Wounding mechanisms

Tons of people shot with bullets die before they even make it to a surgeon.
Collecting the data on that continues to vex researchers.
The data on those who survive to the ER is pretty striking--when shot with a handgun, 5 out of 6 survive.
Of course, without meta analysis, with factors not collected and collated in the ER or afterward--like wound placement, distances, chemical balance of the p/t, etc.--it's difficult to gain knowledge from the raw statistic.

Dr. Vincent DiMaio
An excellent resource. He also points out that ER doctors can seldom tell one caliber from another, and generally can only differentiate between rifle and handgun. Which nearly obviates all the "caliber wars" online.

The major issue is something anyone who has engaged in anatomical dissection can assert--bodies are not uniform. The "bits" inside are also uniform to each other, either. Lung tissue is very, very different than splenic or liver tissue. There are all manner of void and semi-void spaces inside a given body.

This is complicated stuff at best. It's too easy to try to apply engineering standards down to tenths of millimeters to things where only centimeters matter. Stick a pie plate on the center of a COM target--most of the upper half of that pie plate only has air behind it--only pnemothorax is likely to incapacitate. That and volemic shock effects and exsanguination, which have a vexing habit of not being rapid "enough."

That's good if you are a combat medic, bad for when there's a target than needs stopping right there right now.
 
I've grown rather tired of debating this topic in recent months. So I bought this book.

IMG_20230502_165425699.jpg

I've begun to come to terms with the idea that I don't HAVE to know how a bullet actually stops a person. As interesting as it may be.

What I need to know is what kind of loads have the best chance of doing so. And the answer to that, from real world results, appears to be high velocity and energy loads that dump that energy quickly.

However, that really translates (terminally speaking) into a bigger temporary cavity happening more rapidly, and a big impulse or shockwave through the body to go with it.
 
I dont understand why it so hard for people to understand, that no matter what you chose to carry, what caliber or ammo you use, what the target is, or its state of mind, and any other variables, etc, it will still take, "exactly" the number of rounds it takes, to solve the problem, and not one round less.

And you know what that number is, right? Thats right, "exactly" what it takes. ;)
 
There are actual scientists that have advanced degrees and do research, experiments and studies on this. Most of the stuff widely read apparently by some of you is by amateurs and quacks. Some actually misinform on purpose because they are highly biased. Research has shown that animal and human tissue ability to yield to a bullet varies by speed of the bullet. this is why bullets beyond certain speeds do much more damage than slower bullets. Of course, military opponents to the M-16 went to great lengths to discredit the military's and real scientist's research and adoption of the 5.56 NATO round. That resulted in many being badly deceived by a group of phony self-appointed experts. Speed kills. This was proved by 1900 by the world's militaries and Ivory hunters in Africa that were able to kill elephants with military ammunition. But some of you rely on obsolete technology from black powder days.
I just shake my head at what some of you post. Bigger and faster is better. Bullet construction matters. Placement matters. Energy matters. The target matters. There is such a thing as optimal. Wish you well.
 
IMO, "tissue damage" is another way of describing the topic of "wounding mechanisms", and what I'm describing are different ways in which tissue can be damaged.

I'm going to oversimplify it here, but if tissue (or a tissue analog) gets hit by a moderately powerful round, there is a temporary cavity created around said round, which will snap back once the energy transfer is complete. However, if there are fragments included, then the tissue will be torn. The two effects of cavitation and fragmentation cause additional damage than one or the other would have caused by themselves. This is why I included them as separate.

The fragmentation can cause damage through each individual pellet or fragment, yes. But when combined with a stretch cavity, it's a powerful combo.

A lot of people mistakenly assign mystical attributes to tissue damage fragmentation and temporary cavity formation. However, fragmentation and temporary cavitation produces tissue damage that is qualitatively and quantitatively no different than tissue damage produced by direct contact with the bullet.

Even so, tissue damage remains the sole metric by which terminal effectiveness is, and should be, measured.
 
So I bought this book.

Out of curiosity, when was it written?

How do you like it? Both in terms of how much you agree with the material, and how entertaining of a read it is.

I dont understand why it so hard for people to understand, that no matter what you chose to carry, what caliber or ammo you use, what the target is, or its state of mind, and any other variables, etc, it will still take, "exactly" the number of rounds it takes, to solve the problem, and not one round less.

