather data.

I didn't imply any such thing--and when questioned, I explained in detail what I meant--both of which are legitimate concerns (and I have not been the only one to raise them).

 

[JohnKSa]

I know of at least one active thread (on another forum) and more than one inactive thread in which a certain .40 S&W is being recommended for LE/defence based on Dr. Courtney's deer shots.

Frankly, if Dr. Courtney's results show a significant pressure wave effect in a particular type of handgun ammunition, what's to be lost by using it over another type of premium self-defense ammunition in the same caliber as long as it performs nominally in the realm of more conventional terminal ballistic criteria? After all, I've seen ammunition choices dogmatically defended on the basis of far less information.

Besides, unless the Courtney's are making such recommendations, it's not really fair to hold them responsible.

I was advocating that. Are you?

???

It's all speculation at this point.

But it doesn't have to stay that way--although some apparently wish that it would.

Which supports the very minor (if any) part pressure wave actually plays in incapacitation.

Since using this argument would put virtually ALL terminal effects (short of CNS hits) into the category of "very minor effects" (at least in the short term) then yes. i.e. if you want to take this tack, the argument also supports the very minor part projectile diameter, weight, energy, momentum, expansion, etc. play in incapacitation.

I didn't imply any such thing--and when questioned, I explained in detail what I meant--both of which are legitimate concerns.

If you say so--however "ambush" is a word with an almost exclusively negative connotation. The same sort of meaning carried by saying that someone is "shooting fish in a bucket".

I wouldn't mind your arguing further that your understanding of the English language doesn't extend to the point that you realize that saying someone is "ambushing deer" is an accusation of unethical behavior but frankly, I think your grasp of the written word is far better than that.

 

[juliet charley]

Frankly, if Dr. Courtney's results show a significant pressure wave effect in a particular type of handgun ammunition, what's to be lost by using it over another type of premium self-defense ammunition in the same caliber as long as it performs nominally in the realm of more conventional terminal ballistic criteria?

I think you just proved my original point about extrapolating the results (as well as contradicting yourself).

If you say so--however "ambush" is a word with an almost exclusively negative connotation. The same sort of meaning carried by saying that someone is "shooting fish in a bucket".

I regret the initial misunderstanding, but if you had read my explanation (instead of jumping to conclusions), you wouldn't be confused as to what I was saying. There is a big difference between shooting an aroused, aggressive animal and ambushing a high strung one. The "surprise factor" can (and does) change how an animal responds.

As the the fish in the bucket, I can see where you're probably confused though I don't think Courtney was (which is probably why he chose to ignore it). I've probably been following Courtney's forays onto various forums better than you have. One of his earliest examples/justifications of pressure was the effect of firing a handgun into a five gallon bucket of blue gill.

 

[JohnKSa]

I think you just proved my original point about extrapolating the results (as well as contradicting yourself).

Hardly. I've pointed out a couple of times how your argument that psychological effects tend to predominate in most cases renders virtually any terminal ballistic effects "very minor" in the short term. Given that, I can't see how one could logically argue against picking one "very minor effect" over another. In other words, your argument essentially devalues all non-psychological effects to the point that it really doesn't matter what brand or type of premium self-defense ammo you choose or why.

You'll also note that I didn't say it was appropriate to use pressure wave as a criteria, just that it was hard to argue against using it rather than one of the other more conventional criteria given your statement about psychological effects.

There is a big difference between shooting an aroused, aggressive animal and ambushing a high strung one. The "surprise factor" can (and does) change how an animal responds.

Of course it does--further supporting your argument that the psychological effect predominates in the short term when the CNS is not hit and further weakening a logical objection to choosing between the "very minor effects" of terminal ballistic criteria (including pressure wave effect.)

...if you had read my explanation...

This is the pitfall of the written word. Once it's down in black and white, it's hard to explain away. Your explanation is quite well done, very clear and most of all took only a trifle more effort than the original statement which was laden with implications due to its brevity and wording.

...effect of firing a handgun into a five gallon bucket of blue gill...

It's certainly a tribute to your cleverness that you were able to reply with a plausible rationale but the fact remains that posting a brief, unadorned comment about "ambushing deer" and "shooting fish in a bucket" is clearly inflammatory and accusational.

I guess what I'm saying is that technical objections are better posed as clear and objectively worded arguments rather than inflammatory sound bites which later require that the negative implications be explained away.

 

[Socrates]

I'm getting a bit irritated. I don't like being ignored.
I asked what calibers Dr. Courtney says generate 1000 psi pressure. I have yet to see an answer. The silence is deafening. I also asked what calibers and bullets currently avaliable he recommends. Same answer.

