Considering downsizing to 6 cm from 7 PRC

[Article 4]

Since I promised you some links.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5759573_Ten_Common_Myths_of_Ballistic_Injuries

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://gundata.org/images/fbi-handgun-ballistics.pdf
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/2001-Vol5No2.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/21037128_Gunshot_wounds_I_Bullets_ballistics_and_mechanisms_of_injury

Exponentially? LOL. The additional energy is meaningless if the elastic limit of the tissue hasn't been exceeded. The 'added' damage to organs won't likely lead to decreased incapacitation time. IF the ballistic pressure wave is close enough to the nervous system it could cause temporary or permanent incapacitation.

Here's a highlighted portion from a study you linked when we had a similar discussion earlier this year.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://medcoeckapwstorprd01.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/pfw-images/borden/conventional-warfare/Chap4Pages13-25.pdf
View attachment 807339

I'll make the same response as I did in June to this paper.
"This paper seeks to support the notion of ‘hydrostatic shock’, but it fails to prove how meaningful it is to incapacitate as it relates to time since it is just simply a review of the existing literature on ballistic pressure waves. It even fails to prove that hydrostatic shock would be the correct terminology for the observed effect, since ballistic pressure wave is a much more accurate description.

If someone wanted to use this paper to ‘prove’ hydrostatic shock exists I guess you could. I think it would be more accurate to say that it shows there is research measuring tissue damage from ballistic pressure waves/the temporary stretch cavity and cause damage at energy transfer levels above 300ft/lb and is more evident above 600ft/lb, but how this aids in time to incapacitation is undetermined currently."

Exactly my point. Cherry pick one yellow statement in one sentence and make a conclusion on the entire study> Well done

It is NOT meaningless - the study shows exactly how meaningful it is - try reading page 2 the entire right side of the data.
here is part of it

For example, Ibolja Cernak, a leadingresearcher in blast wave injury at theApplied Physics Laboratory at JohnsHopkins University, hypothesized,"alterations in brain function followingblast exposure are induced by kineticenergy transfer of blast overpressure viagreat blood vessels in abdomen andthorax to the central nervous system."[22]This hypothesis is supported byobservations of neural effects in thebrain from localized blast exposurefocused on the lungs in animalexperiments.[20]“Hydrostatic shock” expresses the ideathat organs can be damaged by thepressure wave independently fromdirect contact with the penetratingprojectile. If one interprets the "shock" in"hydrostatic shock" to refer tophysiological effects rather than physicalwave characteristics, the question ofwhether the pressure waves satisfy thedefinition of “shock wave” isunimportant. There is compellingscientific evidence supporting the abilityof a ballistic pressure wave to createtissue damage and incapacitation inliving targets.
Here is a quote talking about pressure waves measured in PSI - again supporting my premise

Remote Pressure Wave Effects in theSpine and Internal OrgansThe brain is not the only organ subjectto remote pressure wave effects. In astudy of handgun injury, Sturtevantfound that pressure waves from a bulletimpact in the torso can reach the spine.Moreover, a focusing effect fromconcave surfaces can concentrate thepressure wave on the spinal cord,producing significant injury.[15] This isconsistent with other work showingremote spinal cord injuries from ballisticimpacts.[38][39]A group at Johns Hopkins University(Roberts et al.) has published bothexperimental work and finite elementmodeling showing considerablepressure wave magnitudes in thethoracic cavity produced by handgunprojectiles stopped by a Kevlarvest.[16][17] For example, an 8 gramprojectile at 360 m/s impacting a NIJlevel II vest over the sternum canproduce an estimated pressure wavelevel of nearly 2.0 MPa (300 PSI) in theheart and of nearly 1.5 MPa (220 PSI) in 4the lungs. Impacting over the liver canproduce an estimated pressure wavelevel of 2.0 MPa (300 PSI) in the liver.

There is even more discussion in the pic for


You were incorrect in June and continue to be, about this study anyway

Ill read the others as I am able.

