Your “opinion” doesn’t mean jack-shit in a technical forum. Facts are what matter here. You’re posting gun-rag BS in a technical forum about “energy” as a wounding mechanism, without posting any factual data or credible scientific references to support it. Bullets are not phaser beams and “energy transfer” is not a wounding mechanism for small arms fire. I suggest you re-educate yourself on the subject matter. You can start with the references below.
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
The “Shock Wave” Myth
By Dr. Martin Fackler
Wound Ballistics Review, Winter 1991 and the Journal of Trauma, (29[10]: 1455, 1989).
Ballistic Injury
By Dr. Martin Fackler
Annals of Emergency Medicine, December 1986
Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness
by Special Agent Urey W. Patrick
Firearms Training Unit
FBI Academy
From firearmstactiacl.com 9mm fmj.
Looks like the bullet travels about 20cm before it starts to yaw. The TC looks to start at 15cm. The TC is maybe 7cm?
Excuse my ignorance, but if the bullet will tend to crush and obliterate tissue, as well as force tissue out of its path by virtue of the fact that it MUST displace tissue, would this not cause compression of brain matter? And under such compression in an organ that is relatively inelastic, would the tissue then not be suffering from greater damage by the act of compression in the vicinity of the permanent cavity, as well as the damage done directly in creating the permanent cavity?
Therfore, would it not be true to state that the amount of damage caused by the bullet traversing through a length of the brain would in fact be greater than a bullet that traversed some distance in and stopped as it would not continue on a path causing damage?
Also, would not the existence of two holes in the cranial cavity compared with one be also a mitigating factor to further damage caused by any swelling that may occur due to blood flow, as there exists points where the blood may be readily drained off and prevent further tissue damage?
The TC is created by velocity not energy dissipation. Yes from what I read inelastic tissue is damaged by the TC more than elastic tissue.
“The Wound Profile: A Visual Method for Quantifying Gunshot Wound Components.” Martin L. Fackler, M.D., and John A. Malinowski, B.S., JTrauma
The erroneous assumption that the ammount of kinetic energy “depostited” by a projectile is a measure of the damage it produces continues to misslead.
Wounds that result from the same ammount of “kinetic energy deposit” can differ widely, depending on the predominant tissue
disruption mechanism (crush or stretch) and the anatomic location of the desruption.
There seems to a be a lot of confusion as to how exactly kinetic energy figures into wound creation. Kinetic energy of a projectile alone is a poor measurement of wounding effectiveness, not because it is irrelevant, but because there is no information as to how this energy is used to create the wound. Bullets with the same Kinetic energy can behave very differently depending on construction, weight, and diameter.
Per Macpherson the projectiles kinetic energy is in fact lost in soft tissue in a number of ways. Temporary cavity creation (conversion of kinetic to potential energy ie. stretching a rubber band), bullet deformation, heat generation (any time material is deformed or stretched it generates heat), and cutting the tissue ulimately all of the kinetic energy of the projectile is in fact mechanically dissipated as heat. All things being equal temporary cavity size will in fact be proportional to the rate of kinetic energy transfer to the tissue. This is why temporary cavity increases as the bullet expands or yaws (which causes it to slow more rapidly). If we only look at velocity we loose this very important aspect of physics. The brakes on your car do the same thing. They convert the kinetic energy of your vehicle to thermal energy. If you double your speed it is 4 times harder to stop the car not twice, as hard.
If we look at the now infamous gelatin photo comparing service calibers we can clearly see this effect.
The 125gr .357 Sig, and 124gr load penetrate to almost identical depth with nearly identical expanded diameters. The temporary cavity created by the .357 Sig is clearly larger. Didipating a greater ammount of energy over the same distance without bullet fragmentation results in a higher energy transfer rate to the tissue, and a larger temporary cavity. Again throw a rock harder at a pond, and you get a bigger splash.
Here is the part that gets everyone worked up. Temporary cavity size alone does not tell us how severe the wound will be unless we are dealing with inelastic tissue. Because most of the tissue in the body is elastic it tells us almost nothing about wound severity, and we look to expanded diameter, or fragmentation effect to determine the degree of damage done by crushing, or tearing, of tissue.
Since handguns normally do not produce temporary cavities large enough to exceed the elastic limit of most human tissue, and do not fragment in a manner that aids wounding we do not look at temporary cavity in handgun wounds as a contributing factor.
WTF are you babbling about? Nothing that you stated has anything to do with the subject of the myth of “energy transfer” as a wounding mechanism. Did you even read the references that I posted that you quoted me on?
The argument is that doesn’t if the same identical bullet shape traveling at the same speed (same kinetic energy).
Traverse the cranium and exit.
Stop inside the cranium.
Bullet 2 would cause more damage because it “deposited” all it’s energy in the cranium. I Don’t believe it would.
Bullet 1 would do more damage because it created a longer (larger) wound channel. Yes because it creates a larger wound.
By that I mean, if the bullet can create a hole all the way through the target it will case more damage than if it were to stop 1/2 or 3/4 of the way through.
Without knowing why the bullet stopped in the cranium, and what kind of damage it dis there is no way to tell which wound would be more severe based on only that information. A .240gr bullet from .44 magnum that passes through the skull will clearly do more damage than a .22 LR that does not. When we talk about specific calibers, and particular loads we have to be careful to be very specific.
