WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE WOUND BALLISTICS LITERATURE, AND WHY

[Jay]

Attempts to explain wound ballistics (the study of effects on the body produced by penetrating projectiles) have succeeded in mystifying it. Fallacious research by those with little grasp of the fundamentals has been perpetuated by editors, reviewers, and other investigators with no better grasp of the subject. This report explains the projectile-tissue interaction and presents data showing the location of tissue disrupted by various projectiles. These tissue disruption data are presented in the form of wound profiles. The major misconceptions perpetuated in the field are listed, analyzed, and their errors exposed using wound profiles and other known data. The more serious consequences of these misconceptions are discussed. Failure in adhering to the basic precepts of scientific method is the common denominator in all of the listed misconceptions.

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

 

[kingnereli]

Bookmarked for later reading.

 

[dbd870]

Good read.

 

[Indianajeff]

I think there are just too many variables that are in play to determine the exact performance of a round. Brand A might expand perfectly and penetrate 13 inches in one test in a lab, that same round shot out of another gun a 32 degrees through a winter coat may not expand at all....etc

 

[Buckaroo]

Being that this was from 1987 and that Dr. Fackler and others have brought this science up to speed with greatly improved methods and real science, I would say that this article was spot-on and now most researchers are following Dr. Fackler's methodology.

IOW this should be old news but is important for folks to know how much this area of study has evolved.

Buckaroo