And you know what that number is, right? Thats right, "exactly" what it takes. ;)

Let's say that number is X. X is a variable, that depends on factors you can control (how many rounds are in your magazine, what type of round, shot placement). Some are external factors (what the target is, state of mind, clothing or armor, orientation (i.e. squared or bladed)). You still get some choice in some of the variables.

Yes, if I'm carrying a 2-shot .22 derringer, then I'm stuck with a 2-shot .22 derringer. But it's not like when I get attacked, I roll the dice to see what kind of gun I get to protect myself. I make that decision when I leave the house, or when I load up my home defense gun.

There are actual scientists that have advanced degrees and do research, experiments and studies on this. Most of the stuff widely read apparently by some of you is by amateurs and quacks. Some actually misinform on purpose because they are highly biased. Research has shown that animal and human tissue ability to yield to a bullet varies by speed of the bullet. this is why bullets beyond certain speeds do much more damage than slower bullets. Of course, military opponents to the M-16 went to great lengths to discredit the military's and real scientist's research and adoption of the 5.56 NATO round. That resulted in many being badly deceived by a group of phony self-appointed experts. Speed kills. This was proved by 1900 by the world's militaries and Ivory hunters in Africa that were able to kill elephants with military ammunition. But some of you rely on obsolete technology from black powder days.
I just shake my head at what some of you post. Bigger and faster is better. Bullet construction matters. Placement matters. Energy matters. The target matters. There is such a thing as optimal. Wish you well.

Who specifically are you arguing with? I don't see anyone in this thread saying speed

A lot of people mistakenly assign mystical attributes to tissue damage fragmentation and temporary cavity formation. However, fragmentation and temporary cavitation produces tissue damage that is qualitatively and quantitatively no different than tissue damage produced by direct contact with the bullet.

I cannot think of any example in which this is true. Not in:
  • Water jug or soda bottle tests
  • Ballistics gel tests
  • Meat substitute tests
  • Real-world examples of bullet wounds
  • Boards and cement blocks being broken by bullet impacts
Heck, even paper targets tend to get tears that are bigger than the bullet itself.

Even so, tissue damage remains the sole metric by which terminal effectiveness is, and should be, measured.

You're a step ahead of the question. I'm talking about how to get tissue damage.

It's like if I'm asking for a recipe for how to make chocolate chip cookies, and you're telling me to dunk the cookie in milk.
 
Out of curiosity, when was it written?

How do you like it? Both in terms of how much you agree with the material, and how entertaining of a read it is.

It was written back in 2001. The last (so far) of 3 books they did. Obviously we have over 20 years of data since then, but the data they had available at the time still allows for some interesting insights.

There's a chapter on energy expenditure and efficacy of FMJ and other non-expanding projectiles. A chapter on the US Border Patrol and their testing requirements between 1970-2000. Apparently the Border Patrol have had more gunfights than any other Federal agency, and have/has their own testing and standards for handgun performance. There's data on shotguns, data on rifles and 9mm carbines.

Some parts are more interesting than others. Overall it's entertaining and informative. Some people seem to think the authors are a pair of bumbling simpletons, but it doesn't read that way at all.
 
I cannot think of any example in which this is true. Not in:
  • Water jug or soda bottle tests
  • Ballistics gel tests
  • Meat substitute tests
  • Real-world examples of bullet wounds
  • Boards and cement blocks being broken by bullet impacts
Heck, even paper targets tend to get tears that are bigger than the bullet itself.

You're a step ahead of the question. I'm talking about how to get tissue damage.

It's like if I'm asking for a recipe for how to make chocolate chip cookies, and you're telling me to dunk the cookie in milk.

It's OK if you don't understand the answer that I provided. This is a very complex subject. No worries.
 
I am not worried about terminal performance to begin with. I understand where this is important in hunting, but this seems to be more of a self defense conversation.

All I am worried about is stopping the aggression. Not too many bad guys are going to stick around after being shot with anything, so we are not looking at the important factor of the psychological stop. And those that do continue to be aggressive after being shot (rare in citizen shootings) are not going to take the time to determine if they were hit by a 115 grain Speer Lawman or a 124 grain HST.

Are we overthinking and over complicating this? Would our time be better put toward practicing the skills to put rounds on target and escape to safety?
 
Let's say that number is X. X is a variable, that depends on factors you can control (how many rounds are in your magazine, what type of round, shot placement). Some are external factors (what the target is, state of mind, clothing or armor, orientation (i.e. squared or bladed)). You still get some choice in some of the variables.

