How important are exit wounds?

I don't think exit wounds are important in and of themselves. I think blood pressure loss results from damage to major blood vessels. Internal bleeding is just as serious a problem as external bleeding. Where the blood ends up - inside the body or outside it - is not as relevant as the fact that it is not going where it needs to go. I would think that exit wounds therefore are only important to the extent that a bullet that created a large exit wound probably did more internal damage as well.

Entry wounds can clot up & if you haven't hit anything vital it becomes a non lethal wound.
But an exit wound is always bigger from the expansion or tumbling of the bullet, it won't clot from the jagged edge of the wound, any movement will open the wound again.

Internal blood loss is great. But if you don’t have that blood on the ground leaving you a trail to follow, you might be up that creek without that paddle as far as recovery. Deer can run a long ways just bleeding internally.

It doesn’t take much to punch through both sides of a deer. It never has.

I think its pretty simple...............

An exit wound
1. Will cause more trauma than a shot without an exit wound..= Quicker death for the animal, wont go as far.
2. Will cause more or better chance at a better blood trail. = Better chance to find the animal, especially in dense cover.

In MY hunting career, I have seen it over and over that and exit wound was preferred. Even if it's just to leave a blood trail...

These days, most folks are so over gunned for deer, IF a proper bullet is used, it doesn't matter one bit that some energy goes with the bullet out the other side of the animal.

DM

I’ve done the math. Two holes leak at least twice as fast as one hole.

Speculation. Not a doctor, surgeon, veterinarian, etc.
Doesn't pneumothorax enter into the equation with two holes if no organ isn't immediately fatal? i.e. twice the external air pressure entry?

-jb

I believe exit wounds are basically a non factor. Most bad guys stop at the sight of a gun. There are the meth heads that require a CNS hit but they are not something average people see every day, or at least have to defend against every day.

Hunting, where exit wounds and blood trails mean something, is a planned killing. In defense of yourself or your family, stopping the threat is the goal and that doesn’t usually require a solid slug exiting the bad guy.

To get a bullet to exit the bad guy you will have to give up something. Less or no expansion or more power. Both are trade offs that very well may not help the cause of just stopping the threat.

I assume we are tracking game? If so, I find it easier to trail a game animal if there are two holes, an innie and an outie.

3Crows said:

I assume we are tracking game? If so, I find it easier to trail a game animal if there are two holes, an innie and an outie.

Click to expand...

Since the OP was in the General Discussion forum I assumed we were not talking about hunting. I could be wrong though.

Hartkopf said:

Since the OP was in the General Discussion forum I assumed we were not talking about hunting. I could be wrong though.

Click to expand...

If that’s true, the same rules apply. But there is another rule that must then be applied also that, generally, isn’t always applied when hunting because it can be so difficult with so many variables involved.....Know your target and what is BEYOND it.

Perhaps, academically, another thing to consider is round and context.

Rifle vs handgun, hunting vs defense vs combat.

OP seems to allude to defensive use of a handgun, but pulling evidence from hunting with a rifle might be different (might not).

Just thinking out loud is all...

Edit: nevermind, saw this was addressed

Hartkopf said:

Since the OP was in the General Discussion forum I assumed we were not talking about hunting. I could be wrong though.

Click to expand...

It occurred to me that I just assumed he was talking about defensive shooting. I am not a hunter, so I have no input on that if that's the actual subject.

Can only refer to hunting game. With the proper ammo, the frontal wound can be pretty devastating. Usage of some form of ammo, like FMJ,
(IF it's legal to do so, in your state) which will provide that exit wound, also reduces the bullet's frontal end damage. IME, using ammo for the purpose of creating an exit wound, has the tendency to make a "thru & thru", which is a clean enough wound for the animal to escape, momentarily, while still mortally wounded. Have lost track of a fair amount of animals that way, when they have made a beeline, for near impenetrable bush.

The same animal type, hunted with proper, soft tipped hunting ammo, tends to absorb enough damage, in order to make it stop, in it's tracks. unable to run away. Dispatching the animal is then immediate, and you are sure of a clean kill.

But, that's just hunting...

