The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-01-2013, 10:58 AM   #151
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,901

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DENVERDUI55 View Post
The 6.5 carcano is a relatively underpowered round and using full metal jackets would pretty much just pencil hole through whatever soft tissue it hit. I have finished off several big game animals at close range with my 300 win mag using various soft points and the bullets are built stout enough that they only make big holes if contacting bone. Now it is possible that the carcano stiking the skull at a certain angle caused basically the side of his head to pop off but it would not cause the bullet he was using to fragment.
The 6.5 Carcano is significantly more powerful (i.e more energy) than a modern 5.56NATO round. Look at the ballistics data. It also uses a much heavier projectile meaning it retains more energy for a longer distance.

Is it comparable to a 300 win mag? Of course not.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 10:58 AM   #152
Dr. Broncenstein
Nacho Nacho Fan
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,417

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Dookie Nacho
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
From what I've read, the ballistics reports on Kennedy suggests that the bullet in the head shot tumbled (rather than passing straight through), which is a very common "feature" of rounds designed for military purposes (e.g. the round LHO was using).

For example, a 5.6 NATO is designed to tumble and fracture INSTEAD of expanding like a hollow or soft point, as expanding rounds are banned for military use.
5.56 NATO fmj is a high velocity round. It's behavior is markedly different than the medium velocity 6.5 carcano in simulated and actual terminal ballistics findings.

Last edited by Dr. Broncenstein; 12-01-2013 at 11:05 AM..
Dr. Broncenstein is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 11:02 AM   #153
DENVERDUI55
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,100

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
From what I've read, the ballistics reports on Kennedy suggests that the bullet in the head shot tumbled (rather than passing straight through), which is a very common "feature" of rounds designed for military purposes (e.g. the round LHO was using).

For example, a 5.6 NATO is designed to tumble and fracture INSTEAD of expanding like a hollow or soft point, as expanding rounds are banned for military use.
Sorry a 160 gr .264 caliber bullet isn't tumbling. That bullet is a great bullet with super high sectional density .328 and a high BC of .509. That bullet is super stable and would keep on penetrating just like it did on the first shot.

I have shot plenty of coyotes, fox, marmots, rabbits with my 22-250 using various bullets. If i use FMJ like the military uses in the .223 there is no damage because that is what they were designed for(no damage to furs). If I use a soft point, Vmax, BT(really just HP), or hollow point it will turn rabbits into a bloody mist or blow them in half. Coyote/fox pelts are ruined if shot with them. If a bullet fractures like you say that is the same as expanding.
DENVERDUI55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 11:04 AM   #154
Dr. Broncenstein
Nacho Nacho Fan
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,417

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Dookie Nacho
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
The 6.5 Carcano is significantly more powerful (i.e more energy) than a modern 5.56NATO round. Look at the ballistics data. It also uses a much heavier projectile meaning it retains more energy for a longer distance.

Is it comparable to a 300 win mag? Of course not.
How do you possibly come up with this? (1/2 Mass) x velocity(squared) = kinetic energy.
Dr. Broncenstein is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 11:07 AM   #155
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,901

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
5.6 NATO fmj is a high velocity round. It's behavior is markedly different than the medium velocity 6.5 carcano in simulated and actual terminal ballistics findings.
What I have read didn't mention fragmentation, but rather a small entry wound and a large exit wound with an "exploded" skull. If the report of fragmentation is correct, it's certainly not consistent with FMJ.

All I'm saying is it doesn't require a hollow point round to cause the kind of damage to Kennedy's skull.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 11:15 AM   #156
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,901

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
How do you possibly come up with this? (1/2 Mass) x velocity(squared) = kinetic energy.
Because I actually looked at the ballistic data?

6.5 Carcano: 2,572 J
5.56 NATO: 1,796 J

The carcano is a 162gr (10.5g) projectile @ 700m/s, a 63gr (4.1g) projectile @ 936m/s. Data from wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5x52m...licher-Carcano
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO

The math works out.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 11:22 AM   #157
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,901

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DENVERDUI55 View Post
Sorry a 160 gr .264 caliber bullet isn't tumbling. That bullet is a great bullet with super high sectional density .328 and a high BC of .509. That bullet is super stable and would keep on penetrating just like it did on the first shot.

