06-12-2011, 03:30 PM
stanc Wrote:Gene,
Danger space is a matter of numbers. Knowing the trajectories, it is easy to determine if one is XX% longer than the other.
But, how can one compare wound profiles and say this one is XX% better than that one. If one wound profile has a 3" neck, and another has a 4" neck, does that mean the former will provide 25% better probability of incapacitation? I think that's very unlikely.
I see no point in arbitrarily specifiying a certain percent of improvement. At this stage, I just want to know what level of improvement can be achieved.
Stan
Stan:
Easy to compare wound cavities in terms of kill / incapacitation capabilities. You compare the amount of tissue damage / temporary and permanent wound cavity and the one with the highest amount of both (combined) has a higher probability of inflicting a wound -- either critical injury or incapacitation. The more tissue your bullet damages in relation to a target the dimensions of an adult upper torso the higher the probability it will damage the heart / lung area and arteries. There is no way around it.
I contend that the technology of small arms is pretty mature with little on the horizon that shows promise of a significant improvement in issued service rifle ammunition. You do not need to explore things that have already matured in terms of technology. You need to start comparing using criteria that you all know as authorities / experts are critical factors or variables. To do so, you must be able to state what represents significance.
What represents a significant increase in wound cavity at 100, 300 and 500 meters?
Oh yes, almost forgot. Why are you trying to use subsonic pistol ammunition as a model to compare with supersonic rifle ammunition?
LR1955