Interesting look at 'stopping power' - Page 4 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Firearms General Discussion Rifles, pistols, shotguns, scopes, grips and everything in between.

Advertise Here
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-19-2019, 11:06 PM
Aerindel's Avatar
Aerindel Aerindel is offline
Abnormality biased.
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Nuevo Alamo
Posts: 5,688
Thanks: 6,911
Thanked 13,351 Times in 4,315 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
The author is an idiot and the article is a half-truth lie.
Well, forgive me if I trust an FBI study more than some random guy on the internet.

Now, I can sort of see what you are getting at with your screed about kinetic energy.

A bullet does indeed need kinetic energy to penetrate. Its the engine pushing that bullet through the tissue. But the point of the article is that that energy transfere (at handgun velocities) is simply not great enough to destroy tissue that the bullet does not actually impact because that energy transfer is within the elastic limits of human tissue (with exceptions that where noted)

Quote:
From what I can find out the average 5’9” man has a torso thickness of 9.5”. I am short and over weight 5’7” and my torso thickness is about 14”. So based on this article to do major damage a bullet must penetrate 70 to 100% through a human body.
You misunderstand....the problem is that humans are much tougher than gel so in order to reliably cause incapacitation a bullet needs to get at least 12" in gel in order to have a chance of reaching vital organs in a real person. It also states that a layer of skin seems to be worth about 4" of penetration in gel.

This is born out by autopsy results from some of the recent police shootings where .40 caliber hollowpoints failed to even penetrate an upraised arm.

Which of course, is logical if you subtract 4" of penetration from the first layer of skin, 4" from the thickness of an arm, and 4" from the backside of the arm.



Quote:
To make matters worse you are misusing the article.
No, I wasn't. I was misstating a complete different source concerning a different subject, I was talking about momentum, not kinect energy, but failed to make that clear, my mistake.

Quote:
Here is the physics: “A light object traveling fast is more damaging than a heavy object with the same momentum traveling slowly because it carries more energy.”
No argument, that is indeed physics.

The problem is that the energy transfer is irrelevant unless it is above the threshold of elasticity....something that most handgun calibers are not capable of achieving.

Or in other terms...the light fast bullet causing damage through energy transfer IS valid, but only at higher energy levels than 9-40-45 calibers can achieve. Energy transfer is effectively irrelevant for handgun calibers. Only penetration and bullet diameter matter when it comes to low energy projectiles.

I'ts simple. You don't shoot someone to transfer energy to them. You shoot them to put a hole through important organs. The problem is that all those important organs are placed deep inside the body and usually underneath bone as well. We can talk about shot placement all we want but placing a shot on the surface is irrelevant...shot placement is really about placing that shot inside one or more of those important organs...which means placing it DEEPly inside the body.

Hollowpoints give you a bigger hole...at the expense of a much much shallower hole. Since its proven the extra energy transfer of that hollowpoint is meaningless at handgun velocities its simply a matter of if you believe that decrease in penetration is worth the larger hole.

Personally, I want the penetration. Its not hard to see how its very easy to have a hard time getting deep enough into a human chest in the real world when someone is not standing straight on waiting to take a bullet. Turned sideways, with their arms raises, a typical fighting stance, you could very easily need 18" of real world penetration to reach the heart.


And indeed, in the real world, when people choose bullets to hunt dangerous game where they want the fastest possible incapacitation nobody chooses light fast shallow penetration bullets. They choose heavy, non-expanding, deep penetration bullets. The only reason it's different for self defense is marketing and myth.


If you are inclined to go deeper into the data, here is more suggested reading:

http://www.brassfetcher.com/Wounding...Expansion.html

Quote:
With a peak radial kinetic energy of 0.44 ft-lbf, the .22LR JHP is not capable of creating damage outside of the tissue that it directly crushes.
Quote:
With a peak radial kinetic energy of 0.49 ft-lbf, the .32ACP JHP is not capable of creating damage outside of the tissue that it directly crushes.
Quote:
Wwith a peak radial kinetic energy of 0.035 ft-lbf, the .380ACP 95gr FMJ is not capable of creating damage outside of the tissue that it directly crushes.
Quote:
With a peak radial kinetic energy of 1.96 ft-lbf, the 9x19mm 124gr Remington +P Golden Saber JHP is not capable of creating damage outside of the tissue that it directly crushes.
Quote:
With a peak radial kinetic energy of 1.28 ft-lbf, the 45ACP 230gr Remington Golden Saber JHP (impacting at 817 ft/sec) is not capable of creating damage outside of the tissue that it directly crushes.