I have shot plenty of coyotes, fox, marmots, rabbits with my 22-250 using various bullets. If i use FMJ like the military uses in the .223 there is no damage because that is what they were designed for(no damage to furs). If I use a soft point, Vmax, BT(really just HP), or hollow point it will turn rabbits into a bloody mist or blow them in half. Coyote/fox pelts are ruined if shot with them. If a bullet fractures like you say that is the same as expanding.
Like I said, I'm going on what I've read, which suggested that it may have tumbled. At this point, I have no idea what is actual fact as I've read so many different accounts. Everything from a clean entry/exit of the bullet to massive fragmentation in the skull. What were the actual terminal ballistics of this shot?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 11:58 AM   #158
DENVERDUI55
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,100

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Like I said, I'm going on what I've read, which suggested that it may have tumbled. At this point, I have no idea what is actual fact as I've read so many different accounts. Everything from a clean entry/exit of the bullet to massive fragmentation in the skull. What were the actual terminal ballistics of this shot?
Are you saying tumbling in the air? The whole .224 bullet tumbling is a myth. Do some research on it. Sure after 7-10 inches of penetration the bullet will slow down enough for the heavier ass end to pass the tip(key hole) This happened because the original M16A1 had 1-12 twist instead of the 1-7 twist those 62 grain bullets required.
DENVERDUI55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 12:02 PM   #159
Dr. Broncenstein
Nacho Nacho Fan
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,417

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Dookie Nacho
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Because I actually looked at the ballistic data?

6.5 Carcano: 2,572 J
5.56 NATO: 1,796 J

The carcano is a 162gr (10.5g) projectile @ 700m/s, a 63gr (4.1g) projectile @ 936m/s. Data from wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5x52m...licher-Carcano
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO

The math works out.
I agree that the 6.5 carcano has more kinetic energy, but the difference in power is not what I would call significant. And the point I was contesting was that the 6.5 is "significantly more powerful" based upon the weight the projectile. Velocity squared vs 1/2 mass. Velocity is by far the most important determinant in kinetic energy. Aside from that, the 5.56 fmj becomes unstable in tissue specifically because of its high velocity to the point that it does not behave like a typical fmj round at 6.5 carcano velocities.
Dr. Broncenstein is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 12:19 PM   #160
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,901

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
I agree that the 6.5 carcano has more kinetic energy, but the difference in power is not what I would call significant.
If you don't want to call 40% more energy "significant" that's your prerogative I suppose. It's after all a subjective term.

Quote:
And the point I was contesting was that the 6.5 is "significantly more powerful" based upon the weight the projectile. Velocity squared vs 1/2 mass. Velocity is by far the most important determinant in kinetic energy.
If you read more carefully, you'll find I was saying it would retain more energy over distance because of its higher mass.

Quote:
Aside from that, the 5.56 fmj becomes unstable in tissue specifically because of its high velocity to the point that it does not behave like a typical fmj round at 6.5 carcano velocities.
Again, I'm just going on what I read that suggested it tumbled. I don't know what the hell the terminal ballistics actually were. I don't think anyone else here does either. We've also seen postings of massive fragmentation, and I've even read claims of "shavings" from the bullet and several other narratives.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 12:20 PM   #161
Dr. Broncenstein
Nacho Nacho Fan
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,417

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Dookie Nacho
Default

Not to argue minutia -- it just seems readily apparent to me that the initial wounds were caused by a completely different type of bullet than the fatal headshot. I'm certainly not the first person to point this out. I don't have an agenda in this other than I would like a plausible explanation. I do not entirely believe the official explanation.
Dr. Broncenstein is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 12:30 PM   #162
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,901

