TexasCHLforum.com

Bulldog1911:

Let it go!!! I am. (I lied, this is actually my last take on this topic!!!).

AndyC states a simplified model to make a valid point (facts, which are true, I agreed with him!) and then appears to me, maybe not, but thats how it looks to me, to derive conclusions (FMJ is better) from that, as it likely has better penetration. This is not explicitly stated, but implied, at least to me.

He has taken both our comments out of context and way off the original topic. There is not a single thing I said that was either not factually correct or was not labeled as opinion/speculation, with the possible exception of his intent on who he suggested was practicing w-w-junk science. For that I admit my error and apologize.

My problem is attitude - He also calls peoples intelligence into question:
woo-woo junk science (there are implications there), states annoyance at having to "dumb it down" (my words) so we can understand (maybe if you are that annoyed at us, you should go somewhere else - I am!), challenges me to a discussion of the actual wound damage - cavitation, etc - questions whether I want to go there: implying I am out of my league or not as smart?? Not sure.....

Some discussions simply aren't worth it. When the person you are talking to doesn't actually read what you said, and tells you that you are wrong without giving a concise rebuttal of a specific comment in the context it was given andthen challenges you to dispute what he said (when you have already agreed that it is true), well that horse has died.

I will not respond to any posts in this thread (I mean it this time!), as I simply no longer care to discuss this topic. There are other things I prefer to do with my time than discuss (argue) with someone who clearly shows annoyance (hey, he said so) and such sarcasm toward the other posters in their posts.

I have gotten to the point that I am not behaving in line with my character, therefore my exit from this discussion is permanent. I am sorry for my anger, but it seems personal and that sets me off.

AndC: you seem like a greatand knowledgable guy. I have and hopefully will continue to gain insight from you knowledge and experience. I am sorry if I have offended you or taken what you say or mean out of context. I can only base my responses on what is written on these pages and we all know that sometimes does not convey the true spirit of the person's intent

Good bye all and good luck. Remember, in the whole scheme of things, remember though, we are on the same side. None of you are my enemy!!!

AndyC wrote:I wasn't assuming anything; I used the same diameter hole in the same place specifically to keep it simple and to illustrate a point - but if you insist, let's take the example further, then, using the same figures:

And I agreed, if you read my posts, for the same diameter, the longer penetration results in more damage. Everything I stated was either fact or clearly labeled as speculation. There was no woo-woo junk science in anything I said.

Your model assumed the same size hole (see above). But that doesn't reflect reality in comaring FMJ and HP. I think we all agree that FMJ and HP will produce different size holes. Your assumption calculating the volume of the damage with a .35" diameter cylinder for FMJ and .5"cylinder for HP seems off to me. The compression of tissue certainly affects the volume of damaged area. If anything, that model is woo-woo junk science. It appears to me to be far more complex than that.

This thread is getting too personal for me and I'm starting to respond in kind. Therefore I'm pulling myself out of this discussion. I'm sorry if I have offended anyone, that was not my intent, but as an engineer, I don't practice woo-woo junk science. Opinions, yes, science no....

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Bulldog1911 wrote:

AndyC wrote: Oh - we're playing the "what if" game now.

Isn't that the basis for most of these test's and discussions?

I'm not arguing weather Dr. Fackler or Andy know their stuff. In fact, I believe they do. My original statement was in regards to the physics of the bullet exerting all of it's energy. Considering Dr. Fackler's knowledge, I don't think he would argue the laws of physics that state an object at rest has 0 kenetic energy???? Therefore if the bullet has come to rest inside someone/something it has exerted all of it's energy. You can post as many studies as you would like, but that won't change the laws of physics.

How the bullet preforms upon impact is a separate issue.

The issue isn't whether the bullet dissipates energy along the wound track (it is actually dissipating energy as soon as it leaves the muzzle), it's whether or not the dissipated energy is what performs the wounding action. It isn't. It is the combined crushing/tearing of tissue by the bullet along the wound path, and the hydrostatic shock radiating outward from the bullet along the wound path. And the effect of the hydrostatic shock varies according to the type of tissue through which the bullet is passing.

Agree. And also the expanded diameter of the bullit and the speed it travels. It seems to me that AndyC assumes the diameter of the damage behind the bullit is the same for our examples of 6" penetration and full penetration. If it is I agree with him, full penetration is clearly better. If not, and I suspect that the full penetration diameter of damage (again, FMJ) will be smaller than the 6" penetration diameter of damage of the HP.

In that case, I don't know which is generally more effective, but my non-data based opinion is.... still..... HP....

AndyC wrote:How anybody can believe that a bullet which stops in 6" of flesh is somehow better than one (of the same diameter) which goes through 15" is beyond me.

I guess it depends on the damage done by each. A large diameter hole (HP) penetrating 6" in the right place would seem to me to be more effective than a smaller diameter hole (FMJ) going all the way through. Again, depending on what is hit and how much damage is done by each to critical "parts".

As far as the statement about energy expended not being in question, that wasn't clear to me to be the case after reading a multi-page thread. It seemed that some may not have understood that, but I could and have been wrong before.

Also, I qualified most of my statements as (paraphrase): "I don't know". And I don't. I still suspect that, generally, hollowpoints are more effective in all calibers, but again, it depends on each specific shot and where and what it hits. OK, maybe not in FMJ designed to tumble, but that's a different discussion.

Bulldog1911 wrote:

AndyC wrote: Oh - we're playing the "what if" game now.

Isn't that the basis for most of these test's and discussions?

I'm not arguing weather Dr. Fackler or Andy know their stuff. In fact, I believe they do. My original statement was in regards to the physics of the bullet exerting all of it's energy. Considering Dr. Fackler's knowledge, I don't think he would argue the laws of physics that state an object at rest has 0 kenetic energy???? Therefore if the bullet has come to rest inside someone/something it has exerted all of it's energy. You can post as many studies as you would like, but that won't change the laws of physics.

How the bullet preforms upon impact is a separate issue.

The above is true.

Fact: A bullit that stops inside a body has expended all its energy.
Fact: A bullit that passes through a body has not expended all its energy.

Anyone who says otherwise is absolutely incorrect. This is basic (Freshman) physics.

Now, which is more effective to best perform the required task is beyond my abilities to understand or articulate. I suspect that hollowpoints are generally more effective. I also suspect that generally volume of internal damage is the important factor, not length of travel. I suspect that internal bleeding is the deciding factor in life or death, not the number of external (entrance/exit) holes that there may be.

A narrower tunnel all the way through vs a wider tunnel that ends in the body?? I don't know. Of course one or the other could be more effective in any specific case depending on where it hits and what it passes through.

But I am not a Doctor. I am an Engineer and I did sleep in a Holiday Inn Express 4 nights last week!!