Sidearms & Scatterguns Underwood 357 Sig 65gr Xtreme Defender Chrono Test

[Kinetic_Transfer]

The above toxic bickering

Have you been here long?

Because I haven't and it took me about 5 minutes to realize that 308pirate regularly talks down to other members and gets a pass for his attitude, yet when he is confronted with his own forum tactics.... suddenly words like "toxic" get thrown around and the drama ensues. Why didn't you call out such "toxic" behavior prior to my arrival in this thread?

This is a forum for gun enthusiasts; not academics, so this type of forum banter is to be expected from a small subset of members, but I digress.... I'm tired of the "mental masturbation " and hurt feelings. I'd rather discuss terminal ballistics with the big boys.

So which part of my brief dissertation do you think is wrong?

If you didn't single me out because you disagree with my comments on a scientific level.... then based on some of the things/names you mentioned and the papers you cited.... I have a feeling you might be Dr Gary K Roberts.

If it's the latter.... let's discuss your erroneous comments about the 357 Sig.

~

 

[Kinetic_Transfer]

bickering about high speed relatively low grain weight ammunition is a non-starter for a consensus resolution as to “best” or “non-conventional” caliber defense pistol carry and en face seems ridiculous.

Speaking of ridiculous.... Who here is looking for a consensus resolution?

Perhaps you missed what got me started on my partially science-mediated rant with the village idiot, but this has nothing to do with "best" calibers for self-defense or how to immediately dispatch an assailant with proper neuroanatomic placement of a bullet.

The initial premise of my comments was in retort to the unfounded opinion that the Lehigh Defense lightweight Xtreme series are nothing short of "gimmick ammo" that "won't do shit to stop a threat".

~

 

[Kinetic_Transfer]

Much of this discussion is mental masturbation about variables not controlled

I really don't care what you think about my comments, because the majority of them clearly pertained to the scientific dynamics of supersonic ammunition and how it relates to gunshot wounds. If you would rather not explain the scientific reasoning as to why these novel rounds are [not] a gimmick, then that's understandable, but I can and will. The forum member in question, originally posted his baseless opinion in a thread topic which he [clearly] had no interest in, other than to initiate controversy - which is what he's done for years.

~

 

[Kinetic_Transfer]

The topic of critical deterministic variables related to ballistic human wounding is a complex topic , it has not been (re-)solved in the civilian trauma medical / military literature and is not going to be resolved here in a simple over view forum discussion. The topic has been studied / debated extensively by civilian and military trauma surgeons for decades.

I'm quite familiar with the peer-reviewed literature pertaining to terminal ballistics, but I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "the topic of critical deterministic variables related to ballistic human wounding" "has not been resolved".

Who here in this thread is looking to "resolve" terminal ballistics variables? Certainly not me, so where are you going with this?

~

 

[Kinetic_Transfer]

Location, Location, Location. Relevant in both realty sales and specific human anatomic site gunshot wound disruptions of function.

Who in their right mind would argue this [well-established] scientific fact? Anatomic/neuroanatomic shot placement was never a particular facet of this discussion, as the conversation was contingent on countering blatantly asinine statements, which both you and I know are unequivocal bullshit.

~

 

[Kinetic_Transfer]

location, Not caliber or energy , is the most critical determinant in immediate incapacitation of the humanoid. Virtually any caliber with the correct trajectory through the reticular activating system (RAS) into the center of your brain will cause instant incapacitation.

Obviously placement is critical, but I shouldn't have to remind you that terminal ballistics is very much a multi-faceted science and that often times when you isolate a particular dynamic and claim that it is the most critical, you marginalize the remaining sequential determinants as if they are of little importance. I don't recall any literature throughout the years where the authors are merely discussing location alone, as being the absolute determinant.

Nonetheless, let's be realistic.... we're talking about every day/real-world handgun self defense scenarios with average people - not trained military rifle snipers. How many of these people do you think acquire the skills and are granted enough time under such high-stress situations (where milliseconds count) to intentionally place their shot within the RAS or the upper cervical spinal cord/C2 vertebra? Barely any would be a great answer.

~

 

[Kinetic_Transfer]

Standardized gelatin blocks do not accurately represent the complexity of skin-fat-muscle -bone barrier composition that bullets may encounter.

Simulation ballistics gelatin was never intended to represent the complexity of skin+fat+muscle+bone-barrier compositions and you are well aware of this fact. It serves it's purpose extremely well for those who know how to interpret temporary and permanent cavitation without being enamored by penetration depth.