 

[Article 4]

So you went back and edited it, after I asked the question? Why not just plainly answer it- I don’t make a habit of rereading prior posts that have been edited, and I took it as you stating that somewhere in this entire thread you had answered it before.

View attachment 807370

Wrong but believe what you need to - to be right - its has been there the whole time

 

[wind gypsy]

So you went back and edited it, after I asked the question? Why not just plainly answer it- I don’t make a habit of rereading prior posts that have been edited, and I took it as you stating that somewhere in this entire thread you had answered it before.

View attachment 807370

I'm pretty sure the first word of his response was "No" from the beginning. I interpreted it as him answering your question with a No.

 

[Article 4]

Ok. Second question then-


2). Once you have measured the actual, physical wound created in tissue or proper tissue simulate, what does how many ft-lbs of energy it had matter- as you already know the actual wound (not the potential)?

As stated, perfect shots yield perfect results. I agree with a hole making something die.

If not perfect, If we take the entire wound and not just the hole made, the entire body and affect of the hydrostatic shock creates additional wounding and significant incapacitating affect. This affect all the associated organs and has been shown to reach the brain. I simple hole by itself cannot do that

how do you explain entire chest cavities with the organs turned to mush - a hole in itself cannot do that

 

[hereinaz]

If our paths end up crossing in a few weeks, you’re welcome to shoot off my RRS ascend. I’m not convinced that tripods are the answer but I’ve certainly given them a good shake. Slower, more stable…not a substitution for getting stable quick and killing shit.

100%, tripod is not for speed. I practice quick ways to get stable and use my experience in NRL Hunter and PRS for creativity.

That said, a tripod can be very, very fast with practice when there is no other option for stability.

It’s another reason why I use the two section inverted tripod leg. A regular tripod is much slower.

It’s just a tool. Like so many, it’s context related and subject to practice.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

He posted a lot of tripod groups too. More Kraft drill type stuff than Carls hunting drill type stuff from the "equip vs practice" thread.

I remember appreciating his results driven posts with photo and data to back it up, rather than just typing "opinions".

 

[The Guide]

Wrong but believe what you need to - to be right - its has been there the whole time

BULLSH!T!!! I WILL CALL YOU A LIAR TO YOUR FACE! I saw your post and then I saw your edit. You did not answer the question until you edited the response. You have lost all credibility.

Jay

 

[HuntHarder]

BULLSH!T!!! I WILL CALL YOU A LIAR TO YOUR FACE! I saw your post and then I saw your edit. You did not answer the question until you edited the response. You have lost all credibility.

Jay

Jay---- maybe just stay out of a discussion between 2 guys specifically talking to each other.

 

[The Guide]

Jay---- maybe just stay out of a discussion between 2 guys specifically talking to each other.

Nope. A liar is a liar. He edited his post to answer the question. I saw it in real time. And who are you to tell me what I can and can post? I don't need to and never will ask your permission for anything.

Jay

 

[Article 4]

BULLSH!T!!! I WILL CALL YOU A LIAR TO YOUR FACE! I saw your post and then I saw your edit. You did not answer the question until you edited the response. You have lost all credibility.

.

BULLSH!T!!! I WILL CALL YOU A LIAR TO YOUR FACE! I saw your post and then I saw your edit. You did not answer the question until you edited the response. You have lost all credibility.

Jay

I refer you to a quote by forrest gump.

 

[Formidilosus]

I'm pretty sure the first word of his response was "No" from the beginning. I interpreted it as him answering your question with a No.

Negative sir. He initially posted his response on that post at 9:53am my time (8:53am his time). I quoted his initial response at 9:57, see below. He went back and edited it at 10:04am. And then stated in post #222 that it was there the whole time. It was not.

 

[Article 4]

Nope. A liar is a liar. He edited his post to answer the question. I saw it in real time. And who are you to tell me what I can and can post? I don't need to and never will ask your permission for anything.

