Handgun Wounds and Ballistics

[wally]

I have never operated on someone shot with a 45 ACP or 357 magnum. I have seen quite a few people come in by ambulance who have been shot with those two rounds, and generally all we have to do is pronounce them dead.

I'm on the side of biggest bullet you can shoot accurately side of the debate, but I wonder how you could tell a .357 Mag from a .38 Special without seeing the gun, since they can shoot the same projectile.

"Premium" ammo may have differences in bullet construction for .357 vs. .38 but most bullets sold for reloading are not differentiated for .38 vs .357 loadings.

--wally.

 

[cyanide]

Ask any hunter what he looks for in a hunting round ?

It is the same thing one should look for in a defense round.

One hole into the target, one hole out of the target breaking as much stuff as it can during the path.

It don't get much simpler , yes I know the gun rag writers always state
"the over penetration issue" but the fact is for consistent stops with any firearm this is the rule I adhere to.

 

[Odd Job]

It is very difficult to come to a scientific conclusion about calibre effectiveness, based on hospital statistics. For example, I collected detailed records for 150 gunshot victims in the space of 4 months in Johannesburg and here are some of the interesting statistics:

1) Most gunshot wounds were single perforation injuries (45%).
2) In a significant number of cases (42%) there were no projectiles seen on X-ray or recovered from the clothing.
3) In 40% of the cases, projectiles were seen on X-ray but could not be recovered, or were not deemed necessary to recover.

So you see it is quite difficult to determine what calibres are involved in these shootings, unless the shooter provides information after the event (hardly ever happens in a trauma unit such as the one where I collected these figures).


What I would really like to do is get hold of statistics from the ballistics labs in SA and get the following information from them:

1) Total number of cases examined (number of victims, where an examination of one or more projectiles was ordered).
2) Ratio of deceased to live victims.
3) Statistics relating to the distribution of calibres in live vs deceased victims.

It would be nice to know what the 'favourite' calibre is and the basic statistics related to deaths and living victims. Of course I know that these figures won't be able to prove that x calibre is deadlier than y, I just think it would be nice to know the distribution of calibres in these shootings.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I'm on the side of biggest bullet you can shoot accurately side of the debate, but I wonder how you could tell a .357 Mag from a .38 Special without seeing the gun, since they can shoot the same projectile.

A lot of the time, the caliber of the weapon is known at the time the patient hits the emergency room.

Otherwise, I am basically making an educated guess as to whether its a 38 or 357. There certainly are times where it is impossible to tell just from the bullet.

 

[mete]

Over penetration ? It's a moot point as even the slow FBI has realised. For example in actual shootouts the NYPD hits the target only 10 % of the time !! They should be more concerned with better training ! ....I wonder how many of you have experimented as I have .I did tests years ago shooting 'chucks and feral dogs ,comparing the reaction of the animal to hits with 9mm vs 45. While before some of the fancier JHPs the tests showed a distinct difference .A hit [one that didn't immediately kill ] on a chuck with the 9mm and the chuck would RUN back to his hole.A similar hit with the 45 [and now also the 40] and the chuck would WALK back to his hole, you could also see his whole body shudder at the hit. Yes I'll take big bore !!

 

[Odd Job]

@ Lone Gunman

A lot of the time, the caliber of the weapon is known at the time the patient hits the emergency room.

What sort of trauma unit is it (inner city/private etc)? May I ask how often you know what the calibre is, and how you come by this information when the patient is admitted? How many gunshot victims do you see at your facility per month?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Odd Job,

Most of my gunshot wound experience is from 1992-2000. After 2000, I finally moved up the ladder enough that I am only infrequently asked to take care of gunshot wound victims. Most gunshot wound victims don't have insurance and most are thugs, so no one really wants to build a practice around gunshot wound victims.

During the period of 1992-2000, I was working at a Level I trauma center located in the downtown area of a city of about 2,000,000 residents. Most of the gunshot wound vicitims were young black males between 18 and 30. We would see several a week. Most of these people were presumed to be in gangs and the shootings drug related. They frequently knew the people who shot them. I would estimate we were told what caliber they were shot with about half the time, but most of the time you could figure out the most likely caliber from the description of the gun and the appearance of the bullets on Xray.

