None-the-less Mr. Patrick did not himself conduct any scientific process to write his book, he cited the work of others.
He conducted no scientific
experiments himself.
Summarizing and drawing conclusions from the work of others is part of the scientific processes.
Furthermore, this was written in 1987.
Right. What has changed since that time resides in the realm of ammunition development.
In addition, a lot of work has been done in evaluating the performance of pistol shooters using different loads.
... the myth of "knockdown power" (as in the bullet physically forces the target back upon impact) was very much still rampant at the time
It would seem that it still is.
This work excels at refuting that concept.
Patrick did make that point, among many others.
At no point have I inferred that any handgun (or even rifle) round will physically force you back or knock you down.
No.
You have tried to draw conclusions from how different pistol bullets knock down poppers--an irrelevant subject.
If that were the case, the police officer hit with a 7.62 round would have fallen over regardless of how the impulse was distributed over a greater area.
Precisely!
Furthermore, the FBI was testing 10mm due to the perceived weakness of 9mm at the exact same time this book was written. Ultimately the FBI decided that 10mm was too much recoil for many agents. This book may have aided in "selling" the idea that 9mm wasn't so bad after all (which it isn't).
In 1987, few experts would have concluded that the 9mm loads available at the time were necessarily ideal for use in defensive handguns.
That would have to wait for another day, after considerable improvement in the performance of premium bonded jacket hollow point bullets had occurred.
There is no momentum imparted on you when you fire a .45, as the projectile is not in motion at the onset. Force is applied, measured in mass times acceleration. It is not the same.
When the projectile is not in motion, there
are no forces, acceleration, momenta, or velocity involved.
The thing that makes the gun move is force, and that force results from the
conservation of momentum.
And a textbook definition of impulse is the change in momentum.
True. And when the momentum of an object starts out as zero, the
momentum after a reaction is the same as the
change in momentum.
And we are in the weeds now, as I cede that there is no proof that impulse has any affect on wounding ability.
Alrighty then.
I personally believe that it does, and it is there and greater in 45acp than 9mm, none-the-less.
Do you have any basis at all for your personal belief?
There is also no scientific proof that impulse plays no affect, nor can there be.
Right. One cannot prove a negative.
There are simply too many variables to control in reviewing case studies of prior shootings, and on top of it we obviously cannot conduct a scientific study by shooting real people with real projectiles.
Not only that, there are no case studies to provide any data whatsoever on the
speed at which incapacitation occurred; the variable of the effects of
psychology cannot be evaluated separately; and there is no really good mechanism to determine
which of several hits may have had what effect in incapacitating the target.
This is why I reject the notion that there is any irrefutable scientific evidence that suggests 45acp has no wounding capacity difference than 9mm.
Fine. Go ahead and believe that it does. Do you think the difference is material?
It does seem very counterintuitive when one observes the (slight) difference in expanded diameter , but the authoritative publications currently being relied upon as the preeminent source tell us thatcher is no discernible differences between the wounding effecst of today's premium 9mm defensive loads and the .40 and the .45. Perhaps they meant "material" differences, but that is not what they said.
Of course, that is only part of the conclusion The other part pertains to how well shooters can use handguns of different kinds.
Rob Pincus, who had even carrying a .40 and before that, a .45, put it this way:
"Physics dictates that the 9mm is going to be a more manageable round (lower recoil) than the .40 S&W out of any particular firearm. So, no matter how much you train and how much you practice, everyone should be able to shoot a string of Combat Accurate 9mm rounds faster than they can fire a string of .40".
(Emphasis added)
"Faster" means more rounds on target timely, and more rounds on target increase the probability that at least one of them will be effective.
If you can find any accepted source that objectively refutes the current FBI conclusions , we would all lime to see it.