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
Not to argue minutia -- it just seems readily apparent to me that the initial wounds were caused by a completely different type of bullet than the fatal headshot. I'm certainly not the first person to point this out. I don't have an agenda in this other than I would like a plausible explanation. I do not entirely believe the official explanation.
All I'm saying it's it's not impossible for the 6.5 to cause the damage seen in the wound. I agree its unlikely, but we don't even have reliable information about what the terminal ballistics were, so...
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 12:32 PM   #163
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DENVERDUI55 View Post
Are you saying tumbling in the air? The whole .224 bullet tumbling is a myth. Do some research on it. Sure after 7-10 inches of penetration the bullet will slow down enough for the heavier ass end to pass the tip(key hole) This happened because the original M16A1 had 1-12 twist instead of the 1-7 twist those 62 grain bullets required.
The documentary I saw didn't use the word tumbled, rather yaw. The angle of the bullet being changed even just a little while traveling through soft tissue is going to create a much larger wound than a straight shot. Like a derailed train going through a small town. Oh, the huge manatee.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 12:38 PM   #164
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,901

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
The documentary I saw didn't use the word tumbled, rather yaw. The angle of the bullet being changed even just a little while traveling through soft tissue is going to create a much larger wound than a straight shot. Like a derailed train going through a small town. Oh, the huge manatee.
Aye, yaw is the correct term. Not all yaw will make the bullet flip end over end "tumble" but can. "Fishtailing" is a more common term.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 01:14 PM   #165
DENVERDUI55
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,100

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
The documentary I saw didn't use the word tumbled, rather yaw. The angle of the bullet being changed even just a little while traveling through soft tissue is going to create a much larger wound than a straight shot. Like a derailed train going through a small town. Oh, the huge manatee.
Yaw and tumbling when you talk about about ballistics are related but different. A bullets with incorrect twist will cause the bullet to yaw before it should and once it gets slow enough it will tumble. The poster that used the word tumble was clear if he meant tumble before hitting the targer or tumbling inside the target.
DENVERDUI55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 01:30 PM   #166
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,901

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DENVERDUI55 View Post
Yaw and tumbling when you talk about about ballistics are related but different. A bullets with incorrect twist will cause the bullet to yaw before it should and once it gets slow enough it will tumble. The poster that used the word tumble was clear if he meant tumble before hitting the targer or tumbling inside the target.

I mean tumbling inside the target, which as this video shows is quite possible even with that particular round:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZRUNYZY71g
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 04:27 PM   #167
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
Explain to me how an entry wound is determined. I'm just a surgeon who has taken care of more gun shot victims than I can remember. Truly curious as to how someone can definatively tell an entrance from an exit caused by a non-expanding missile fired from a distance beyond point blank range.
The entry wound tends to be small. Exit wounds are much larger.

You need to ask why the doctors who performed the JFK autopsy failed to consult with the doctors in Dallas who who attended the dying JFK.

Then ask why the Warren Commission likewise failed to interview the emergency room doctors.

The reason is clear -- their testimony conflicted with the story the Warren Commission wanted to tell -- that a lone gunman did the job.

MHG
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 06:25 PM   #168
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,710
Default

gaffe, you're so ****ing out of your element it's pathetic.

We've all noted that you have absolutely nothing to say about the ballistics commentary.

Because you can't - you're too goddamned clueless.

You've got your twisted beliefs, and no facts can ever alter them.

Sick.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 06:40 PM   #169
Dr. Broncenstein
Nacho Nacho Fan
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,417

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Dookie Nacho
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
The entry wound tends to be small. Exit wounds are much larger.

You need to ask why the doctors who performed the JFK autopsy failed to consult with the doctors in Dallas who who attended the dying JFK.

Then ask why the Warren Commission likewise failed to interview the emergency room doctors.

The reason is clear -- their testimony conflicted with the story the Warren Commission wanted to tell -- that a lone gunman did the job.

MHG
ER physicians and trauma surgeons alike can be confused as to what is a definitive entry vs exit. Declaring something to be a definitive entry wound carries major legal ramifications that become extremely difficult to justify when in conflict to autopsy results. There is much more to the wound analysis than gross examination of size and configuration. I describe gunshot wounds as possible entry vs possible exit for this reason, as does any physician that trained me. I am not a forensic pathologist, and I do not have the luxury of inspecting every tissue plane grossly /microscopically / chemically without the risk of lethal injury to surrounding structures.

Imagine for a second how incredibly nuts the situation was for the Parkland ER when the POTUS showed up unannounced with his head blown to smithereens. A small exit wound in the anterior neck caused by a cleanly neck traversing fmj bullet fired from long distance could easily have been confused for an entrance. They were scrambling in a futile attempt to salvage his life despite a visible mortal head wound combined with no signs of life. They probably noted a small bullet hole in the anterior neck while desperately trying to create a surgical airway. I seriously doubt they had time to note any other wound characteristics.

