iPhone saves man from point blank fatal shotgun blast

[Bartholomew Roberts]

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/05/27/man-survives-gunshot-wound-after-iphone-takes-brunt-blast

Anyone want to take a guess as to what type of shot was used?

 

[jmr40]

Not hard to figure out judging by the photo.

 

[LeonCarr]

Yet another reason to use buckshot instead of birdshot.

Birdshot is for birds.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[rbernie]

Yet another reason to use buckshot instead of birdshot.

Birdshot is for birds.

This.

It never ceases to amaze me at how many people will continue to recommend the use of birdshot even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it's just not a reliable fight stopper.

 

[rondog]

Hard to believe that a shotgun blast wouldn't damage it more than that.

 

[ldlfh7]

I bet that still hurt like crazy though.

 

[splattergun]

but but but... I thought there is no gun violence in England thanks to their draconian gun laws!

 

[FIGHT NIGHT]

That older gentleman on Gun Talk the TV show just did a wall test with bird shot and told the viewing audience "it's all you need"

Not buying, Buckshot loaded in HD shotgun

 

[leadcounsel]

This should be a sticky in the shotgun forum. Given the tightness of the shot pattern it suggests this was near point-blank range. Even at point blank range the birdshot was unable to penetrate a thin aluminum and plastic device.

No longer is this "apples" and oranges - Seems to close the "case" on birdshot being unreliable for self defense (or murder in this persons' case).

 

[Frostbite]

Thinking about switching to iPhone.

 

[Odd Job]

Well, up close bird shot is formidable, the pellets are largely in one group and will cause a rat-hole injury. I've seen it first hand in a shotgun wound to the abdomen at similar range with similar shot size.
My patient had a left flank rat-hole and had pellets in a cone-shaped distribution with the northern-most pellet past the midline at the level of the 7th rib posteriorly. The southern-most pellet was also across the midline at the level of the sacrum.
He lost his spleen, left kidney, several loops of small bowel, had a damaged diaphragm and a haemothorax. He had a damaged pancreas which was clamped, holes in the large bowel, damaged renal artery, colic artery and superior mesenteric artery.
Despite the best efforts of our team at surgery, he died.

Whilst I think it is not a good idea to use bird shot for self defense, I think folks are under-estimating the retarding effect of that iPhone. It is a laminated material with a soft backstop (the man) that "gives."
I certainly believe the man could be dead without the iPhone, and I also believe the phone stopped those pellets as depicted.

 

[jmr40]

Birdshot can be effective under ideal conditions. But heavy winter clothing, a leather jacket, a wallet, leather belt, or several other objects commonly worn or carried could have had the same effect as the phone.

If birdshot is all you have then use the largest shot size available. But I think it unwise to plan on using it when other options are available with no downsides.

 

[LemmyCaution]

The article states that the victim faces several more surgeries and is not out of the woods, yet. As such, we can assume that, despite the effects of the birdshot not being immediately lethal, it did end the dispute with one round.

Of course, only at contact distance.

 

[lemaymiami]

One of the officers I worked with took a contact wound from a .410 single loaded with birdshot to his knee during a struggle years ago and it resulted in a medical retirement. It nearly destroyed his knee and to this day there's some question of whether to remove the lower leg. The last I heard he was still on two legs but seriously crippled by that wound years before. The worst part of the incident was that it didn't have to happen -but that's another story...


No you don't want to get hit with birdshot up close -but it's still a very poor choice for defense work. Nothing beats the results you'll get with 00buck at ranges under 20 meters, period. You won't need any "magnum" rounds either.

 

[4v50 Gary]

I-phoines make for expensive improvised armor.

 

[cslinger]

Body armor...…there's an APP for that.

Sorry I really couldn't help myself. I will leave now.

 

[19-3Ben]

The article states that the victim faces several more surgeries and is not out of the woods, yet. As such, we can assume that, despite the effects of the birdshot not being immediately lethal, it did end the dispute with one round.

Exactly what I was thinking. Everyone here is reading only that the victim survived, and then extrapolating without any further evidence and any reason to do so, that the guy was fine and perhaps that the birdshot did not "take the fight out of him." I think that with a bit of reading comprehension we see this is not a good example at all, of birdshot being a bad fight stopper. Of course, buckshot gives a LOT more margin for error, which is why I load buck in my HD shotguns and don't depend on birdshot for defense. This just happens not to be a good example to justify that decision though.

 

[rbernie]

The point is that it ended the dispute because of a psychological decision, not a physical constraint. Depending on that doesn't strike me as the best choice.

 

[Steve C]

Looks to me like the Phone stopped the shot what would have penetrated a vital. If the phone owner was carrying it in his shirt pocket it may have protected his heart or lungs. Shot that wasn't stopped still did quite a bit of damage according to the article.

Despite making good progress [the victim] still requires treatment for his injuries – including further operations and rehabilitation. The nightmare is far from over.

There have been stories about things carried in a persons pocket saving their lives for at least 2 centuries. Pocket watches, bibles and other items have stopped bullets, knives and swords. Such things are a matter of the survivor being lucky and shouldn't be taken as an indication that the weapons used in the attempt on the persons life was flawed or ineffective.

 

[tarosean]

Even at point blank range the birdshot was unable to penetrate a thin aluminum and plastic device.

due to their multiple layers, they are several stories of this type of stoppage from various guns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkH9XWZh9NE

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/7-phones-that-stopped-bullets/

 

[alexander45]

The layered material screens of newer phones, tvs, and monitors are reasonably bullet resistant

(Looks like I got beat to it and he even has examples)

 

[jeepnik]

I know this is a small point, but, if he didn't die it wasn't a fatal shotgun blast. Fatal means dead, perhaps the folks involved in reporting such things should go back and take beginners English.

 

[dmurdach]

Sawed off?

It says that this was a sawed off shotgun, does anyone know how short the barrel was? And how much difference do you think the reduced velocity that would make as far as penetration?

 

[19-3Ben]

The point is that it ended the dispute because of a psychological decision, not a physical constraint. Depending on that doesn't strike me as the best choice.

Again. Reading comprehension. Where in the article does it say that he would have been physically well enough to have continued the fight? All it says is that he survived. People survive all sorts of things that would keep them from fighting.
I realize it's an extreme example but Roy Benavidez was stuffed in a body bag ready to be counted for dead after being blown up, shot and stabbed numerous times. He was not in any condition to fight at that point, yet he survived.

Just because this guy survived, doesn't mean he could have fought. Unless you have more info than I do, you're just plain reading something into the article that isn't there.

 

[bangswitch]

It's difficult to know the real details from watching news reports. They reported a 'sawed-off' shotgun, but the picture shows an over-under that looks to have at least 24" barrels (look at the distance from the end of the forearm to the muzzles). The news reporter also said the "bullet" was stopped by the iPhone, when you can plainly see it was a small shot load. Most of these journalists can barely tell one end of a gun from the other anyway, and their "journalistic license" leans them towards the overstated end of things anyway, so as to make the news more spectacular.

Everyone seems to forget the 1/2MV squared formula for kinetic energy. Birdshot up close can be deadly, but loses energy rapidly with increasing distance. Mid-size shot retains energy longer, buckshot even longer, and a slug will retain energy the longest. This of course is assuming similar powder loads and muzzle velocities, but with shotshells receiving lower powder loads for smaller shot sizes, generally speaking, it accelerates the energy loss with distance.