Jay

In real time. so at the same time. While i was writing it. Love you man

 

[Article 4]

Negative sir. He initially posted his response on that post at 9:53am my time (8:53am his time). I quoted his initial response at 9:57, see below. He went back and edited it at 10:04am. And then stated in post #222 that it was there the whole time. It was not.




View attachment 807385

totally false. lie

 

[Article 4]

Negative sir. He initially posted his response on that post at 9:53am my time (8:53am his time). I quoted his initial response at 9:57, see below. He went back and edited it at 10:04am. And then stated in post #222 that it was there the whole time. It was not.




View attachment 807385

totally false.

 

[Formidilosus]

totally false. lie

It’s literally screen shot.

 

[Article 4]

Ok so @Formidilosus - You are a bully and will continue to be. You can waste someone else’s time.

 

[ARK_Ginger]

Exactly my point. Cherry pick one yellow statement in one sentence and make a conclusion on the entire study> Well done

It is NOT meaningless - the study shows exactly how meaningful it is - try reading page 2 the entire right side of the data.
here is part of it

For example, Ibolja Cernak, a leadingresearcher in blast wave injury at theApplied Physics Laboratory at JohnsHopkins University, hypothesized,"alterations in brain function followingblast exposure are induced by kineticenergy transfer of blast overpressure viagreat blood vessels in abdomen andthorax to the central nervous system."[22]This hypothesis is supported byobservations of neural effects in thebrain from localized blast exposurefocused on the lungs in animalexperiments.[20]“Hydrostatic shock” expresses the ideathat organs can be damaged by thepressure wave independently fromdirect contact with the penetratingprojectile. If one interprets the "shock" in"hydrostatic shock" to refer tophysiological effects rather than physicalwave characteristics, the question ofwhether the pressure waves satisfy thedefinition of “shock wave” isunimportant. There is compellingscientific evidence supporting the abilityof a ballistic pressure wave to createtissue damage and incapacitation inliving targets.
Here is a quote talking about pressure waves measured in PSI - again supporting my premise

Remote Pressure Wave Effects in theSpine and Internal OrgansThe brain is not the only organ subjectto remote pressure wave effects. In astudy of handgun injury, Sturtevantfound that pressure waves from a bulletimpact in the torso can reach the spine.Moreover, a focusing effect fromconcave surfaces can concentrate thepressure wave on the spinal cord,producing significant injury.[15] This isconsistent with other work showingremote spinal cord injuries from ballisticimpacts.[38][39]A group at Johns Hopkins University(Roberts et al.) has published bothexperimental work and finite elementmodeling showing considerablepressure wave magnitudes in thethoracic cavity produced by handgunprojectiles stopped by a Kevlarvest.[16][17] For example, an 8 gramprojectile at 360 m/s impacting a NIJlevel II vest over the sternum canproduce an estimated pressure wavelevel of nearly 2.0 MPa (300 PSI) in theheart and of nearly 1.5 MPa (220 PSI) in 4the lungs. Impacting over the liver canproduce an estimated pressure wavelevel of 2.0 MPa (300 PSI) in the liver.

There is even more discussion in the pic for


You were incorrect in June and continue to be, about this study anyway

Ill read the others as I am able.

Drawing logical conclusions doesn't seem to be your strong suite. Nothing you have provided shows that the ballistic pressure waves decreases incapacitation times from tissue damaged beyond the permanent wound cavity (expect for CNS like the spine), all that they're showing is that it's measurable and can cause damage.

 

[Formidilosus]

Ok so @Formidilosus - You are a bully and will continue to be. You can waste someone else’s time.

You edited your post- which can be seen by everyone, and then are claiming that you didn’t.

 

[ARK_Ginger]

What wastes people's time is repeating gun-counter level Fudd nonsense and cherry picking partial data to try and back it up. There are plenty other forums out there willing to eat that up, rehashing that opinion on this forum every 6ish months is just trolling at this point.

 

[The Guide]

In real time. so at the same time. While i was writing it. Love you man

Saw the initial post and then the edited post which included information added above and below your initial posted response. Gaslight someone else, I'm not the one who changed the post.

Jay