Quote:
Originally posted by Bozos of Bones:
And now Fackler would disagree with you, because he was one of the people who proved the theory of hydrostatic shock false.
1) The case of the 10mm auto round is larger than the case of the .45, so that explains that.
|
...and the case of the .223 is larger than any pistol round. What's your point?
Dr.Fackler didn't disprove anything of the sort. I'm familiar with everything he's wrote and he's doesn't so much disagree with hydrostatic shock as state that it's a very complex situation.
Quote:
|
2) You forget pain [img]smile.gif[/img]
|
Not at all. Bleed-out, shock, and pain are all closely related.
Quote:
|
3) Pistol rounds are a bit of a wild card, since they possess greater disfigurement and maneuvering once inside the body. A near miss from a pistol loses some speed, changes form and gains "flaps", which turns it within the target and makes it travel in weird paths. A rifle's bullet will most likely just keep on trucking, with minimal turning.
|
A "near miss", by definition, does nothing - as it has not hit the target.
The shockwave of a nearby high-power rifle round (such as the .30-06 or a BMG .50 sniper rifle) has been proven to disrupt the body enough to cause serious injury, especially in the case of the head area.
In the case of the BMG .50, from a sniper rifle or an M2HB, when hitting
anywhere in the body is often enough to kill the target outright.
In any case, you keep forgetting body armour. If the target wears
any body armour a pistol shot is just going to annoy him (unless you have the tremendous presence of mind in a combat situation to do a headshot - not many civilians can do this) while a rifle round will go right through it - even trauma plates will just keep him alive, not keep him uninjured.
Ah well, you can keep arguing this if you want, I'm dealing with a funeral right now and my hearts not in it.
[ 09-26-2006, 07:51 AM: Message edited by: Sir Krustin ]