Bow Vs Gun Ballistics

[kannonfyre]

We're all pretty familiar with the wound ballistics of popular handgun calibers like .45ACP, 9mm, .38 Special, .44 Magnum....etc. However, for the sake of academic discussion according to a forensic point of view, how does a wound from a bow compare to that from a handgun?

For example, a carbon arrow with a 125gr fieldpoint tip shot from a compound bow with a 50# drawweight and a 24" drawlength hits someone in the guts during a range accident. How would the wound channels and survivability compare to another guy who got hit in the same place by a 124gr LRN .38 Special shot from a 4" barrel due to a accidental discharge?

Any potential CSIs out there?

 

[Skofnung]

From what I understand, arrows kill by exsanguation (sp) or cns hits. In other words, if a guy got hit in the guts with an arrow, as long as no arteries were severed and he could get to a hospital post haste, I say his chances of survival are pretty good. The wound channel would be "arrow straight" from the point of impact. Being that we are talking field point here (as opposed to broadhead) there would not be as much bleeding, again, unless something important (liver, spleen) got hit. It would be just like getting run through with a piece of rebar.

Bullets kill the same way, but they tend to tear things up more than arrows due to the speed at which they travel and deformation of the projectile. The wound channel would probably not be straight, and being that the "guts" are not protected by bone there is a good chance of the bullet exiting the victim. All together the bullet does much more damage than the arrow. Bullet wounds are harder to patch up from what I understand.

Now if either projectile pierced somethong nasty such as a full bladder or the full large intestine, the victim could look forward to a painful infection that may well kill him. Nasty stuff that...

 

[Sunray]

"...Bullets kill the same way..." Um, no. Bullets kill with massive shock and a larger wound channel caused by hydrostatic shock. Arrows kill by causing internal bleeding, but not much of a wound channel.
Here's a site with lots of specific info on wound channels.
http://snipersparadise.com/wound/penetration.htm
Here's one on arrows. Crappy font though.
http://www.tradgang.com/ashby/Arrow Lethality 5.htm

 

[Skofnung]

Um, no. A .38 Special does not go fast enough to cause hydrostatic shock. Most pistol rounds don't. Only rifle rounds do this with assurance.

He asked about .38 LRN. Had he asked about a rifle round, I would have brought in the hydro thing. Perhaps I should have clarified.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Skofnung has accidentally impaled the correct with a carbon arrow, and it is cursing at him.

 

[SteelyDan]

Just curious, how much does an arrow with a broadhead (is that the right term?) weigh? A year or two ago, I got to see my brother in law shoot arrows, and I was amazed and humbled. I think he'd have a very legitimate chance of beating me for accuracy at 25 or 50 yards if I was using a pistol. I gained some new respect for arrows the day I watched him shoot. Obviously, there's less velocity, but I'm curious how much mass the arrows have.

 

[444]

I have never seen anyone shot with an arrow.
I have seen quite a few people shot with handguns (I work as a firefigther/paramedic).
I have had this discussion many times with other paramedics.
In my totally uneducated opinion, an arrow, fired from a hunting type bow (50 pounds or so of draw weight), and equipped with a broadhead would cause significantly MORE trauma than a handgun bullet (any reasonable handgun bullet) and would result in a much quicker death.
I have even gone so far as to say that a hit in the chest would almost be unsurvivable unless it happened inside a trauma center with the trauma team standing there prepped for surgery.
Getting shot with a broadhead tipped arrow would have little in common with getting run through with a piece of rebar. In fact, I would have said just the opposite: getting shot with a handgun bullet is like getting run through with a piece of rebar.

 

[Navy joe]

Ouchie.

 

[Leaky Waders]

Hunting arrows are usually ~ 10 grains per pound of pull weight for traditional bows. So...about 500 grains total weight for a 50 lbs recurve or longbow.

From what I've read...no traditional bow with a reasonable draw length and poundage can go more than 200fps.

