Knock down/stopping power... Fact or Fiction?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't think anyone is arguing that there are physiological effects of ballistic impacts. The problem is that it isn't quantifiable to a specific A+B=C equation because the human body isn't a homogeneous target.

We are in violent agreement that MV plays little part (jury's still out on a 12ga at point blank ranges -- some things defy explanation.)

.
 
mavracer

Mello2u
Testing has demonstrates that bullets traveling under 1800 - 2000 fps do not cause damage to vascular tissue with the temporary cavity, with the exception of the liver.
Do you have a link to this testing? because I'm calling BS I've seen massive damage done to lung tissue by a 44mag and the bullet never entered the chest cavity. I've also seen many real tests. www.brassfetcher.com and www.ballisticstestinggooup.org which suggest remote wounding from temporrary cavity happens with less than 500 ft lbs of KE.

See:
http://rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html

The entire essay is valuable reading, if a bit hard to follow.

"2. Exaggeration of Temporary Cavity Size, Pressure, and Effect:"

Read the four (4) paragraphs under this heading.

The fourth paragraph concludes about high velocity rifle bullets (2989 fps):

"It should be noted, however, that stretch from temporary cavity tissue displacement can disrupt blood vessels or break bones at some distance from the projectile path (40), just as they can be disrupted by blunt trauma. We can produce this in the laboratory by careful choice of projectile and projectile trajectory in tissue (48), but in practice this happens only very rarely. Data from the Vietnam conflict show that the great majority of torso and extremity wounds were attributable to the damage due to the permanent cavity alone (59)."
 
If this keeps up, pretty soon we'll conclude that no one ever dies from a gunshot; they just give up on their own and decide to die because that's what they thought they were supposed to do. Animals, of course, do not think that way and never die.

That's friggin priceless!!
 
I think a definition of exactly what some of you mean by knockdown is needed. If you mean falling to the ground after being shot, then call it what you want. It happens, and can happen with any caliber from 22 rimfire to 500 S&W.
Now if you mean taken off your feet, and thrown through the air movie style, that is strictly Hollywood, and does not happen.
I think that is where a lot of the disagreement is coming from.
Go to the ground after being shot-Yes
Being pushed back several feet to several yards, and knocked to the ground-No
 
The entire essay is valuable reading, if a bit hard to follow.

"2. Exaggeration of Temporary Cavity Size, Pressure, and Effect:"

Read the four (4) paragraphs under this heading.

Ya I figured you were using Fackler when you regurgatated his 2000fps number he basicly pulled out his butt.
He seriously misrepresents the data and doesn't include it.
Here's a paper from my second link.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0812/0812.4927.pdf
from the abstract
"An article (J Trauma 29:10-18, 1989) cites unpublished wound ballistics data to support the
authors’ view that distant injuries are a myth in wound ballistics. The actual data, published in 1990, actually
contains a number of detailed examples of distant injuries."
 
"An article (J Trauma 29:10-18, 1989) cites unpublished wound ballistics data to support the authors’ view that distant injuries are a myth in wound ballistics.

Michael Courtney? I've read enough debates between that guy and others on wound ballistics that I would be careful trying to rest my argument on him as a source.
 
The same kind of people that believe, or believed in actual 'knock down' power. Are the ones who subscribe to 'stopping power'. Its people that don't know how to science.
 
Michael Courtney? I've read enough debates between that guy and others on wound ballistics that I would be careful trying to rest my argument on him as a source.
When one person says something doesn't exist and another says it does. It's not real hard to figure out which one is correct when you have seen the something in question.
 
Google Zapruder to see it in well documented action.

You might Google Oswald and find out he used a rifle.

And notice Kennedy was not sent flying out of his seat.

His HEAD moved from the blast of brain exiting under the energy of a center fire rifle, not a handgun.

You can look for Iraq war footage of a US soldier being hit with in his plate.

He was not knocked off his feet (and that WAS a rifle).

Momentum is what moves objects, and handgun bullets simply do not have that much momentum.
 
We've already had the MV discussion.
There's no there, there, in that aspect of knockdown
Rifle or pistol

re JFK/Zapruder said:
"...His HEAD moved from the blast of brain exiting under the energy of a center fire rifle, not a handgun.

Negative again. His whole body spasmed/arched backwards, from a relatively slow-moving bullet impact ...from the back. His head did not jerk back from brain exit to the front. That jet of matter/exit had been pushed out due to bullet impact in the same direction, not rocket action/reaction in the opposite direction

That JFK/backwards movement/spasm was examined in detail by the second Commision, going so far as to broadcast the reaction of a goat being shot in the same fashion -- with the exact same back-breaking arch and all 4 feet splaying out backwards & forwards horizontally in reaction.

There is knockdown.
But it is CNS-related, not from MV.
 
Last edited:
Example of Knockdown power:

Professional football offensive lineman picks up a 25lb medicine ball and throws it at a 100lb womans chest as hard as he can. She catches it but gets knocked down.

Example of Stopping power:

Direct fire from a 155mm howitzer. Even a dumby round to the chest will stop any human being immediately.

Example of no appreciable knockdown or stopping power:

BB fired at 120fps.

Example of both knockdown and stopping power:

18lb cannon ball fired with a slight undercharge (so it doesn't overpenetrate). If it hits a person in the chest they are dead and also knocked back.


That establishes that both these things exists, and that their is a point where they have no appreciable affect on humans, and a point where each affect is completely guaranteed. That small arms fall somewhere on the spectrum between these extremes is a given. Determining where is pretty easy for knockdown power, as small arms are clearly barely better than a BB in that category. Stopping power on the other hand kicks in much faster, so basically all small arms have some measure of stopping power. Determining how much is virtually impossible though, so all you can do is rate them relative to each other based on certain factors, but even that is extremely hard to do unless one round is clearly better in all ways (larger caliber, higher velocity, greater weight, all at once).

Also shot placement plays NO PART in determining stopping power. That is a different subject entirely. If someone brings that up in a discussion of stopping power that means they have a basic misunderstanding of what is being discussed.
 
...shot placement plays NO PART in determining stopping power. That is a different subject entirely. If someone brings that up in a discussion of stopping power that means they have a basic misunderstanding of what is being discussed.

charlie-brown.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top