And so on, through rifle calibers and magnum handguns where energy transfer really starts to add up.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Aerindel For This Useful Post:
Old 10-20-2019, 12:12 AM
PalmettoTree PalmettoTree is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 13,153
Thanks: 2,663
Thanked 17,722 Times in 7,424 Posts
Default

Gunshot wounds severity is directly related to the bullet’s kinetic energy. This is a function of the bullet’s weight, velocity and gravitational trajectory. These three factors combine to determine how much damage a bullet will cause to vital areas such as head, neck, chest, and abdomen.

On impact the bullet entering the body causes laceration and crushing wounds. It punctures and pushes aside tissue and bone. The cavity can be up to 30 times larger in diameter than the path of the bullet. The bullet path cavity closes in less than a second after the bullet passes. However the cavitation effect can cause damage to adjacent tissue, organs and bones because of the shock waves cause by the bullet.

The amount of damage and type of wound depends on what the bullet encounters along its path. Soft tissue carries shock waves better than bone. Bone absorbs more of the kinetic energy and damage can cause splintering which cause more damage to the body and can alter the track of the bullet. Often these splinters can damage more organs than the bullet itself.

In general bullets that pass through the body create less damage than one that remains in the body. This is because a bullet that remains in the body transfers all of its kinetic energy to body tissue thus doing maximum damage.

There are two types of bullets jacketed and hollow point. Jacketed bullets most often fragment on impact resulting in multiple tissue paths of destruction but dividing their destructive power. (I always thought they were designed to go through the body.) Hollow point bullets flatten causing maximum transfer of its kinetic energy doing maximum damage to tissue.

The chest area will likely shatter bone and insure the bullet will not leave the body and likely will not follow a straight path. Below that area the tissue is softer and other organs are vulnerable. Even the legs and arms are venerable due to arteries. Death from blood loss can happen relatively quickly.

In conclusion kinetic energy is the key so long as that kinetic energy is not enough to cause a through and through wound. Mass is important. The larger the mass with the same kinetic energy the better. So long as there is enough kinetic energy to cause deep penetration without going through and through. Miss your target and none of this matters. I do not care what an FBI agent wrote 30 years ago.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to PalmettoTree For This Useful Post:
Old 10-20-2019, 12:20 AM
Aerindel's Avatar
Aerindel Aerindel is offline
Abnormality biased.
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Nuevo Alamo
Posts: 5,688
Thanks: 6,911
Thanked 13,351 Times in 4,315 Posts
Default

Quote:
However the cavitation effect can cause damage to adjacent tissue, organs and bones because of the shock waves cause by the bullet.
No. Period.

Those shockwaves are not energetic enough to cause damage at typical handgun velocities.

This is scientific fact.

The damage caused is no different than if a metal rod of bullet diameter was pushed into the body to the same depth. It is simple mechanical trauma. Energy does not come into play until you get to higher velocities. Kinect energy of low velocity projectiles only matters in its ability to drive the bullet deeper.

If you think about this for a few moments without your superstitions you will see that this is obvious. If you simply step off a 1 foot platform a couple of times you are subjecting your body to kinetic energy equal to a pistol bullet....yet you suffer no damage because that energy is not delivered fast enough to cause damage. The shockwaves induced in your feet dissipate harmlessly into your body. Energy itself is a useless metric. What matters is how quickly it is delivered...and at normal handgun velocities, it is not delivered fast enough to cause damage. It is only the physical act of the bullet pushing through tissue that causes damage....at those velocities.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Aerindel For This Useful Post:
Old 10-20-2019, 12:52 AM
Disturbed70 Disturbed70 is online now
Hunter
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 1,526
Thanked 3,496 Times in 1,366 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PalmettoTree View Post


I do not care what an FBI agent wrote 30 years ago.
So cite a source you do care about.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Disturbed70 For This Useful Post:
Old 10-20-2019, 01:58 AM
Aerindel's Avatar
Aerindel Aerindel is offline
Abnormality biased.
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Nuevo Alamo
Posts: 5,688
Thanks: 6,911
Thanked 13,351 Times in 4,315 Posts
Default

There is a reason this is the first slide in the little class I teach in EMS on terminal ballistics, the same kind of responses on this thread are actually very typical any time the topic comes up, a combination of 'experience' which unfortunately is almost useless because its not a controlled environment, and 'science' based on theory without data to back it up.

