Are there any studies that are currently being undertaken with respect to wounding, large evidenced based studies etc.
What is the usual source of this information? Is it retrospective case studies with redaction and inferences made?
The reason I ask, is like most of us I am interested in the topics for the obvious reasons. However, it seems like most of what we hash out is dated material (no offense meant).
For that past number of years all we have had were literally a hand full of studies or so it seems.
The recent “study” by Greg Ellifritz appears full of errors, though noble in attempt.
Are any Big Agencies/Organizations looking at this with a fine toothed comb? For example, a newer FBI analysis or such?
Studies cannot account for the exact shot placement, mindset of the person being shot to separate psychological from physiological “stops”, and even combine HP and Ball ammo together like in the study you mention.
Even the definition of “stop” is all over the place. How can “Owww, don’t shoot me again” be the same one shot stop as a CNS hit?
I find studies, charts, percentages, an interesting insight into our human nature. Our desire to create order blinds us to the complexity of gunshot wounds in relation to how they stop an attacker, so we continue to try to simplify it into a chart based on caliber.
We will probably never see a conclusive report on the great incapacitation debate. Maybe we can clean up some of the inconsistancies but you’re never going to be able to read ‘the’ study that ends all studies.
I think that the current methods in use by the FBI are going to be the best available for a long time to come. I’ve read over a lot of other studies done by people like Michael Courtney and others, and there isn’t much there to link theory to observable and repeatable demonstration.
Also, the FBI method has revolutionized ammunition evolution, and there isn’t really anything there to show that the FBI method is wrong. If it ain’t broke…
Sounds like some folks don’t know what they don’t know.
Our Nation has been through a decade of major ground combat…there is extensive wound ballistic information available synthesizing data from both lab studies and field forensic evidence.
The comments about the FBI study being “dated” is absurd–the FBI BRF is not static and frozen in time; they have done more than just about any organization in the U.S. with their ongoing, up to the minute analyses of projectile terminal performance and body armor effects for both LE agencies and military organizations.
Likewise, the military has conducted quite a few studies over the past decade including the AMU/USASOC SPC work in 2002-2003, the JSWB-IPT in 2003-2006, the USMC-FBI multi-caliber ammunition study in 2005-2006, the NSWC Crane work on SOST and other small arms ammunition innovations, the USSOCOM/ARDEC report on LeMas ammo, the ongoing USMC analysis of current 5.56 mm ammunition options, the CTTSO/TSWG special ammunition procurements and intermediate caliber assessment to name just a few. What data is available publicly from these programs has often been discussed here at M4C, at LF, and a few other places, for example: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=32989 & http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf. Just because data is not public information does not mean significant information has not been collected, reviewed, and made available to the appropriate end-users.
I think what Sox is getting at, is studies that have meaning in terms of actual gunshot wounds.
Problem is, the meaning is dependant on variables that are difficult to collect retrospectively. So you either need a large collection of something like OISs with adequate recording of various data at the time of the shooting, or you need prospective shooting of animals.
Even so, I reckon in both cases you would need a HUGE sample before you got anywhere near a point where you could make some strong comments about ammunition differences (in the same class) either way. Even with targets of similar habitus you are going to get many variables and in my opinion it is no easy task to get around that.
Now if there is a secret research sample out there, with cases similar to what I have, but with the pre-hospital or pre-morgue variables documented in the same level of detail then I would dearly like to get my paws on those
Thanks for the info. Those links were insightful. While I appreciate discretion in the release of some info, I think it can add a level of bias if it is simply disseminated in part without being able to look at the whole. Just like you would scrutinize a medical journal article before taking what a rep has to say at face value.
I am curious, as from what I have gathered from available sources that most cite FBI criteria from the studies they conducted in the mid to late 80’s. Are there more recent studies authored by them? If not, could one be reasonable in thinking that 26 years is somewhat dated? Again, I am not questioning the method.
I do confess to being a bit lazy and not doing a current literature search. Please drop me PM if you would be so kind, as I would like to discuss some of this on a professional level.
It has been pretty well proven that the bigger the hole you put in the major blood-delivery system the faster the target will be unable to continue hostile acts.
The issue comes with practicality.
I would love to have a round that would vaporize a torso on impact, but getting that kind of performance out of a shoulder-fired (or hand-held) weapon at a per round cost that would permit frequent practice is not possible with our current technology and manufacturing.
So it comes down to compromise.
