[209x50]

Originally Posted by Arn?Narn.

well, ...

I'm not sure if it has to to do with the fact that I have shot a number of animals, assisted in autopsies, processed and examined way too much human tissue, or just the amount of science anatomy and physiology I have done,...but it sure comes logically to me that tissue damage due to energy transfer is minimal from a typical bullet at typical ft/lbs..

The prior is not me suggesting That I 'Know" better than anyone else,...simply stating that for some reason it is instilled in me that the logical conclusion is that energy transfer from bullets do not destroy much tissue...

Neither gels nor plastic jugs as mentioned above provide good evidence to support a claim that energy does collateral damge to tissue.

The human body (or whatever other animal) is an impressive shock absorber

A ridgid fixed membrane compartment (water jug) does not represent, even remotely, any component of tissue in the human body. The closest would probably be bone, but again, not at all similar.

A Gel, or at least the ones I am familar with, do noting more than show that there is radial energy released.
The gels themselves do not react as human tissue does.

Examine actual tissue... that's where real life evidence is.

Actually the gels do a remarkable job of imitating flesh in bullet impacts. The gel goes through the huge temporary wound expansion and yet returns to original shape like flesh. Clay and other media don't as pointed out in the article. The bullets expansion stages and fragmentation along the path are easily viewable. Damage done by fragmentation and the permanent wound cavity are all visible once the action stops. A lot of study went into designing ballistic gel for testing bullets and ordinance by people who wanted to study the effects of bullet trauma and learn from it to better help gunshoot victims. Nothing else comes close.