I would prefer it to be otherwise, but luckily so far, everything has backed up the FBI so even though its 30 years old, its still the most relevant summary of handgun wounding factors. Sadly most 'modern' publications on 'stopping power' are based on even older and less researched sources.

The best thing about the FBIHWE is that right from the start it says there is a lot about this we don't know....and that we can't know....and which really in the end, may not even matter much.

Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Aerindel For This Useful Post:
Old 10-20-2019, 09:56 PM
Armtx77 Armtx77 is offline
Prepared
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 250
Thanks: 0
Thanked 374 Times in 153 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerindel View Post
There is a reason this is the first slide in the little class I teach in EMS on terminal ballistics, the same kind of responses on this thread are actually very typical any time the topic comes up, a combination of 'experience' which unfortunately is almost useless because its not a controlled environment, and 'science' based on theory without data to back it up.

I would prefer it to be otherwise, but luckily so far, everything has backed up the FBI so even though its 30 years old, its still the most relevant summary of handgun wounding factors. Sadly most 'modern' publications on 'stopping power' are based on even older and less researched sources.

The best thing about the FBIHWE is that right from the start it says there is a lot about this we don't know....and that we can't know....and which really in the end, may not even matter much.

There are a couple of recent write ups from a joint Army/Navy medical research team, circ 2011. So that is far more recent than the old FBI material, but it essentially echoes the old FBI findings and that is not all that surprising and their material comes from Afghanistan and Iraq.

It starts and ends with that 2Kfps threshold.

You have been doing good work in this thread, but there are a few who want to believe the old war stories or just flat out lie about the concept of Kinetic Shock.

Bottom line when it comes to handgun rounds. You need core hits to the heart or central nervous system if you want STOPPING POWER. Otherwise, it is race to get them to bleed out and that requires big holes or multiple holes.

The other stark reality, unless the bad guy is hopped up on something. A couple of shots on target have proven time and time again to stop the vast majority of attackers. The juice just aint worth the squeeze when the hunted, become the hunters.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Armtx77 For This Useful Post:
Old 10-20-2019, 11:15 PM
Hick Industries's Avatar
Hick Industries Hick Industries is offline
Live Secret, Live Happy
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eastern Oklahoma
Posts: 14,263
Thanks: 17,695
Thanked 34,735 Times in 9,735 Posts
Default

The only problem I have ever had with the FBI testing, is someone came up with the notion that bullet penetration should not exceed 18".
I guess they somehow can predict what their guys will be shooting, and what clothing and barriers they will be shooting through.

I have shot and killed a wide variety of things. I have no frigging idea what I will face tomorrow. So I choose a cartridge that will fully penetrate every possible threat I have come accross, even threats bigger than humans, or hidding behind body armor and barriers.

If that means my bullet might exit a skinny threat with over half its original energy, I can live with that. But I dont want to get perferrated because I used not enought gun.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hick Industries For This Useful Post:
Old 10-20-2019, 11:21 PM
Aerindel's Avatar
Aerindel Aerindel is offline
Abnormality biased.
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Nuevo Alamo
Posts: 5,688
Thanks: 6,911
Thanked 13,351 Times in 4,315 Posts
Default

Quote:
The only problem I have ever had with the FBI testing, is someone came up with the notion that bullet penetration should not exceed 18".
This is not true. The FBI never said penetration should be between 12 and 18, they said, at least 12, preferably 18. They never at any point said it should not exceed 18.

It was the gun community that misunderstood them, the FBI themselves very clearly discounted the idea that you can ever have too much penetration.

This is a great source frustration for me as I see the "The FBI standard of 12-18" written over and over again and they always get it wrong.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Aerindel For This Useful Post:
Old 10-21-2019, 01:15 AM
HappyinID's Avatar
HappyinID HappyinID is offline
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,159
Thanks: 2,418
Thanked 4,022 Times in 1,875 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PalmettoTree View Post
In conclusion kinetic energy is the key so long as that kinetic energy is not enough to cause a through and through wound.
Having been studying shootings involving handguns professionally for well over 30 years, I wish you could explain to me what a handgun projectile that fails to exit a human body accomplishes, vs one that does.

Because, I sure haven't seen any evidence of it.


.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to HappyinID For This Useful Post:
Old 10-21-2019, 01:48 AM
ajole ajole is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,737
Thanks: 7,714
Thanked 21,971 Times in 6,976 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PalmettoTree View Post
You are wrong. Any projectile entering the human body causes the body to absorb energy to stop it. The human body is largely liquid so that energy radiates a hydraulic effect. Granted the energy might be less from a hand gun but none the less the more energy a bullet has striking and entering the body the more energy radiated around it as it slows the bullet.