 

[MCgunner]

I'm on the side of biggest bullet you can shoot accurately side of the debate, but I wonder how you could tell a .357 Mag from a .38 Special without seeing the gun, since they can shoot the same projectile.

Easy if the .357 is a good load from a service revolver. It's the one who's exit wound you can put your fist in....

 

[Odd Job]

@ Lone Gunman

Your demographics match ours (my latest data are from 2002) but we had more 'customers,' about 35 a week. That's at the Johannesburg General Hospital.

I would estimate we were told what caliber they were shot with about half the time

I've always shied away from trusting the statement of a gunshot victim, where such information may have a bearing on the forensics of the case. In other words, you and I both know that medical personnel won't initiate an interview with a victim for the purposes of extracting details of the shooting, which will be employed in a forensic setting and may result in the ID/prosecution of one or more of the parties to the shooting. But the victim may not know that and he may provide any sort of information just to appease you. The other thing is although he knows that 'Dat dawg carries a fortay,' it may not be the only thing he carries and therefore may not be the weapon used at the time. You've also got to factor in the patient's condition on whether he is likely to provide accurate information or not. The premise that the victim told you the information also excludes by default information relating to serious or fatal shootings, because he can't tell you anything in those circumstances.

but most of the time you could figure out the most likely caliber from the description of the gun and the appearance of the bullets on Xray.

I take it that you mean pistol vs revolver, and the presence of lubrication grooves for example. I think you can determine pistol vs revolver in some cases, but you then have to rely on projectiles that have not deformed and which are X-rayed at 90 degrees to their long axis. If the projectiles expand or fragment, you have equivocal radiological features. Further to that, the calibre of the projectile may not be determined on X-ray unless prospective imaging is specially done for that purpose. That doesn't happen as a routine because of the radiation hazard and the time factor. Sure, there are times when you can exclude a range of calibres because the shadow of the projectile as recorded on analogue radiographs can never be smaller than the actual projectile, but in all cases the projectile is subject to a degree of magnification that is unknown in the typical medical environment. So the shadow is then larger than the actual projectile but it is very difficult to work out how much larger it is, especially when you require reasonable accuracy to differentiate between calibres that are not much larger than one another.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I realize all that, as I said, my comments are based on my personal experience. I realize the limitations of that. I certainly wouldn't argue with anything you have said.

But I do think that between the history provided by the patient and onlookers, along with Xrays, and surgery, you can frequently deduce the most likely caliber someone was shot with. For example, if someone comes in with a non-expanded 38 caliber bullet stuck in their thigh, and I am told the gun was an automatic, and the bullet does not appear deformed on Xray, I would bet it is more likely to be a 9mm or 380 than a 357 magnum. Perhaps I made my interpretation sound to definitive before. This is subjective interpretation to some degree.

 

[Juna]

Ballistics are a lot more complicated than most people let on. It's more than KE, more than velocity, more than diameter, more than mass, more than penetration. It really is more than can be concisely explained on a forum like this with any hope of anyone understanding it all. There are too many variables, and to really accurately describe it in terms of physics, you need to use calculus (not all the algebraic formulas people throw around). Obviously, shot placement is key no matter what you're using. Then there's knowledge of anatomy & physiology and the pathophysiology of penetrating trauma. All of these things are difficult to sum up in one post in any intelligible way.

If your round has a ridiculously high KE (kinetic energy), it won't do much good if you hit a non-vital part of the body and the bullet comes out the other side. Of course, if you hit the guy with a BB gun, then it won't penetrate enough to do any damage, even if you hit right over the heart. But, if you shoot dead center in the abdomen and miss all vital organs but somehow your bullet goes straight through the vertebral bodies or intervertebral disc spaces and hits the spinal cord, then penetration is key. Again, you're back to shot placement. If you penetrate 1 foot of subcutaneous tissue, it's not much different than penetrating 4 inches. But if you're in the thorax, and you go in half an inch vs. 3 inches, that's a huge difference between penetrating the heart or lungs and not. Again... shot placement is key.

Momentum, as someone else mentioned, also factors in for "knock down power". Basically, for "knock down power", you want all of the momentum of your bullet to be transferred to the assailant's body. Therefore, in that case, you want the bullet to stay inside the person. Think about it like this... if you shoot a paper target, the bullet goes right through without ripping the target off the target holder or losing much of its momentum. But if you shoot something like a small wood block, it goes flying. The momentum is going right through the paper, but getting transferred more to the wood and slowing down the bullet.