I will say again that I think the irony of the S&M work is the very caliber that are capable of such pressure are rated way down, thanks to any number of reasons.

Dr. S

 

[JR47]

I'm guessing that the good Drs. Courtney only check into this little forum when they have time. They DO work, and corresponding with unknown, and obviously uncredentialed, denizens of the Internet is like wrestling with a pig. You end up covered in crap, and the pig likes it.

Everyone here has the same ability to read the referenced articles, even if the understanding may be compromised by dogma. Try an email, I would think. If your interest is real, you shouldn't care which manner provides you with the appropriate information.

JohnKSa, "there are none so blind as those who will not see" seems appropriate here.

 

[Wildalaska]

Can we all agree that if you get shot, it hurts? And in some places it hurts more? And sometimes it will even kill you?

Wildilikemy32Alaska

 

[Eghad]

Can we all agree that if you get shot, it hurts? And in some places it hurts more? And sometimes it will even kill you?

sounds reasonable to me.

 

[pax]

Socrates ~

Perhaps, too, the Dr. is a bit annoyed at your persistent use of "S&M" rather than the standard & accepted "M&S." He objected to that usage at least once, and in the strongest terms. To continue repeating the childish play on words is a bit tiresome, and hardly raises the level of discourse.

pax

 

[JohnKSa]

...the Dr. is a bit annoyed at your persistent use of "S&M"...

Agreed. Neither Marshall nor Sanow are TFL members, and therefore don't enjoy the same protection from personal attacks. However, that kind of thing is certainly not conducive to good technical interchange.

As with any personal interaction, failing to meet the personal standards imposed by the each of the participants will end the exchange.

It's also worth noting that Dr. Courtney is responding to several posters at once, it's reasonable to expect that not every single question or objection will be addressed.

Finally, he's already answered one of your questions--at least indirectly. In post #31 he made it clear that they chose their test ammunition partly because it was no longer made and therefore their testing could not be construed to have commercial sponsorship ties. Making a specific brand name recommendation would contravene that attempt to maintain an atmosphere of neutrality. He also says in post #62 that: "We've made suggestions for improved ammo designs in the papers."

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I'm getting a bit irritated. I don't like being ignored.
I asked what calibers Dr. Courtney says generate 1000 psi pressure. I have yet to see an answer. The silence is deafening. I also asked what calibers and bullets currently avaliable he recommends. Same answer.

You can't estimate the pressure wave for a caliber very well, because there is a tremendously wide variation in pressure wave between different loads. The papers contain pressure wave estimates for a wide variety of different loads, as well as a formula for estimating pressure wave magnitudes given the kinetic energy and penetration depth. I don't feel the need answering every question that is so clearly already answered in the papers.

We're not really in the business of making load recommendations, especially without detailed information on applications and risk assessments. Our goal is to provide sound scientific information from which folks can make their own decisions.

Michael Courtney

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Demonstraing physiological/biological effects in animal models is often an important step in the process of determining whether or not the effect is present in humans. Most medical researchers find it compelling when a neurological effect is demonstrated in a mammal of any size, and laboratory rats are commonly used to study traumatic brain injury caused by pressure pulses applied to the brain. The fluid percussion model of traumatic brain injury is widely accepted.

By the time an effect is demonstrated in a several different mammals, including those of comparable size to humans, there are usually very few remaining doubters left in the medical community. Pressure wave effects in brain injury have been demonstrated in animal models using deer, goats, mice, whales, pigs, and dogs.

It's easy to single one example (such as deer), and say that demonstrating the effect in deer does not imply it is occurring in humans, but the totality of the evidence in the animal models is much more compelling than the single example in deer. The next research step once an effect is demonstrated in a wide variety of animal models is to look more closely in humans, either through epidemiological studies or through case studies.

The M&S data is the only published epidemiological-type data against which the pressure wave hypothesis could be tested, so we did. Publishing our results to date is a necessary step toward gaining access to other (unpublished) data sets which might allow more convincing epidemiological type of analysis. The combined results of the different animal models is also necessary and compelling background to justify case studies in humans.

In other words, research into the effects of a ballistic pressure wave in humans is following the same path of much research in physiology and medicine: hypothesis, testing in animal models, testing with available epidemiological data, testing against more specifically gathered epidemiological data, testing in case studies.

Michael Courtney

 

[Dr. Courtney]

That may not have been the intent, but it is definitely being done. I know of at least one active thread (on another forum) and more than one inactive thread in which a certain .40 S&W is being recommended for LE/defence based on Dr. Courtney's deer shots.

Ammunition recommendations should be based on all the available evidence, not just including the pressure wave mechanism, but including all that is known about ammunition selection and testing. In our deer paper, we state explicitly:

We do not advocate choosing self-defense bullets only on the basis of performance in deer. Deer testing can be of benefit when choosing between loads that meet penetration and other gelatin-based test requirements.