If that physics is wrong please show your proof.
The physics is mostly right...but as you yourself said, the energy involved in most handgun bullets isnít enough to do real damage as a result of hydraulics.

Making it moot. Pointless. Meaningless.

BTW, when I said mostly...itís because of your idea about how slowing the bullet causes more damage somehow. Nope. Once the bullet is slowed below a certain level, itís not doing ANYTHING beyond punching, or crushing, a hole.

In most handgun bullet examples, since energy transfer isnít really a thing, one would think a deeper hole, a longer wound track, would be preferable. Even if it comes out the other side, as you now have maximum blood loss for that one bullet. Of course, where that wound track is, is what determines how bad it is.

But the bullet that stays inside? There have been cases where the bullet actually plugged a blood vessel, and thus reduced bleeding. Thatís not a good thing, unless you are the guy on the table being worked on.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ajole For This Useful Post:
Old 10-21-2019, 02:13 AM
billwilla's Avatar
billwilla billwilla is offline
MortarMaggot
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,075
Thanks: 2,667
Thanked 3,141 Times in 1,196 Posts
Default

The FBI might not give a crap about over penetration, but most L.E. should and so should an armed civilian.

https://gundigest.com/gear-ammo/relo...rating-bullets

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-123248-2105r/

https://www.aviationpros.com/home/ne...e-too-powerful
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to billwilla For This Useful Post:
Old 10-21-2019, 02:57 AM
Aerindel's Avatar
Aerindel Aerindel is offline
Abnormality biased.
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Nuevo Alamo
Posts: 5,688
Thanks: 6,911
Thanked 13,351 Times in 4,315 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billwilla View Post
The FBI might not give a crap about over penetration, but most L.E. should and so should an armed civilian.

https://gundigest.com/gear-ammo/relo...rating-bullets

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-123248-2105r/

https://www.aviationpros.com/home/ne...e-too-powerful
Most LE are not inside airplanes....and ayoob has made a career selling his fears of overpentration without ever providing a basis for them. Ayoob pronounced himself an expert because he knows how to write (admittedly, he is a good writer) and get published and manipulate fear. He is not a scientist, he is not a physicist, doctor, lawyer or solider. He has never been shot, shot anybody or been shot at it. He is a book seller, that is all. Half the people on just this thread have more actual terminal ballistics experience than ayoob does.

Now...what he IS good at is putting holes in paper and teaching other people how to do that, but most of what he is actually know for are his philosophical speculation on what he thinks a bullet should do....(or at least what he thinks will get him another ammo endorsement gig)

The FBI again has some good things to say about overpentration.

Quote:
An issue that must be addressed is the fear of over penetration widely expressed on the part of law enforcement. The concern that a bullet would pass through the body of a subject and injure an innocent bystander is clearly exaggerated. Any review of law enforcement shootings will reveal that the great majority of shots fired by officers do not hit any subjects at all. It should be obvious that the relatively few shots that do hit a subject are not somehow more dangerous to bystanders than the shots that miss the subject entirely.

Choosing a bullet because of relatively shallow penetration will seriously compromise weapon effectiveness, and needlessly endanger the lives of the law enforcement officers using it. No law enforcement officer has lost his life because a bullet over penetrated his adversary, and virtually none have ever been sued for hitting an innocent bystander through an adversary. On the other hand, tragically large numbers of officers have been killed because their bullets did not penetrate deeply enough.
Or as I would put it....its not the bullet with 36" of penetration that hits your target and passes through you have to worry about, its the bullet with only 12" that misses your target and hits someone else that is the real danger.

The only thing that is going to make a bystander safe in a gunfight, is for the bullets to stop flying, and the most reliable way to do that with a handgun is to punch a deep hole in the bad guy....preferably several times.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Aerindel For This Useful Post:
Old 10-21-2019, 05:23 AM
Cuteandfuzzybunnies's Avatar
Cuteandfuzzybunnies Cuteandfuzzybunnies is online now
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 892
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1,197 Times in 522 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerindel View Post
Quote:
had a guy shot 3 times with a .25 auto while wearing one of those silk wife beaters so popular back then. The shirt was sucked into the wound channels. When they went to take the shirt off of him, the bullets popped out. The silk had caught them and when the ER doc went to remove the shirt the 3 little pills hit the floor.