Assuming a defensive situation:
The importance of an exit wound isn’t a factor however, the presence of an exit hole is a good indicator the bullet made it through the important parts

Regarding blood loss it doesn’t matter whether you bleed into the body cavity or put two leaking holes. For hunting it’s nice for the blood to come out so you can see it on the ground. For defense this is unimportant

But again, I value an exit hole on anything I’m trying to kill quickly if nothing more than to ensure I got to where I needed to get to

Personally, when looking at the lucky gunner penetration tests, I try to match best penetration combined with best expansion and load accordingly. I’ll favor 18” penetration with reliable expansion over 12”. I want the insurance of hitting a bigger bone or extra layer of clothing and still getting to where I want to be

For those that obsess about this stuff more than me, is this considered a sort of gold standard for comparing defense loads or are there other excellent sources?
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/

With hits to the thorax, there's plenty of internal volume for hemorrhaging blood to accumulate. Blood loss can cause lungs to collapse due to displacement, which is why a chest tube is usually administered to drain blood. Major cardiovacular structures are located deep within the thorax and leaking blood takes the path of least resistance, which usually isn't to the entrance and exit wounds. Gravity also has an effect - the "container" has to fill up until blood starts leaking out the holes.

Arms and legs are mostly muscle, which hemorrhaging blood doesn't flood into and accumulate. Holes in arms and legs allow blood to flow out of the body.

You also have to consider over penetration and a bullet hitting an unintended victim after exiting.

In self defense situation I'd prefer bullet(s) stay in an attacker(s) because exit wound(s) means bullet(s) could strike something else.

The scoop on exits. A shot placed in the right spots is almost instantly if not instantly incapacitating and an exit wound in this case is irrelevant unless over penetration is a concern such as defensive situations. On game at ranges where hydrostatic shock is very low or nonexistent and shot placement errs into the kill zone instead of 3 inch spot then one must consider penetration to the point of breaking shoulders and punching all the way through. In this scenario breaking the shoulders and having and exit can be a much easier recovery than a double lung with broke ribs. I’ve seen double lung hits that led to extensive tracking and at some points doubtful recovery. Example. I shot a doe at 340 ish yards. Perfect double lung shot. Watched the deer run over 300 yards and thought wow how much further can she go. Into the woods she went. She covered over 600 yards. I’ve since switched to Berger bullets and I can say they work as advertised. I’ve taken game out to just over 500 yards and had no exits beyond 300 yards I’m also not hunting big game where a bonded bullet might be preferable. Anyways lot of variables come into play to determine how much penetration is needed. Exits are the least of my worries when hunting. Focus on shot placement and keep the distance reasonable enough that you’re not depending on an exit wound to recover your critter

I'm not a doctor or a scientist- but it seems to me the more damage the better.

OK, I shot this buck and yeaa he ran a ways, anyway when I walked up to him I took a pict., here's the inlet hole,



Once the hide moves, it almost always seals over the inlet hole... I rolled him over, and here's the exit hole,



I knew where he had went, but IF I had needed to find some blood, I wouldn't have found ANY, without an exit hole.

I see this over and over...

DM

More damage is definitely better! An exit wound doesn’t mean more damage though, in fact it can mean less damage.

Dm I’ve seen that same shot placement do exactly as you describe several times myself. It’s no doubt a fatal hit but it’s in the area that that’s too high for the heart and too low for the cns. I think a lot of hunters aim at the deer center up just behind the shoulder and shoot. If that shot were down about where that hair just starts getting short you would have a different result. Or a couple inches higher and about 3-4 inches to the left where the dark spot is. That’ll hit the cns and results in mostly immediate incapacitation and leg quivers. Nicely done on bagging your deer!

I’m using the bottom pic as reference

Old time hunters: Elmer Keith wanted an exit for more blood out, air in. John Taylor wanted the critter to get all the energy, no exit.

Nearly every tacky tickle expert: Overpenetration bad. Your bullet should not exit an assailant and endanger friendlies on the far side.

Bow hunters now prefer no exit wound IF they have neon or lighted nocks, if memory serves. There is still a blood trail, and they can see the lit nock in a low light situation. I often wonder why people aren't putting GPS trackers in nocks these days. The tech certainly exists, and a heart shot is a heart shot whether it stays in or comes out. Use lower draw weight, with a broadhead, and GPS tracker in the nock, and you'll never have to track your kill again.
Exit wounds largely depend on the size. Certainly a bullet that ricochets into the internal organs after hitting a rib will cause much more significant injury than a clean shot through and through. Same with bullets that expand on impact. I always remember seeing those huge exit wounds made by a .357 Magnum when I was looking this stuff up as a kid.
Btw, blood clotting has nothing to do with the shape of the wound. Jagged or otherwise. That's not a factor. And yes, whether you bleed internally, or bleed out of a hole makes no difference whatsoever. Blood loss is blood loss. The only difference is that if you are bleeding out of a hole, you see it. If anything, internal bleeding is more dangerous, because you may not know the severity of it, and it can be harder for a trauma surgeon to figure out where to plug the hole.