View Single Post
Old March 29, 2005, 12:00 AM   #31
SIGLOCKAUR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 10, 2004
Posts: 279
Their isjust too much b.s. out there. True ballistic experts are rare. The ones that have actually studied the effects of gunshots (medical people who have studied acual wounds and worked on those thus wounded make a few things clear.
1. No pistol round has the velocity or power to make a permanent wound track any more damaging by "hydrostatic shock". A pistol merely crushes or with the right bullet design cuts flesh about the size of the caliber of the bullet. The temporary wound channel does not tretch most tisse beyond it's elastic limit. In other words for a fraction of a second the wound is bigger than the size of the projectile. Non-elastic tissue like the liver my be an exception. Those that remove bullets from gunshot victims can tell no difference in the wound cavities of 9mm, .40, .45, etc. In fact until they remove the bullet they don't usually know what caliber was used.
2. High velocity rifle rounds do often exceed the elastic limits of tissue causing wound channels larger than the round used. Add to that many of these rounds fragment and create secondary missiles that cause multiple wound channels it maes almost any centerire rifle more effective than a pistol. Some rifle rounds
also tumble through the body and cause extra dmage. The Russian 5.45 (I believe this is the proper size) are designed to upset early and damge is increased by this tumbling.
SIGLOCKAUR is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.05071 seconds with 7 queries