Yes, if I'm carrying a 2-shot .22 derringer, then I'm stuck with a 2-shot .22 derringer. But it's not like when I get attacked, I roll the dice to see what kind of gun I get to protect myself. I make that decision when I leave the house, or when I load up my home defense gun.
As the knight in the cave in that old Indiana Jones movie said..."chose wisely", and back that up with the skills and experience to use it.

And with all your math and other factors, has the exact number of rounds to solve the problem changed?

I'm surprised you had time to type that, what with all the practicing you must be doing.
Whats the matter, did he touch a tender spot suggesting people practice more? ;)

And what you snarkily commented on, is really the most important part of things here, yet, it seems a lot of people will spend days arguing studys, numbers and magic bullets etc, yet wont get off the couch and put in the time and effort to improve their skills and increase their chances of pulling things off should they ever need to.
 
It's OK if you don't understand the answer that I provided. This is a very complex subject. No worries.

No, I understood it. It was just wrong. Try using facts and logic to enhance your argument, instead of indirectly insulting me.

I am not worried about terminal performance to begin with. I understand where this is important in hunting, but this seems to be more of a self defense conversation.

All I am worried about is stopping the aggression. Not too many bad guys are going to stick around after being shot with anything, so we are not looking at the important factor of the psychological stop. And those that do continue to be aggressive after being shot (rare in citizen shootings) are not going to take the time to determine if they were hit by a 115 grain Speer Lawman or a 124 grain HST.

Are we overthinking and over complicating this? Would our time be better put toward practicing the skills to put rounds on target and escape to safety?

Those that do continue to be aggressive might not know what they've been shot with, but as we established - that's not the point. The point is how much damage has been done.

And with all your math and other factors, has the exact number of rounds to solve the problem changed?

Yes and no. A few (possibly contradictory) thoughts I've had in this relation:
  • Best practice is to keep shooting until you notice a stop.
  • As I mentioned in Post #18 of this thread, volume can make up for variability in bullet performance.
  • Other factors have made me consider less rounds necessary. Or at the very least, what are the chances I'll get off all 34 rounds I have loaded into my VP9 and its spare magazine?
  • As I get more confidence in my bullets, I get more confidence that the number I have is sufficient.
I already carry an LCP, which is a low round count. I also have bigger guns that I carry. It's always been a compromise. This has been more about making Y number of rounds effective, where Y is how many rounds I am carrying (remember, X was already defined in this thread), than about seeing if I can go to [Y-Z] rounds due to increased effectiveness.

Although I have considered switching from 2.75" to 3.5" shells in my shotgun, so I guess it has made me reconsider somewhat...

Whats the matter, did he touch a tender spot suggesting people practice more? ;)

No, it's just rather hypocritical to come onto a forum only to belittle people who are using the forum for its intended purpose of discussing this hobby. At least he only has 100 or so posts. There's a guy on a martial arts forum I'm on, he has over 12,000 posts, and he's said on a few occasions, "Martial arts is not for talking, it's for doing." Then why have you talked about it 12,000 times???
 
No, I understood it. It was just wrong. Try using facts and logic to enhance your argument, instead of indirectly insulting me.

No insult, direct or indirect, was made. Factual, logical material was presented. If you don't like or understand it, or choose to discard it out of hand, that is fine, too. No worries! :cool:
 
No, it's just rather hypocritical to come onto a forum only to belittle people who are using the forum for its intended purpose of discussing this hobby. At least he only has 100 or so posts. There's a guy on a martial arts forum I'm on, he has over 12,000 posts, and he's said on a few occasions, "Martial arts is not for talking, it's for doing." Then why have you talked about it 12,000 times???
His post didnt seem hypocritical at all. He simply asked a simple question at the end, and got a snarky reply. And what he said in the rest of the post, made perfect sense to me. I didnt see he was belittling anyone at all.

What I did sense was, some, and a lot of people actually, seem awful touchy about things like constant practice and learning, and the important skills that they teach and reinforce, and if you bring it up, you get responses like he did.

And dont get me wrong, Im all for continued learning and being as well versed as possible in as many things as possible. But you also need to be well rounded in things as well. All the studies and numbers are informative and interesting, but without the actual mental and physical skills to make use of the other things, you really have nothing. Other than maybe the knowledge that" if" you could have just made the necessary shots to stop things, those magic bullets "might" have worked just a tad better.