It is not our intent to suggest that testing handgun bullets in deer should supplant traditional methods of bullet testing in gelatin. However, live animal testing can supplement information gained by testing bullets in inanimate tissue simulants.

Live animal experiments are useful for exploring incapacitation mechanisms and can be a valuable addition to gelatin testing for understanding bullet performance. Selecting ammunition for law enforcement or self-defense purposes should begin by assuring that the bullet expands reliably and meets penetration requirements for the application.

Michael Courtney

 

[Socrates]

EXCELLENT:
"Selecting ammunition for law enforcement or self-defense purposes should begin by assuring that the bullet expands reliably and meets penetration requirements for the application."

I do have a suggestion. What would really help with self-defense and police ammunition is to profile the target. In other words, as Randy White once said to me,

"The most important thing is to pick the right opponent."

Go into prisons, and obtain an average criminal. In other words, how much do they weigh, how much muscle, fat, etc.

You wouldn't hunt deer with a 22short... Pick a caliber that is suitable for the larger sized criminals, as a protection against the unusual, then determine what caliber would work, with your theory of ballistic shock.

You could also revalue M&S work by using the shooting data to profile the average criminal, as well.

The areas I'm in, two of the murder capitals of the US, Richmond and Oakland, have MANY, very large criminals, likewise Hawaii. The size of your potential adversary is a vital element in your calculation of ballistic shock.

Dr. S

PS: the ballistic shock theory is VERY effective underwater, and, is proven on rather large sharks. Bang sticks...

PPS:
I'm really intrested to see if the bullet caliber combinations that are likely to create 1000 psi are determined by speed, bullet weight, or caliber. Your comments about fragmented bullets don't offer much, since other then really expensive rifle hunting bullets, these bullets aren't avaliable to your service caliber pistols.

It does open up some really fascinating bullet designs. Guy at lockheed would epoxy primers into hollowpoints, and, when fired into the right medium, would explode the bullet on impact, creating quite a bit of ballistic shock. Heck on rats and rodents..

PPS: If I use derogatory terms for S&M, I want all to realize that they personally earned that, with me. I am a a VERY well educated, know a bit about handguns, and ballistics, and, have friends that are legends in the handgun, and rifle community. NONE OF THEM WERE EVER AS RUDE, AND ARBITRARY, AS EVAN MARSHALL IN HIS FORUM, BANNING ME FOR ASKING QUESTIONS LIKE:
IF YOU TAKE A 230 GRAIN 45 CALIBER BULLET, AND MOVE IT AT 1800 FPS, OR 1900 FPS,
HOW DOES IT AFFECT THE IMPACT ON THE TARGET, AND PENETRATION, COMPARED TO THE SAME BULLET AT 800 FPS?
LEE JURRAS CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. EVAN MARSHALL BANNED ME FROM HIS SITE FOR ASKING SUCH QUESTIONS...

 

[Hard Ball]

"I'm really intrested to see if the bullet caliber combinations that are likely to create 1000 psi are determined by speed, bullet weight, or caliber. "

So am I.

 

[ragabash]

It does open up some really fascinating bullet designs. Guy at lockheed would epoxy primers into hollowpoints, and, when fired into the right medium, would explode the bullet on impact, creating quite a bit of ballistic shock. Heck on rats and rodents..

I call shenanigans..

That doesn't work. It's dangerous to try it. Ruins the ballistics of the bullet besides.

Any hollowpoint large enough to consider attaching a primer to would be "heck on rats and rodents" without the primer stuck needlessly to it (Kinda like exploding groundhogs with a .22/250.. no exploding-primer-bullets needed!!).

Anyone who has ever dropped a bowling ball on a waterbed understands hydrostatic shock. The actions of noncompressible (or barely compressible) fluids when impacted by a sudden influx of energy is basic physics. The energy must be spread across the medium until dissipated.
Ever seen the frame-by-frame shots of an apple getting hit by a .357 magnum? It explodes.

A human body is basically a fleshy sac of 98% water and some trace chemicals. Like a cantaloupe.

 

[FM12]

Ragabash:

Back in the 1970s, I loaded some.45 ACP Speer 200 JHP "Flying Ashtrays" with inverted small magnum pistol primers in the hollowpoint. Didnt use epoxy, hardly that fancy, simply used nailpolish (my wife's. not mine). Shot only one or two, one into a steel wheel that had been discarded. Blew the bullet to pieces. I realized it was more dangerous than I thought,including the fact the next round might detonate on the feedramp, and stopped. It WILL work, though. PLEASE DONT TRY THIS AT HOME, BTW!!