Without a doubt a JHP 9mm that expands, but does not exit the skull would do more damage than a 9mm FMJ that exits assuming that the 2 projectiles follow the same path. However if we look at two identical projectiles fired from the same weapon where one exits, and one does not, and the wound track was identical then we must assume that the exit wound adds additional trauma. Bullet penetration depth depends on a lot of factors. Sometimes bullets deflect of things they should easily penetrate, or they simply fail to penetrate all together. A blanket statement that an exit wound means less severe trauma is not always correct, although there are some instances where it may be.
If the bullet stops in the body, whether cranium or anywhere else, that tells us that all of its energy has been expended in creating the wound components (TC and CC). If it exits the body, that means that it expended at least some energy outside the body after it exited.
It’s not about expending all it’s energy in the target. It’s about the wound channel.
I think you mean temporary. Most tissue in the human body is elastic enough not to suffer additional damage due to temporary cavitation from pistol bullets. However due to the rigid construction of the cranial cavity, and limited elasticity of brain tissue there may be additional damage due to temporary cavitation even at handgun velocities.
…Original post by RWK…
“This is a discussion forum about terminal ballistics. Facts: someone was shot at close range; the 9mm projectile passed through the brain; the victim survived. I think every aspect of this is extremely valuable and interesting to anyone who studies or has an interest in the field. Medical researchers across the country are discussing the very same things right now.”
Yes and no. The brain is not inelastic, just less elastic than other body tissues. Unlike other less-elastic organs, the brain is also adaptable enough that different areas can pick up the functions of destroyed areas. A through and through shot takes the bullet as a wound mechanism out of the equation: it enters, does its thing, and leaves. A bullet still in the skull can still cause significant tissue damage (especially if it has any sharp ridges). Keep in mind how much blood flows through the arteries in the brain, and where those arteries are located.
So how does a through and through shot take the bullet out of the brain as a wounding mechanism? In this case, owuld the bullet not have caused damage as it passed through?
Ah, I meant as an active wounding mechanism. In a through-and-through, the bullet has done its damage and is gone from the picture, posing no further threat to the victim. When the bullet does not exit the brain, it’s already done damage to get to that point and can continue to do damage as long as it remains in the brain.
Both the through-and-through and partway-through shots can be equally fatal. I would argue that the through-and-through is more likely to be immediately fatal, since it implies sufficient penetration to hit the parts of the CNS that turn the whole body off where a partway-through shot might fall short of hitting those parts (though still may ultimately be just as fatal).
I saw the video interview of the retired (COL.?) that helped subdue the shooter. He says that he was shot in the back of the head and didn’t realize it till he was covered with blood. He is out of the hospital and seems OK. I wonder of he had a glancing shot or was hit by a ricochet. Two non-lethal head shots seems like a lot. Sounds like he was pretty lucky.
Pistol bullets do possess the capability to produce (temporary) cavitation in soft tissue/colloidal media/calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin.
If, in fact, the projectile in question was a 9mm FMJRN, then depending upon its velocity, cavitation can occur.
According to MacPherson’s model, the Vcav for such a projectile (a 9mm FMJRN; CDc = ~0.57) works out to approximately 515 feet per second.
If the bullet is moving faster than that as it traverses the media, cavitation can/will occur; once it slows to less than that, no cavitation can occur.
I also pray for and look forward to the Honorable Representative’s full and complete recovery from this horrible act of cowardice.
It looks like the shooter purchased 100 rounds of ammo from Walmart. I know both of the nearby Walmarts and neither one routinely carries hollowpoint ammo. Two years ago, I thought I saw a few boxes of HPs, but none of them were of high quality. All of the stuff I’ve seen in the cases lately were FMJs (WWB, Rem, Federal, Herters).
It appears that many, including some in the medical profession, often attribute increased damage from a properly designed expanding projectile, (which often doesn’t exit), to “energy”.
It is sad to see what happened, but I also agree with you guys that it also perks a certain scientific curiosity at the same time. The 1986 miami FBI shootout also was a horrific incident, but also had the same effect.
That said, I do not recall 5x7x28 to be that ineffective during the fort hood shooting – everyone that was hit in COM places died, and some that did not get hit in vital areas did also. I would guess that 9mm FMJ has a bad rap for a reason… My other military friends do not take it with any serious nature at all. Now many WWII guns were 9mm luger and did seem very successful, so why is this? It seems 9mm FMJ has been around and successful at the same time. How can two people with headshots survive, a person shot 4 times in the chest, and yet the little girl who was hit once in the chest died? I thought the shot placement of the fort hood shooting was much worse overall, but I am wondering how these two instances compare given the available data. I know Doc really seems to hate on 5.7x28 for good reason, and I just want to see how this data stacks up. It seems that 5.7x28 was effective in the fort hood shooting. Hell, one of the guys in the 1986 FBI shooting was hit by a 38s +P/9mm 12 times (twelve!). I know the people in the 1997 BOA robbery had armor, but as far as I know both had more than 10 penetrations with one of those two taking 29 hits total. What are your guys thoughts?
Are there any more modern (post 1975) shootouts with .45 acp/357 mag/44 mag? I have done some searching but it seems that bad guys seem to pack AK clones and cheap 9mm handguns if any at all.
If I have any of my information wrong please correct me. I do not own any guns in either of these calibers. The whole reason we study things like the 1986 miami shootout and the 1997 BOA robbery is to evaluate these platforms and tactics so that we further our knowledge.