~

 

[Kinetic_Transfer]

...

 

[Kinetic_Transfer]

Another alleged mechanism of incapacitation is so-called high energy-transfer or high energy deposit. Energy deposit is an abstract value, considering neither the way (crush/stretch) or location energy is transferred nor the type of tissue involved. Therefore, the amount of energy is of limited value in predicting effects in an actual shooting.

"Alleged"? "So called"? "limited value"?

No wonder why this wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal.

High energy transfer is well-established in the literature and it's a crucial determinant in the severity of trauma from GSW.



Wound ballistics of firearm-related injuries--part 1: missile characteristics and mechanisms of soft tissue wounding P K Stefanopoulos et al. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Dec.

Firearm-related injuries are caused by a wide variety of weapons and projectiles. The kinetic energy of the penetrating projectile defines its ability to disrupt and displace tissue, whereas the actual tissue damage is determined by the mode of energy release during the projectile-tissue interaction and the particular characteristics of the tissues and organs involved. Certain projectile factors, namely shape, construction, and stability, greatly influence the rate of energy transfer to the tissues along the wound track. Two zones of tissue damage can be identified, the permanent cavity created by the passage of the bullet and a potential area of contused tissue surrounding it, produced mainly by temporary cavitation which is a manifestation of effective high-energy transfer to tissue. Due to the complex nature of these injuries, wound assessment and the type and extent of treatment required should be based on an understanding of the various mechanisms contributing to tissue damage.



Wound ballistics of firearm-related injuries—Part 2: Mechanisms of skeletal injury and characteristics of maxillofacial ballistic trauma. P K Stefanopoulos et al. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 July

Maxillofacial firearm-related injuries vary in extent and severity because of the characteristics and behaviour of the projectile(s), and the complexity of the anatomical structures involved, whereas the degree of tissue disruption is also affected by the distance of the shot. In low-energy injuries there is limited damage to the underlying skeleton, which usually dominates the clinical picture, dictating a more straightforward therapeutic approach. High-energy injuries are associated with extensive hard and soft tissue disruption, and are characterized by a surrounding zone of damaged tissue that is prone to progressive necrosis as a result of compromised blood supply and wound sepsis. Current treatment protocols for these injuries emphasize the importance of serial debridement for effective wound control while favouring early definitive reconstruction.



Wound ballistics of military rifle bullets: An update on controversial issues and associated misconceptions Panagiotis K Stefanopoulos et al. J Trauma Acute Care Surg . 2019 Sep;87(3):690-698.

The wound ballistics literature contains several misconceptions about the physical effects of penetrating projectiles in tissue and tissue simulants. These can adversely affect the proper management of gunshot injuries, particularly in view of the ongoing threat of terrorist and criminal acts using assault rifles against civilians. The understanding of the wounding effects by military rifle bullets can be founded on the concept of energy transfer to the wound as applied to high-energy missile trauma. A substantial component of high-energy transfer in assault rifle injuries is manifested by the dynamic phenomenon of temporary cavitation, which is extensively reviewed with respect to its impact on the wound production and the associated controversy surrounding its consequences in soft tissue wounds. Part of this controversy emanates from misinterpretation of experimental data regarding the magnitude of the temporary cavity induced by high-velocity projectiles and the different conceptions of the tissue response to cavitation. The interaction between the projectile and tissue can lead to tumbling and possibly to deformation and fragmentation of the bullet, all of which strongly influence the energy transfer characteristics affecting both the temporary cavitation and the size of the permanent wound channel. Awareness of these effects can enhance perception of clinical and radiological findings suggestive of the wounding mechanism by various projectiles.

~

 

[PePe Le Pew Pew]

As an amateur collector I like picking up a box or 2 of 'oddball' rounds just to have. I have performed some investigation into the Underwood offerings and was wowed by the specs on that 65gr .357sig -- 2100fps ME 637 ft lbs. I have to admit the Philips head screwdriver look sealed the deal for me. So, today I ordered 3 boxes: 1 to blast through my P229 and 2 to place in the stash. To continue the XD vs CD argument -- In comparison, CD velocity is 1225 ME 450 ft lbs. The ME difference is almost 200 ft lbs. I'm no rocket surgeon but I can fathom a guess cavitation tips in the favor of XD. Now, dont start calling me an Underwood fanboy (I haven't even received my order yet) and I do hold a goodly amount of Critical Defense along with HST in 357sig. I'm not a hater or discriminator. I believe I should own a box or two of everything I see!