In short, shot placement is the most important factor. All other desirable characteristics of a bullet vary depending on where the shot is placed. I suppose if you're going to penetrate all the way through someone no matter where you hit, then I guess that's better in that if you're over a vital spot, you'll go through it and damage it. But, your misses will be equally inept as those from a BB gun.

Pretty much all calibers .380 and up will easily kill a person who is not wearing body armor with good shot placement. Even a .22LR can kill if you hit in the right place. Shot placement trumps caliber, kinetic energy, penetration, etc. It doesn't take much distance to penetrate the lungs or heart. It depends if you hit a skeletal structure first. In the abdomen, it depends how fat a person is as to how difficult it is to penetrate the peritoneum.

 

[Juna]

But I do think that between the history provided by the patient and onlookers, along with Xrays, and surgery, you can frequently deduce the most likely caliber someone was shot with.

I agree that if the person has the bullet extracted, then you can look at it and have a rough idea of the caliber. But, usually only the surgeons (and those in the OR) and forensic specialists are privy to actually seeing the extracted bullet. The radiographic or tomographic appearance of a bullet, as someone mentioned is always distorted--either by magnification on a plain radiograph or by artifact on a CT. Sometimes the entry wound gives you a rough idea of, say, .45 ACP vs. .22 LR, but it's not always reliable. History is nice, but how often is it reliable? "It's was a big black gun". "It was really loud". "It was huge". If the onlookers are not firearm-savvy, then your history is worthless. Plus, the majority of the GSWs I've seen have also been 15-30 year old males in the inner city, many of whom either die or go to the OR before they give you history, don't know, or exaggerate the caliber to make themselves sound like a tough guy.

In short, I again state that this is too complex and has too many variables for someone to post one good concise answer as to "which factor of a bullet is most important in terms of ballistics?".

 

[MTMilitiaman]

I agree with MachIV. Energy may be overrated as a method of estimating a cartridge's or load's killing, or stopping, power, but it is not useless. Consider that energy is what causes a bullet to expand. So to the limit that a expansion is important, so is energy, because in bullets of equal construction put through the same material, the one with the highest energy has the best chance of expanding, and of expanding the largest. This puts energy right alongside expansion, and right under penetration and shot placement, in terms of importance regardless of whether it can be proven to damage through any sort of shock. Then again, I'm another 10mm Auto fan and in the issue of handguns, feel most comfortable with a Glock 20 loaded with Double Tap's 180 gr Gold Dot load. Maybe we are all crazy, but I think Newton was on to something with his whole "equal and opposite" thing.

 

[sevesteen]

My possibly flawed, simplified explanation:

At most handgun velocities, the "shock wave" is below the threshold where it does significant damage, so what matters is the dimensions of the "permanent cavity" hole. A deep hole is better than a shallow hole, and takes more energy. A wide hole is better than a narrow hole, and takes more energy. It takes a lot of energy to make a wide, deep hole.

It isn't that the energy is irrelevant, it's that it will take a certain energy to make a certain hole, whether it's made with velocity and expansion or by mass and initial diameter. Decrease the energy, you're going to decrease some dimension of the hole, and decrease effectiveness.

 

[defiant73a]

So to the limit that a expansion is important, so is energy, because in bullets of equal construction put through the same material, the one with the highest energy has the best chance of expanding, and of expanding the largest.

Not necessarily--it's not that sample. There's a lot of things that have to work together. For example, bullet designed for optimum expansion with a ME of ~420 fpe (e.g., 180-grain Gold Dot) is very likely to fold back on itself and offer LESS expansion when pushed to a ME of ~676 fpe. Other (non-bonded) rounds may fragment and fail to achieve anywhere near adequate penetration when to MVs beyond their design limit. More ME does not necesarily mean a more effective round (and that not even addressing the corresponding decrease in "shootability" as the ME increases).

There is no reason to suppose that given well-designed modern bullets that increasing the ME from 400 fpe to 600 fpe results in a more effective round. A difference of 200 fpe is pretty meaningless in the big picture.

