Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 01:39:16 -0800
From: Jeff Chan <chan>
To: firearms-alert
Subject: RESEARCH: Fackler: What's Wrong With The Wound Ballistics Literature, And Why


I'm pleased to announce the availability of a very significant
modern work on wound ballistics by Dr. Martin Fackler.  This 
should be useful in rebutting most mainstream media misstatements
about the effectiveness of various kinds of bullets.  It's 
available on the Web with graphs as:

  http://www.portal.com/~chan/research/fackler/wrong.html

And as the original DOS zip as:

  ftp://ftp.shell.portal.com/pub/chan/research/fackler/fackler1.zip


Here are my notes and the abstract:

  [Dr. Fackler's work is another landmark example of what scientific 
   research has found about terminal ballistics. It explains why most
   of what you read about this subject in newspapers, politicized 
   medical journals, and gun magazines is usually wrong. Dr. Fackler's 
   research and experience bears directly on the proper treatment of 
   different gunshot wound types.  -- Jeff C.]
__

          WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE WOUND BALLISTICS LITERATURE, AND WHY

                            by M.L. Fackler, M.D.

                    Letterman Army Institute of Research
                    Division of Military Trauma Research
                 Presidio of San Francisco, California 94219

                          Institute Report No. 239
                                  July 1987


ABSTRACT

Attempts to explain wound ballistics (the study of effects on the body produced
by penetrating projectiles) have succeeded in mystifying it. Fallacious
research by those with little grasp of the fundamentals has been perpetuated
by editors, reviewers, and other investigators with no better grasp of the
subject. This report explains the projectile-tissue interaction and presents
data showing the location of tissue disrupted by various projectiles. These
tissue disruption data are presented in the form of wound profiles. The major
misconceptions perpetuated in the field are listed, analyzed, and their errors
exposed using wound profiles and other known data. The more serious
consequences of these misconceptions are discussed. Failure in adhering to the
basic precepts of scientific method is the common denominator in all of the
listed misconceptions.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:chan@shell.portal.com
http://www.portal.com/~chan/ or ftp://ftp.shell.portal.com/pub/chan/
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|         We should measure progress not by how many laws          |
|      can be passed but by how little governing people need.      |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
At archive, see: highlights.html  and  Info Guide: firearms.faq.html
firearms, liberty mailing lists:   mailto:majordomo@shell.portal.com