Originally Posted by safariman
Originally Posted by jwp475


The idea of damage at distant locations from the wound channel is a bit controversial to say the least.


Not to those who have seen it hundreds of times, it isn't. Nor is it controversial to those who have studied it in depth like the US Military and others. I used a 300RUM for collecting bait animals in Africa because it, more often than not, put everything it touched right down, right now. No tracking, dragging, chasing etc. when getting as many baits into the trees as e. in as short a time as possible. Could have used my 416 Rigby with 350-400gr bullets that would have had a much higher theoretical knock out factor but on real live animals, impact speed and the resultant trauma to the not touched directly CNS etc. was the hands down winner for DRT, right NOW.


Well Mark you need to do a bit more research on the subject IMHO Dr. Fackler was a battle field surgeon before he turned his life's work to the study of wound ballistics and doesn't agree. I tend to stand on his take of the matter.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock



Fackler's contra-claim[edit]
Dr. Martin Fackler, a Vietnam-era trauma surgeon, wound ballistics researcher, a Colonel in the U.S. Army and the head of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory for the U.S. Army�s Medical Training Center, Letterman Institute, claimed that hydrostatic shock had been disproved and that the assertion that a pressure wave plays a role in injury or incapacitation is a myth.[16] Others expressed similar views.[17][18]

Dr. Fackler based his argument on the lithotriptor, a tool commonly used to break up kidney stones. The lithotriptor uses sonic pressure waves which are stronger than those caused by most handgun bullets,[citation needed] yet it produces no damage to soft tissues whatsoever. Hence, Fackler argued, ballistic pressure waves cannot damage tissue either.[19]

Dr. Fackler claimed that a study of rifle bullet wounds in Vietnam (Wound Data and Munitions Effectiveness Team) found �no cases of bones being broken, or major vessels torn, that were not hit by the penetrating bullet. In only two cases, an organ that was not hit (but was within a few cm of the projectile path), suffered some disruption.� Dr. Fackler cited a personal communication with R. F. Bellamy.[16] However, Bellamy�s published findings the following year[20] estimated that 10% of fractures in the data set might be due to indirect injuries, and one specific case is described in detail (pp. 153�154). In addition, the published analysis documents five instances of abdominal wounding in cases where the bullet did not penetrate the abdominal cavity (pp. 149�152), a case of lung contusion resulting from a hit to the shoulder (pp. 146�149), and a case of indirect effects on the central nervous system (p. 155). Fackler's critics argue that Fackler's evidence does not contradict distant injuries, as Fackler claimed, but the WDMET data from Vietnam actually provides supporting evidence for it.[20][21]

Last edited by jwp475; 04/21/14.

I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first