I'm not sure of the weight/speed that bows sporting training wheels can shoot

As for the pics yuck...looks like they could've just unscrewed the shaft from the broadhead w/o cutting the shaft in half. He might need that arrow again once that dude gets well.

L.W.

 

[Sunray]

"...to cause hydrostatic shock..." It's the wound channel that causes the hydrostatic shock. There will be a wound channel with any bullet.
"...how much does an arrow with a broadhead (is that the right term?) weigh?..." Yep, that's right. My broad heads weigh 125 grains. I opted for them because a target point weighs 125 grains too. Figured it'd change my POI less using the same weight. There are heavier broadheads though. Seems to me the whole arrow can weigh in the neighbourhood of 700 grains. Depending on the shaft material.
"...getting shot with a handgun bullet is like getting run through with a piece of rebar..." Nope. Think velocity.

 

[444]

"Nope. Think velocity."

I would rather think about the hundred or so actual gun shot wounds that I have personally seen from inches away.

 

[MrAcheson]

It's the wound channel that causes the hydrostatic shock. There will be a wound channel with any bullet.

Nope. Hydrostatic shock occurs like this. The bullet hits the body. Upon impact a pressure wave propogates out from the impact site through the surrounding tissues at the body tissue's speed of sound. This is the so-called "hydrostatic shock". It is neither hydrostatic nor a proper shock wave, but this is what people are talking about when they use this term. If the bullet is big and fast enough, the damage caused by the shock wave can seriously damage organs and blood vessels.

You see this in little varmints if you hit them with a powerful rifle round. They may be hit in the chest, but the skin at the tips of their feet will be blown out. However usually the bullet is going too slow and the target is massive enough that this effect doesn't do anything meaningful. The funny thing is that its most talked about with pistols, when pistols are far to weak to cause it.

"...getting shot with a handgun bullet is like getting run through with a piece of rebar..." Nope. Think velocity.

Yes actually. While the bullet is going much faster and is much lighter, the actual damage it does is massive and penetrating blunt impact trauma much like the rebar would do. Bullets don't cut through someone like an arrow, they just push, rip, and tear their way through like the rebar.

 

[stevelyn]

Broadheads have a cutting diameter of at least 1" and most run 1 1/8" or larger. They kill due to inflicting massive hemorrage. Very little shock is imparted on the target. Most animals hit with arrows are unware of being hit (barring hitting a major bone) and continue what they are doing until the lights go out. There is also little trauma associated with an arrow wound. The cuts from a broadhead are clean and bleed freely where the shock of a bullet wound may cause instant clotting and the body to shut down and compensate for the trauma.

 

[444]

"There is also little trauma associated with an arrow wound."

 

[JShirley]

I think he means little shock- as in impact- is transmitted, because there is usually no deformation of the arrow.

I could be misunderstanding, though. In fact, since he said what I just said at the beginning of the post, he may have meant something else. Now, I'm confused.



John

 

[Al Thompson]

Seen a good number of handgn wounds on game and, maybe, 5 deer shopt with arrows. With a broadhead, I'd rather be shot with a handgun, regardless of caliber. Perhaps it's different with the new broadheads, but the old two bladed styles made a wound that looked like a 1 inch drill bit had chewed through at a slow speed. I.E., hamburger through the wound channel.

Arrows do rotate - look at the feathers.

 

[Richardson]

Getting hit with a field tip would be similar to getting shot with pistol ball ammo of the same diameter.

Getting hit with a broadhead is more like getting shot with a 12 gauge shotgun slug as far as wound channel, except that the slug won't continue wounding when you bend, sit, stand, etc.... Broadheads are nasty and quite effective at bleeding out an animal.

Richardson

 

[PBIR]

Looks like Bo and Luke Duke had it right after all. Anyone know where I can get some TNT to tape to my arrows?





disclaimer: Dear BATF, The above was a joke, please do not kick in my door - I have no desire to purchase explosives and I like taxes!

 

[kannonfyre]

2 questions:

1)Shot from the SAME bow, which would be more lethal in a range accident? A 75gr fieldpoint or a 125gr fieldpoint?

