sigcurious
New member
Does this assume unobtainium has the same physical properties as lead, minus mass?
If it isn't reliable... then it can't be relied on nor counted.
Because if otherwise the statement is inaccurate.Then why credit extra damage that is low reliability...
It's only a serious problem if the hemorrhaging is sufficient to be a serious problem. There are examples of inelastic tissue that is very vascular tissue in the human body. The spleen, liver, kidneys and the brain are all examples of highly vascular inelastic tissue. These organs can be permanently and catastrophically damaged by temporary stretch, even when only handgun bullets are involved.Internal hemorrhaging in tissue is bruising... its only a serious problem in a open cavity or if its outside the body.
Ok, now we're mixing things. Now you're talking not about wounding, but about incapacitation.Its also not a major issue if the damage is to smaller arteries. At least not with the speed needed in a defense situation.
Yes. The only variable would be weight/mass/density of the core material, not other physical properties such as hardness or elasticity. All other properties must be identical if the experiment is going to compare the two projectiles based solely on expansion relative to weight, at a constant velocity.sigcurious said:Does this assume unobtainium has the same physical properties as lead, minus mass?
JohnKSa: said:It is inaccurate to say that temporary stretch cavity does not/can not cause permanent damage in tissue because it can be documented that it actually can and does cause permanent damage under the proper circumstances.
JohnKSa said:The short story of handgun incapacitation is that it can't be reliably achieved "with the speed needed in a defense situation" unless the central nervous system is significantly damaged. And there is no handgun/bullet combination that can guarantee that since that's primarily dependent on where the bullet goes (is aimed).
And the question that started this discussion did not ask about either placement or penetration.TEXASFIVEGUN said:Placement is KING and Penetration is QUEEN everything else is Angles dancing on pin heads!
The golf ball delivers much much greater energy to the guy's head.
Energy delivered to the target matters.
If you don't believe me, you provide the test head and I'll provide the ping pong ball and the golf ball.
Still peddling the same worn-out disinformation, huh?
Wolberg's research paper is valid, here's why-
It is common and accepted practice for researchers to select the parametric and data constraints for their case studies. If this were viewed as reason to discredit his or anyone else's research and findings, then every case study research article that has ever been written and its findings would have to be thrown out. In fact, parametric and constraint selection is a sound practice within scientific research projects and to attempt to portray it as some sort of dishonesty is an act of intellectual dishonesty itself. So long as it is done honestly and openly (as evidenced by Wolberg's explanations of the constraints of his data selection on the first page of the article cited above) and the reasons for such constraint can be shown to be valid, then it is a valid practice.
Nanuk: said:Still peddling the same worn-out disinformation, huh?
Wolberg's research paper is valid, here's why-
It is common and accepted practice for researchers to select the parametric and data constraints for their case studies. If this were viewed as reason to discredit his or anyone else's research and findings, then every case study research article that has ever been written and its findings would have to be thrown out. In fact, parametric and constraint selection is a sound practice within scientific research projects and to attempt to portray it as some sort of dishonesty is an act of intellectual dishonesty itself. So long as it is done honestly and openly (as evidenced by Wolberg's explanations of the constraints of his data selection on the first page of the article cited above) and the reasons for such constraint can be shown to be valid, then it is a valid practice.
Ok of 156 or 157 shootings he only used 27 bullets that met his "criteria" but M&S is made up RIGHT........
There's a fundamental difference between the two acts (the selection of viable data versus the falsification and manipulation of outcomes) that you are either unaware of or have simply chosen to ignore.
Wolberg excluded incomplete/inapplicable data that had no chance of providing the information that he needed by eliminating hits to bony tissues and wound tracks that left the bodies of his subjects.
Marshall and Sanow manipulated their outcomes to arrive at a desired conclusion, hence the highly suspect results and falisfied data uncovered in the statisitcal analysis here-
Nanuk: said:Semantics, manipulation is manipulation. I am not ignoring anything, I know what I have seen and what has worked on the street and what has not worked on the street.
Nanuk: said:I know for a fact that if you take a 38 special +P 125 grain JHP which is a marginal stopper and increase the velocity by 500 FPS and call it a magnum it works very well on people.