In case you didn't notice, I'm disputing the lone gunman theory. Well, at least the uniform missile theory.
Dr. Broncenstein is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 12:19 PM   #170
Garcia Bronco
Hokie since 1993
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 46,773

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tom Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
Not to argue minutia -- it just seems readily apparent to me that the initial wounds were caused by a completely different type of bullet than the fatal headshot. I'm certainly not the first person to point this out. I don't have an agenda in this other than I would like a plausible explanation. I do not entirely believe the official explanation.
It could be as simple as LHO having a mix of JHP and FMJs
Garcia Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 02:52 PM   #171
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
ER physicians and trauma surgeons alike can be confused as to what is a definitive entry vs exit. Declaring something to be a definitive entry wound carries major legal ramifications that become extremely difficult to justify when in conflict to autopsy results. There is much more to the wound analysis than gross examination of size and configuration. I describe gunshot wounds as possible entry vs possible exit for this reason, as does any physician that trained me. I am not a forensic pathologist, and I do not have the luxury of inspecting every tissue plane grossly /microscopically / chemically without the risk of lethal injury to surrounding structures.

Imagine for a second how incredibly nuts the situation was for the Parkland ER when the POTUS showed up unannounced with his head blown to smithereens. A small exit wound in the anterior neck caused by a cleanly neck traversing fmj bullet fired from long distance could easily have been confused for an entrance. They were scrambling in a futile attempt to salvage his life despite a visible mortal head wound combined with no signs of life. They probably noted a small bullet hole in the anterior neck while desperately trying to create a surgical airway. I seriously doubt they had time to note any other wound characteristics.

In case you didn't notice, I'm disputing the lone gunman theory. Well, at least the uniform missile theory.
I suggest you check out Dr Crenshaw's book. It would be best for you to get it from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Crenshaw is no longer with us - but his book has been reissued.

BTW, you did not answer my questions -- about why the Parkland Hospital doctors were excluded from the official investigation.

http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Been-Shot-...arles+crenshaw
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 04:12 PM   #172
Dr. Broncenstein
Nacho Nacho Fan
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,417

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Dookie Nacho
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
I suggest you check out Dr Crenshaw's book. It would be best for you to get it from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Crenshaw is no longer with us - but his book has been reissued.

BTW, you did not answer my questions -- about why the Parkland Hospital doctors were excluded from the official investigation.

http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Been-Shot-...arles+crenshaw
Why was the law requiring a homicide victim to undergo an autopsy by the local medical examiner bypassed? If you are implying a coverup, I'm not arguing. This happened long before I was born, and honestly I have no personal interest aside from pointing out the grossly visible terminal ballistic discrepancy. I'm pointing out what I can plainly see on the Zapruper film, and it looks blatantly obvious that there were two markedly different bullets striking from the rear.
Dr. Broncenstein is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 04:13 PM   #173
Dr. Broncenstein
Nacho Nacho Fan
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,417

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Dookie Nacho
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco View Post
It could be as simple as LHO having a mix of JHP and FMJs
Could be but that was never part of the official explanation.
Dr. Broncenstein is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 09:58 PM   #174
Garcia Bronco
Hokie since 1993
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 46,773

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tom Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
Could be but that was never part of the official explanation.
Unless the cartridge was stamped, how would they know? He might have done his own loads...or it's more likely he just had a bag bullets. That's much more likely than some of the conspiracy theories.
Garcia Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2013, 09:15 AM   #175
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
Why was the law requiring a homicide victim to undergo an autopsy by the local medical examiner bypassed? If you are implying a coverup, I'm not arguing. This happened long before I was born, and honestly I have no personal interest aside from pointing out the grossly visible terminal ballistic discrepancy. I'm pointing out what I can plainly see on the Zapruper film, and it looks blatantly obvious that there were two markedly different bullets striking from the rear.
Good point. We know there was a confrontation at the hospital between the local authorities and the Secret Service. The SS prevailed -- and removed JFK's body under threat of force.
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:39 PM.


Denver Broncos