 

[critrxdoc]

Thank you everyone for responding and I do remember reading now the firearmsstatistical data before, but it is always good to have a refresher. I realize for the millionth time that shot placement is crucial. It is given. Everyone needs to practice and be as good as they can be with their given firearm, it does not ever need to be said again. It has been repeated adnauseum. Lets move on to those who beleive there is more than just shot placement. I just don't understand where the "excess" FPE goes after penetration and expansion. It can't just go "poof" into the temporary channel and have no effect on the bad guy. That would defy the laws of physics. The .40 and the 10mm can be driven to similiar levels of penetration and expansion with the 10mm packing more FPE. Where did the laws of physics go?

 

[defiant73a]

The laws of physics didn't go anywhere.

The assumption the rather paltry difference in energy between .40 S&W and 10mm (your example) is significant is highly questionable though.

 

[Sylvan-Forge]

I just don't understand where the "excess" FPE goes after penetration and expansion. It can't just go "poof" into the temporary channel and have no effect on the bad guy. That would defy the laws of physics.

But it can and does go "poof" (or more) into the temporary channel.
Think of it like this:

Put your tongue on a 9v battery.
Say this is the energy being transferred into the temporary cavity by a typical .25 ACP bullet as it strikes some tissue. This kind of energy transfer is not known to be significantly detrimental to the human physiology.

Now, hook your tongue up to 120v of home electricity (don't try this at home kids)
Say this is the energy being transferred into the temporary cavity by a
typical .25 ACP bullet (AT 4 TIMES ITs NORM VELOCITY) as it strikes some tissue. This kind of energy transfer IS SHOWN to be significantly detrimental to the human physiology.

Transfer a small amount of energy and the effect is hardly measureable. Transfer alot of energy and the effect is more measureable (and more lethal).




***********************
---------------------------->
***********************


***********************
***********************
---------------------------->
***********************
***********************


*
*************
***********************
***********************
***********************
---------------------------->
***********************
***********************
***********************
*************
*

 

[MachIVshooter]

A difference of 200 fpe is pretty meaningless in the big picture.

If we were talking rifle rounds, I would agree. 2,900 vs. 3,100 ft/lbs is a relatively small difference, not really worthy of noting. But in a handgun, where that 200 ft/lbs is a ~50% increase, that means the ability to drive a bigger bullet, deeper. 200 ft/lbs. is the difference between 9x19mm and .357 magnum. Again, handgun wounds are the sum of depth and diameter of the hole. The more powerful cartridges with the correct bullet achieve more of both. Simple physics.

When one chooses a caliber for their defensive handgun, one has to remeber that there is no "rule" for exactly how much penetration and expansion will be required. Logic tells us that less penetration will be required for a man that is 5'8" and 155 lbs and wearing a T-shirt than a man who is 6'2" weighing 330 lbs and wearing a heavy leather motorcycle jacket. We're talking about very different barriers before that bullet gets to the target, and a big difference in how much tissue must be penetrated before the vitals are reached. While a .380 with 90 gr. JHP''s might drop the smaller, lighter clothed man where he stands, it may not even get to the vitals of the larger man; After having to pass through the heavy clothing and several inches of fatty tissue, it may end up lodged against a rib or something, not having enough energy to continue through. We cannot know before hand which one it may be, so I'd rather pack something that can handle either.

Shot placement is key, but all else being equal, more penetration and expansion=more damage, which in turn will expedite a reaction from the target.

 

[Rebeldon]

Location is the most important factor in handgun wounding ballistics.

When it comes to handguns, there is no such thing as "stopping power", "knock-down power", "energy dump" or hydrostatic shock. With a handgun, basically you're stabbing somebody with a bullet. The location of the wound, the depth of the wound, the width of the wound, and debris left inside the wound, are the only factors that effect the results of handgun wounding.

 

[Cosmoline]

There's a lot of confusion on this topic. We need to separate the damage caused by the TEMPORARY CAVITY, esp with higher velocity rounds, and the notion that ENERGY ITSELF causes damage. With the temp. cavity, the "energy" of the round is not doing the damage. It's the shockwave of the high velocity round moving through the fluid and tearing tissue. Think of it this way. If there's an earthquake underwater, as in Indonesia, it's not the energy of the quake that does the damage, it's the way that energy moves the water column.

