Handguns and Ammunition Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Defining "Terminal Ballistics"

3K views 0 replies 0 participants last post by  Guest 
G
#1 ·
As Stephen Camp posted in the first 'sticky', this subject area is more likely to incite flame wars than most firearms-related topics. This is unlikely to happen, though if members will leave their assumptions and prejudices at the door. We can all learn some things here if we are willing to read, then think, and only after careful thought write our replies. This forum is about the exchange of knowledge and ideas, not defense of egos or dogma.

"Terminal ballistics" can be narrowly defined as the study of the behavior of missiles (bullets) when they strike their target medium. This is, in the present day, a laboratory science using ballistic gelatin as a terminal medium, and utilizing highly detailed testing protocols and precision measuring devices.

But "terminal ballistics" is often broadly taken to include the study of the behavior of the target medium when struck by a bullet. Although this is more accurately referred to as terminal effects, it is often what most internet forum members have in mind when they think about terminal ballistics.

Since this is not a scientific forum, I think it's reasonable to use the broader definition, which includes both the science of terminal ballistics and the formal and informal study of terminal effects.

Discussion of these topics should be as broad-based as possible if we are going to do any real learning. I would like to echo Stephen's call for folks to post from their experiences rather than from hearsay. Experiences can be intentional or incidental, from the range or from the street, from war zones or hospitals, and can include relevant observations vis a vis handgun, rifle, shotgun, and automatic weapon GSW's and ballistics tests.

We need not be concerned about people's "research methodology". If someone has tested their ammunition by a method they believe is relevant to their experience, I firmly uphold their right to post it here. This is a place where ordinary shooters can discuss their experiences with like-minded people, not a scientific discussion board.

I encourage anyone who has a serious interest in the study of terminal ballistics & effects to consider doing some research offline. Most of the serious resources in terminal ballistics & effects are not available online. If you have access to a medical school library it would be well worth taking the time to look up the papers published by Dr. Martin Fackler since the 1970's. If you can find back issues of the now-defunct International Wound Ballistics Association Journal, there are numerous articles worth reading. A good textbook on GSW's is Vincent DiMaio's "Gunshot Wounds", which is in print and available through various sources. Duncan McPherson's "Bullet Penetration" is an outstanding book.

Online resources can be spotty. David DiFabio's ammolab.com is an excellent resource, but it costs money. There is a useful Terminal Effects forum at www.tacticalforums.com, but I would advise you tread cautiously there... many of those who "live" there are cranky and intolerant of newbies. It's a good place to read and do searches (excellent archives). It's well worth reading Dr. Gary Roberts' posted reviews of ammunition. Dr. Roberts also has published articles in Police Marksman and other journals that are worth looking for.

Thanks for browsing this forum. I'm looking forward to some interesting discussions in here.
 
See less See more
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top