Fackler is an MD. He is a life long hunter. If he’s ever needed physics expertise then he’s consulted with a qualified professional, such as Duncan MacPherson.
Where did you obtain this information from?
Temporary cavity is indeed capable of producing permanent disruption beyond the tissue that is directly contacted and crushed by the penetrating bullet. There are various factors, which Fackler identifies in his writings, that influence the amount of tissue damaged by the temporary cavity.
Yet they’re probably unable to identify the wounding mechanisms that produced the observed wound.
Where, in Patrick’s Conclusion does he state that temporary cavity doesn’t exist?
Where doe’s Patrick offer an arbitrary number in which fragmentation does not occur? Suggest you study page 5.
Suggest you study his footnoted reference.
It's in his book.do you need me to find the page number.
that I'll buy
from the OP
and again in the post of mine you quoted out of.
and that I won't buy
Again I'm sorry lets see if you understand this way.the bullet never broke the membrain on the inside of the chest cavity therefor no direct contact with lungs. that would make damage to the lungs a effect of temporary cavity.
yes in summary he states
but elsewhere he says
I would agree that that is extremely accurate.except "temporary cavity does not wound"
No. Dr Fackler has shown that postulate #2 is at best a hope. That a temporary stretch cavity is just that - temporary. And that generally speaking organs have enough elasticity to survive the temporary cavity created by projectiles moving at handgun velocities. Quite likely long enough for them to do you great harm, and possibly allow them to lead a long life.
That I can buy into. BTW if you want to look at your point even further you might want to read Doc Roberts' discussion on the effects of various rifle caliber ammunition.
In his role as the head of the army's wound ballistic laboratory, Dr Fackler developed the techniques used to model the effects on human flesh using gelatin. Essentially writing the book on the subject. Those techniques have been have been accepted by the vast majority of professionals studying the effects of bullets on living human bodies. While I fully respect your level of knowledge and your opinions, I hope you understand if I follow the advice of the men that have made their livings running these tests for the DOJ and DOD. No slight to you intended.
I won't argue this point. Doc Roberts has often made the point that you should choose a proven round, in a caliber that you feel comfortable with (9mm and above), and fire it from a 4" or longer barrel in order to achieve sufficient velocity. I just choose to believe in bigger and deeper is gooder theory.
Not to throw a big wrenchinto the whole mess, but I always think it worth pointing out when this stuff comes up that there are a number researchers who disagree with Fackler, even to the extent they feel his formulation of ballistic gel is incorrect. A number of folks that are well respected in their field, particularly in Europe, use different formulae and have come to different conclusions. Not taking sides with either camp here (I think they are both fairly irrelevant to self defense DGU with a handgun) but it is a lot like global warming...some try to present it as a very one-sided, all are in agreement concept, but in reality there is a fairly good body of knowledge in opposition.
Yet tissues immediately surrounding the wound track, skin and subcutaneous tissues, were undamaged? Lung tissue is perhaps the most resilient. So the fact the temporary cavity did not fracture rib bones or produce splits and fissures in skin and subcutaneous tissue makes your claim suspect. I’m not calling you a liar – but something was overlooked during necropsy.
Fackler describes lung tissue as very resilient and able to withstand temporary cavity. The fact that lung tissue is less dense (gas filled) than other tissues means temporary cavity is smaller in diameter in lung tissue.