Bullets do weird things.
Supposedly medieval soldiers used silk for the same purpose against archers.
American gangsters in the early 19th century famously wore silk vests for this reason.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Cuteandfuzzybunnies For This Useful Post:
Old 10-21-2019, 09:37 AM
Hick Industries's Avatar
Hick Industries Hick Industries is offline
Live Secret, Live Happy
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eastern Oklahoma
Posts: 14,263
Thanks: 17,695
Thanked 34,735 Times in 9,735 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerindel View Post
This is not true. The FBI never said penetration should be between 12 and 18, they said, at least 12, preferably 18. They never at any point said it should not exceed 18.

It was the gun community that misunderstood them, the FBI themselves very clearly discounted the idea that you can ever have too much penetration.

This is a great source frustration for me as I see the "The FBI standard of 12-18" written over and over again and they always get it wrong.
Thank you for that correction.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hick Industries For This Useful Post:
Old 10-21-2019, 10:04 AM
Disturbed70 Disturbed70 is online now
Hunter
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 1,526
Thanked 3,496 Times in 1,366 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerindel View Post
This is not true. The FBI never said penetration should be between 12 and 18, they said, at least 12, preferably 18. They never at any point said it should not exceed 18.

It was the gun community that misunderstood them, the FBI themselves very clearly discounted the idea that you can ever have too much penetration.

This is a great source frustration for me as I see the "The FBI standard of 12-18" written over and over again and they always get it wrong.
This is actually not true. In FBI Protocol testing, rounds that fail to penetrate 12" and rounds that penetrate beyond 18" are both penalized.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Disturbed70 For This Useful Post:
Old 10-21-2019, 11:21 AM
Exarmyguy Exarmyguy is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Within view of the Pacific Ocean
Posts: 4,241
Thanks: 4,760
Thanked 8,445 Times in 2,781 Posts
Default

The only drop dead shot is a bullet to the cerebral cortex. Anything else ,the bad guy has a chance to kill you. You need lots of skill and some luck to make that shot with a handgun .
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Exarmyguy For This Useful Post:
Old 10-21-2019, 12:49 PM
Rural Buckeye Guy Rural Buckeye Guy is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: rural ohio
Posts: 2,341
Thanks: 40
Thanked 4,400 Times in 1,553 Posts
Default

Aim between the nipples. Twice. Tap in back of head. Mogadishu rap.
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-21-2019, 03:09 PM
Hick Industries's Avatar
Hick Industries Hick Industries is offline
Live Secret, Live Happy
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eastern Oklahoma
Posts: 14,263
Thanks: 17,695
Thanked 34,735 Times in 9,735 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billwilla View Post
The FBI might not give a crap about over penetration, but most L.E. should and so should an armed civilian.

https://gundigest.com/gear-ammo/relo...rating-bullets

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-123248-2105r/

https://www.aviationpros.com/home/ne...e-too-powerful
I care very much about over penetration. I absolutely insist on it, and refuse to use minor power weapons, that dont deliver over penetration.

Im willing to wager none of the folks arguing against penetration have ever stopped a black bear at a range of ten feet!
In my world, any weapon without the ability to punch two big bloody holes in the largest threats, puts me at risk of getting killied.

You should see the size of the exit hole when you use a major power handgun, and hit a major bone, like a shoulder or pelvis, or spine.
I have had my bullet exit and tear a hole the size of my fist. When you make two holes in a vital area, the target just falls down, and bleeds out.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hick Industries For This Useful Post:
Old 10-21-2019, 03:20 PM
Aerindel's Avatar
Aerindel Aerindel is offline
Abnormality biased.
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Nuevo Alamo
Posts: 5,688
Thanks: 6,911
Thanked 13,351 Times in 4,315 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Disturbed70 View Post
This is actually not true. In FBI Protocol testing, rounds that fail to penetrate 12" and rounds that penetrate beyond 18" are both penalized.
Link? Because there is nothing like that in FBI wounding factors and effectiveness.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Aerindel For This Useful Post:
Old 10-21-2019, 03:26 PM
Disturbed70 Disturbed70 is online now
Hunter
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 1,526
Thanked 3,496 Times in 1,366 Posts
Default

"Penetration depths between 14.0-16.0 inches in the gelatin blocks are rewarded while under-penetration and penetration over 18.0” are penalized"

http://www.brassfetcher.com/FBI%20Am...0Protocol.html

"The tests call for a penetration depth of 14-16 inches to score maximum points. Bullets that travel less than 12 or more than 18 inches are penalized in the scoring"

https://www.shootingsportsretailer.c...o-tests-matter

I don't have a shareable copy on official letterhead, but it says the same thing.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Disturbed70 For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net