Get one big hole (think 12ga 00 at 10 meters), or get many smaller holes (think .22 LR) faster, each at opposite ends of the spectrum, and range dependent. Add in factors like overpenetration and barrier penetration and things get muddier. State of the art 5.56 sits pretty well in the middle of the compromise. State of the art 7.62 pushes closer to the “big hole” side, but at the expense of weight, learning curve, recoil, ammo capacity, and training expense.
*This is not an argument against 7.62 guns, just a realistic view of the obstacles to be overcome to achieve the superior ballistics.
The same can be said for the 9 vs .40 vs .45, but with much less difference in wound profile. I know quite a few cops that carry a .45 over other choices, not because they believe it to be a vastly superior round against psychos, but because they are around cars 99% of the time while on duty and therefore have a high probability of having to shoot through a car with their pistol to effect a lethal threat. In their case, a 10% improvement in barrier penetration is more than semantic. It isn’t my choice, but I work in a different environment and almost always have a carbine.
When it comes to actually fighting, terminal ballistics are but a part of the picture. Most people would be better served using the time they argue about terminal ballistics on practicing their draw-stroke. 5 Wally-world 9mm FMJs delivered betwixt the nipples will do a hell of a lot more than the 230gr JHP +P+ bear-grenade .44 mag that is still in the gun while somebody is busy sawing your head off with a rusty machette.
Beautifully stated. I was involved in a conversation with two firearms trainers from my old agency the other day in which they were questioning the effectiveness of about four very acceptable 9mm factory loads. This devolved into which ONE of them was the best and why. I finally stopped and said that ammo selection was probably, at best, about five percent of the whole issue of armed encounter management. The big problems were tactics and getting the typically mediocre police handgun operator to get good hits in a fight.
I illustrated it by saying it was almost like obsessing over whether to buy gasoline at Chevron, Valero, QT or Race Trak for your next road trip in a decent vehicle. It just doesn’t matter too much as long as the load (or gas) is a quality performer.
Why take this out of the forum? We’re fortunate in that we have very little of the wall-beating, headache-inducing ego competitions here that are seen on very many other forums, and many of us have spent a great deal of time and effort studying the subject, so we all benefit from it.
It is reasonable to assume that the FBI HWFE report is dated, however that would be a false assumption. While the design of bullets has improved over the past 26 years from when the initial reports were published, the basic design principles remain the same. Further, The protocols used for testing projectiles with regards to intermediate barriers has been updated, but remains pretty much the ideal standard: We test against wall board, plywood, heavy clothing, steel car doors, auto glass, etc. Basic obstacles one may encounter in a gunfight haven’t changed, unless you live in a vastly different world than the one I know.
You also seem to agitate for studies based on “real shootings”. The problem with this is that there is little consistency in physiology and psychology subject to subject, so what affects one person one way may not affect another individual the same way. We can, and do, gather quite a large body of information from shooting incidents, and as medical technology improves, we further our understanding of how gunshot wounds affect the body and how the human body works overall.
However, this variability between people is substantial enough that no data beyond the very basic is relevant: did the bullet penetrate enough? Expand? Does it perform consistently over a large, heterogenous range of environments?
All of that is out there, and published in recent literature, as well as being kept relatively current for the Law Enforcement community. However, we have determined, after a great deal of study, that certain criteria observed in a repeatable, standard media like ballistics gel can be associated with good performance in the real world, and thus for the purposes of eliminating the factors which we can neither measure nor predict, we can use a repeatable media to test rounds against those baseline criteria and gain a fairly good understanding of what those designs will do in the real world, as far as the physical interaction with tissue is concerned.
None of this, however, negates the need for the shooter to prepare for the need to quickly and accurately place shots where they’ll do the most good, and to deal with an attacker who’s mental state is such that it does not register a gunshot or succumb to psychological incapacitation, and who continues to remain combat effective despite physical damage by bullets.
Those characteristics can only be overcome by a shooter who has practiced with his firearm, who has cultivated a warrior mindset, and actively maintains a good training regimen to practice the necessary skills that will allow him to be effective in a gunfight.
As to the psychological state of the person who must defend himself, only in the light of that moment can that person determine what his or her reaction will be to the actual event.
Wow. The “U.S. Military Small Arms Ammunition Failures and Solutions” is a fantastic read. Love the info.
I’m starving for more information from other experienced countries (i.e. Germany, Russia, Israel).
Like to see how this information can be conformed to civilian defense and a similar summary in pistol cartridges.
I’d love to “train…and more training”, but as a civilian with depreciating training, time and funds…I tend to focus my tools on the simplest, easiest to master, with the best efficiency for my budget. This is why I’ve been exploring other defensive tools (pepper spray), and the theories of the Uzi intrigue me: easy to carry, light recoil, lots of bullets…seems to be made for the minimum trained civilian for a defensive multiple opponent attack.