2)for protection from stray arrows, which would work best? double layer of chainmail or class II ballistic vest?

 

[MrAcheson]

My guess is that the heavier point will do better than the lighter one, but its just a guess and probably depends upon the archer and tip geometry more than the head weight.

As for chain vs ballistic vest, I think your screwed with either. Maille is notoriously poor at stopping arrows and thrusting weapons. The arrow will burst a link or two and go through. This is especially true of modern butted-link show armors. If your lucky it won't get too far through your padding. Ballistic vests are notoriously poor at defeating sharps because sharps will cut the fibers instead of compressing them like a bullet does. To defeat the threat you really want plate of some sort, either kevlar/epoxy or steel. Between the two I'd probably go maille because you'd be wearing padding underneath it unlike the ballistic vest.

 

[zahc]

)Shot from the SAME bow, which would be more lethal in a range accident? A 75gr fieldpoint or a 125gr fieldpoint?

Almost no difference, if the heads are otherwise identical.

Of course you said 'shot from the same bow' not 'shot at the same velocity', see?

 

[MrMurphy]

An arrow versus a ballistic vest would be similar to a bayonet thrust. Probably would penetrate.


Maille is almost always worn with a gambeson/jack/aketon (quilted cotton or wool jacket) underneath to serve as padding and to stop arrows. During the Third Crusade eyewitness reports said the men wearing maille looked like pincushions, with arrows sticking at all angles from their mail but the gambesons stopped the arrows after going through the mail without causing any injuries.

Of course, armor piercing heads versus broadheads etc..... they made longbow arrowheads specifically for penetrating plate armor, and sometimes they got through.


For a realistic portrayal of someone getting hit with a broadhead, watch the end of the first Lord of the Rings. Boromir takes multiple hits but keeps fighting as well as he can till he bleeds to death. This is consistent with historical records for anything short of a lung/heart or head hit.

 

[kannonfyre]

2 last questions...

1) When it comes to ballistic performance, which would be better? A split limb compound or a non-split limb compound?

2) How well do fieldpoints equate to bodkins?

 

[MrMurphy]

1. Either should do fine.

2. Similar performance, but not quite as good since they're not needle sharp. They're also usually not hardened steel, they're just practice arrows.

 

[Watchman]

Interesting discussion.

As one who has killed deer with both arrows and bullets, Im going to chime in.

When I had first started bowhunting many years ago, I had killed around a dozen or so Buck deer with various rifles,most with a .30-06 but several with a .308 or a .300WinMag.

I must say that the first deer I ever killed with a bow simply AMAZED me. It was a 28 yard heart/lung shot on a 6 point buck. When the arrow hit him it sounded like I had smacked him with a 2x4. The deer imediatley took off running and went around 80 yards before he gave it up.

The arrow never even slowed down. At the time I was shooting a High Country set at 90 lbs and using a 125 grain Thunderhead. As a matter of fact I have only had one arrow stay in a deer in the several dozen that I have killed with a bow, but thats another story.

What amazed me was the bloodtrail. It was approximatley 3 feet wide and I had no idea that a deer had that much blood in it. I had no problem walking right up to deer which had died in a thicket, one would have had to have been blind to miss that blood trail.

Not one single bullet hit bloodtrail that I have ever seen could compare to the bloodtrail left by a broadhead.

When gutting a deer and examining wound effects, the bullet appears to do more collateral damage as a broadhead only damages what it hits. Occasionaly, a broadhead will shed some of its blades which will then cut their own path. Ive known of two deer bing killed on the spot by target tips, both were head shots at less than 15 yards. I would equate that to being about the same as a bullet hit in the brain.

As one that has seen many gunshot wounds on various animals and broadhead hits, if I had a choice in which to get shot with a bullet or a broadhead I would choose a bullet everytime. If you get stuck with a broadhead and a surgeon is more than 30 seconds away its over. We hear of people surviving bullet hits all of the time. A bullet in the non vitals is survivable. A broahead though the leg is still as likely to let you bleed out whereas a bullet might not.