The notion of "ENERGY DUMP" is bogus. This is the claim that if a handgun round stops half way through the human body, it's going to do more damage than a round of the same size that passes all the way through. The notion is that the roudn that goes all the way through does less damage because it "wastes" energy on the back end. Yet nobody can show any round that continues to damage tissues after it's stopped cold. So if the .45 ACP slug stops mid way, there is no shockwave that rips the man's spine apart. Nor is the man going to suffer more of an impact. The raw ft. lbs. of the projectile do damage only when they're directed to destroying tissue. And a bullet that destroys half as much tissue because it runs out of juice half way through the torso does half as much damage than it would have done if it had gone clear through.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I've seen a lot of animals and a lot of men killed. It's my theory that the hole kills. The wider and deeper the hole, the more likely it is to kill. Put a wide, deep hole in the right place and whatever you're shooting won't go far or continue attacking long.

Having said that, penetration can be overdone. You need enough penetration to reach the vitals from any angle, and I prefer enough to provide a through-and-through shot from any angle. But beyond that, extra energy ought to be used in making the hole wider. There is such a thing as "deep enough," but there is no such thing (in any gun you can hold in your hands) as "wide enough."

 

[MCgunner]

I've seen a lot of animals and a lot of men killed. It's my theory that the hole kills.

Doesn't explain my experiences with a 7mm Remington Magnum hunting deer. I think it's more of an energy weapon than a projectile weapon from the damage it causes. I'd never seen the lungs of a deer completely vaporized (or at least that's what it looked like) until I started hunting with this gun. Can't explain that with a .284" hole. The lungs were just not there, a few bits of 'em here and there. Amazing.

Yeah, I know, we're talking pistols. But, enough energy will do some pretty wild things. I've seen evidence of tissue damage well away from the path of the bullet in .357 magnum kills, but nothing like that 7 mag. I would NOT wanna be shot with it. At least it would be relatively painless. You could measure the rest of your life in microseconds after taking the hit.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The question is, what is the wounding mechanism?

If you shoot a deer in the paunch, and hit no vital organs, you will not get a "shock wave" that ruptures the lungs and heart -- despite what Roy Weatherby used to claim.

A shot through the lungs will often show severe damage from fragments of bone and bullet material that deviates from the straight-through wound channel. What appears to be shock-induced damage is also often simply blood pumping through the ruptured tissues, flooding them as the animal dies.

 

[MCgunner]

Well, I couldn't really FIND fragments of anything in that particular deer. It was a fifty yard broadside shot and the damage was awesome, ruined a lot of both shoulders, too. I think the pressure wave destroyed the lungs, personally. No way to prove it, just trying to explain what I saw.

I've seen lesser examples, like I say. A doe I shot with a 158 grain SWC (shot through and I doubt flattened) through the lungs showed a 3" diameter wound channel the length of it. My only explanation here is pressure way off the front of the bullet damaging lung tissue out away from the actually crush path of the bullet. That's sure what it looked like.

A deer I shot this year with my Contender dropped in its tracks. In fact, I rarely have had a deer not drop in its tracks using a rifle caliber. The bullet passed below the spine, high in the lungs, yet it dropped right there and there was some blood shot tissue just below the spine, though the spine itself was untouched. I'm thinking pressure wave damaged nerve tissue in the spine because of its proximity to the bullet's path. I see this sort of thing all the time hunting. I guess I could close my eyes to it, but Dr. Courtney's past posts really peaked my interest because of my experiences. I had an idea there was some sort of wave mechanism at work, but I'm no physicist. I kinda though it might have something to do with sonic waves off a supersonic bullet, but that's sort of a stupid idea I reckon considering the speed of sound in water. Doctor Courtney's posts made a lot of sense to me explaining some of the things I've seen. he makes no claims, though, to any sort of visible tissue damage other than that nerves are susceptible, so I'm still formulating my ideas on all this. It is of no practical value, just interesting to consider and chew the fat about. You still gotta put the bullet in the boiler room, gut shot won't do, weatherby or otherwise. And, in the case of handgun power, we're talking 3400 ft lbs in a 7 mag, 500 ft lbs in the typical "high power" handgun round. When you get down to .380 stuff, I have come to the conclusion that the hole is about all there is. I think there is an element of pressure wave in a .357 mag, though. I emphasize "I THINK"