I find the information still useful when understanding the variables. For example, the studies I’ve seen make a strong suggestion anything above 9mm show’s no difference in caliber. Sure, we don’t know the other variables, but I really don’t need to. Why? Because I assume I can’t control those variables in the real world anyways…so they always vary.
…Now if I was a marksman with real combat experience, the variables might mean more to me.
I think the qualification one should place on this is what level of engagement one is likely to engage in. For military personnel or even law enforcement where they are likely to expect armed threats and plan for likely engagements, information on technologies and training is critical. However, when we start looking at things from a perspective of a civilian, who is much less likely to engage targets or be confronted with a threat of the magnitude a law enforcement or military person might be, some values become far less critical.
For those of us who do not knowingly seek to engage, but rather may be engaged by an enemy, limiting risk factors and actively engaging in threat-awareness, avoidance, and deescalation are bigger priorities. Using any and every means to identify and prevent or avoid possible trouble up front makes the use of force a non-issue – don’t have to deal with it if you don’t ever get into the fight to begin with.
If a threat is presented with no means of avoidance, and all attempts at deescalation fail, then training on engaging a target and extricating yourself from the situation become important.
This is where I would say as much training data and experience as you can get with whatever firearm you shoot best is more valuable than any level of terminal performance data, simply because your goal is to get out of harm’s way and stop the threat, not choose the combo of caliber and bullet that’s most likely to be most efficient at killing your target.
If you have the time and desire, I would suggest keeping a watch for shooting reports from the news or police blotters. Inquire about the police report, and perhaps even chat with the investigating LEO.
You might also want to visit the critical care unit (hospital) in your region, and camp out at the emergency room. When those bullets come out, you might be able to get some basic information from the doctor.
This would make a fantastic research project for school, or the bored unemployed.
I’ve spoken to quite a few trauma surgeons, nurses, and other medical personnel as well as Coroners and the like. Most of them indicated that the wound in the body was not sufficiently variable in size or shape to be able to identify caliber without seeing the bullet, and the damage done to the tissue was sufficiently similar as to support that within a particular envelope, all of the major calibers worked equally well.
thisis what I did while undergoing a lot of health issues which kept me in hospitals or stuck at home: I leveraged every LEO relative and friend I had, and bugged as many hospital staffers as I could to give me information, or get information for me. A few of them were sufficiently interested and willing that they put me in touch with others they knew or asked questions/did research on my behalf, for which I’m forever grateful.
I spend most of my days taking care of neurosurgical patients. Most officers I have interfaced with simply aren’t into guns like most of us here. Occasionally, you’ll run into one. Long ago I figured it out, even back when people were espousing “Cor Bon” ammo as the be all to end all. Basically, what I saw clinically was a great respect for the random! A great respect for the small wound in the right place. and a huge amount of pity of the many stupid. I am most practical and realistic, train regularly and spend more money on this stuff than my wife likes cause it is my hobby.
Snakyjake, there was recently such a “research project” by Greg Ellifritz who compiled a boatload of info taken from such “case studies.” It is interesting and instructional.
I do enjoy anecdotal reports like all of us I think they are telling. One of my favorites is by “Deadmeat” over on S&W forum. Tales from the Morgue, is the title I believe. It basically emulates what I have seen in the trauma rooms. It is colorful.
DeltaKilo, I don’t totally agree with the risk stratification. I think my empty hand skills and gunfighting is better than the majority of LEO out there hands down! Been broken into a couple times, Assualted twice, wife was almost raped when single, and again approached by weirdo in bathroom stall in a MALL. Have stopped several incidents before it ever escalated due to awareness. From an LEO risk standpoint, take tiny town USA with a SWAT team. To me that is most ridiculous. Do we really need 7 or 8 of the GSG 9 wannabes in a metro area, with each small podunk county having one. Stratify that risk Barney!
Well, that’s the point I’m making…most non-LEOs are not going out the door with the purpose of confronting dangerous situations as a job. They are not explicitly going to scenes where the issue can happen.
They ARE put in situations where situational awareness, and other factors of keeping our heads down and out of the line of fire is important.
Point is, LEOs go out to confront violent offenders because that is their job. Non-LEOs deal with the shit that comes to them, and otherwise try to keep out of the shit as much as possible.
I’m capable of shooting, hand-to-hand fighting, and have a myriad of other tools, toys and skills to use should i have to deal with a threat. I don’t go down to the most violent parts of the local metro area and look for a confrontation, and will more likely cross the street to avoid a scene that looks dangerous than to wade in and try to confront it.
