| From: | Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Questions of great importance (Steve, Jon, RA:S people especially) |
| Date: | Fri, 3 Sep 1999 21:30:58 +0100 |
IronRaven <cyberraven@********.net> writes
> Marc, you've said this before, and you didn't answer my question the last
>time you said it:
> If hydrostatics don't work, then how come things like the ACR dart loads
>devloped by AAI and Steyr, and the 4.7 mm round for the G11, perform as
>well if not better in test against various test media (including a test on
>Strassberg goats conducted after the close of the tests, in France) as the
>standard 62-gr 5.56 NATO?
>The G11 rounds are no faster than 5.56, are
>smaller, and weigh less.
They also have a greater aspect ratio, and there's a synergistic effect
from the three-round burst of multiple rounds impacting in the same
area.
>The flechette loads aren't faster, but they are
>super light and they have almost no frontal area in compairison to other
>rounds.
...which is why they produce minimal wounding and are relatively
ineffective.
> Now, I know about the gall stone treatment. That simple claim does not
>take into acount differences between mineral deposits in the body, live
>hard tissue and live soft tissue, in the areas of natural resonance,
>elasticity, and the like.
Shock waves are shock waves. They should, if "hydrostatic shock" is a
massive wounding mechanism, cause enormous tissue damage...
>It leaves out the fact that the energy
>transfeered is less than that of modern rilfe round,
Each vlithotriptor pulse is more energetic than the shockwave produced by
a 7.62mm NATO round.
>and doesn't (accord to
>the folks I've talked to) start at a maximum level, but insteads builds
>from zero, while rifle rounds are rather sudden.
Shock waves don't "build" - that's why they're shockwaves...
>The shock waves are
>focused on a relatively focused area, while being shot is more of a full
>body experince.
Compare being punched to being stabbed. A knife delivers the same
energy to a much smaller area and does more damage as a result...
>You also didn't mention that women who are pregnant aren't
>given that treatment, according to the folks I talked to (a couple RNs and
>an MD- I've come to know my local ED staff pretty well over the years).
Pregnant women aren't given abdominal X-rays either, but that doesn't
mean X-rays will kill you instantly, or even that week.
> I'm not an expert in physiology, I only have enough knowledge for what I
>do and to know where to stick a knife for the best effect. I don't know a
>lot of physics, or how shockwaves effect soft tissue. What I do know is
>that I've never have shot critters of the same species and roughly the same
>size, in the same area. I've never ahd the get up with .223s, but I have
>had them get up with .30-30s and 7.62x39 loads that produce the same amount
>of force (mass x accelleration) acrss the total frontal area with
>low-expansion bullets. If it isn't hydrostatic shock (which you have
>claimed), or the effects of a stretch cavity (which I recall you also
>stating), and in all cases they exited the main body, so it sure ain't
>pentration, what the heck was it?
What's the twist in your .223 barrel, and what ammo are you using? You're
most likely seeing the effect of early yaw. 5.56 yaws very early in tissue,
while 7.62 x 39 is notably overstabilised. Don't know .30-.30 too well, but
isn't it a roundnose rather than a spitzer bullet? In which case, again you're
getting no yaw.
--
Paul J. Adam