Seems to me too, a lot of peoples priority lists are a mess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 481
What I did sense was, some, and a lot of people actually, seem awful touchy about things like constant practice and learning, and the important skills that they teach and reinforce, and if you bring it up, you get responses like he did.

I'll give you a few more reasons: practice can get expensive, and it's out-of-scope of the thread.

All the studies and numbers are informative and interesting, but without the actual mental and physical skills to make use of the other things, you really have nothing.

This is where the problem lies. It's the implication that because I'm looking at numbers, I'm not training. Or that people who look at numbers are worse than people who just train, because training is better.

Maybe that's not what you mean, but that's how it comes across, and it's absolutely silly.
 
I make it to the range once per week. That's what I have the budget for in terms of both time and money.

I can get on THR for most of the week. It's free. It's something I can do during downtime at work. Of course I'm going to spend more time on here than I am at the range. If I had won the lottery, and especially if I then had my own private land with which to go shooting? Yes, I'd be out there more often, for longer duration, and able to do some of my own practical tests instead of relying on internet research. But even then, I'd probably have more time for THR and youtube than time spent on the range.
 
And dont get me wrong, Im all for continued learning and being as well versed as possible in as many things as possible. But you also need to be well rounded in things as well. All the studies and numbers are informative and interesting, but without the actual mental and physical skills to make use of the other things, you really have nothing. Other than maybe the knowledge that" if" you could have just made the necessary shots to stop things, those magic bullets "might" have worked just a tad better.

Seems to me too, a lot of peoples priority lists are a mess.

I only quoted you because I didn't want to grab evidence from everyone, sorry, I'm not actually ranting at you alone. This thread had some initial questions that have NOTHING to do with training, priorities, overpenetration, or even how many magic bullets it takes to grow a beanstalk.

It is almost like half of the people who post responses have the same answers regardless of what the question was.
Q: "How do bullets cause injury?"
A1: Train more
A2: Rifles are better
A3: Don't count on one-shot stops

:uhoh:

Perhaps I'm being too sensitive. It just feels like when I ask the kid "did you clean your room?" and get the answer "I ate a sandwich."
 
I make it to the range once per week. That's what I have the budget for in terms of both time and money.

I can get on THR for most of the week. It's free. It's something I can do during downtime at work. Of course I'm going to spend more time on here than I am at the range. If I had won the lottery, and especially if I then had my own private land with which to go shooting? Yes, I'd be out there more often, for longer duration, and able to do some of my own practical tests instead of relying on internet research. But even then, I'd probably have more time for THR and youtube than time spent on the range.
Like I said, we all have our priority lists. Yours and mine are different.

As far as "practice can get expensive, and it's out-of-scope of the thread", if theres a will, theres always a way, if youre serious about it.

And how is it out of the scope of the thread? Unless what youre going on about, has nothing to do with terminating a threat, and just arguing "numbers"?

I never said people dont practice, and I truly hope they do put in as much time as possible, especially if they are carrying a gun. I just find it interesting, that when you bring it up, you get static on it.

And be honest now, of all the parts in "the package" you need, if you hope to make things work, which one is "the one", that will most likely get you through? If you think its the caliber and ammo, you need to do more research, and its going to require "field work". ;

You can have the latest and greatest man killing caliber and ammo in your gun according to all the papers and studies, but if "you" cant put them where they need to be to work, on demand, what good is it.
 
Whats the matter, did he touch a tender spot suggesting people practice more? ;)

And what you snarkily commented on, is really the most important part of things here, yet, it seems a lot of people will spend days arguing studys, numbers and magic bullets etc, yet wont get off the couch and put in the time and effort to improve their skills and increase their chances of pulling things off should they ever need to.

I was simply pointing out that a person can practice, and still post online. The two are only going to be mutually exclusive if all of the person's free time is spent on practice. Which is obviously not financial feasible for the vast majority of us.

The concept of "stop talking about wounding and go practice" is therefore a thoughtless comment.
 
Like I said, we all have our priority lists. Yours and mine are different.

As far as "practice can get expensive, and it's out-of-scope of the thread", if theres a will, theres always a way, if youre serious about it.

And how is it out of the scope of the thread? Unless what youre going on about, has nothing to do with terminating a threat, and just arguing "numbers"?

I never said people dont practice, and I truly hope they do put in as much time as possible, especially if they are carrying a gun. I just find it interesting, that when you bring it up, you get static on it.

And be honest now, of all the parts in "the package" you need, if you hope to make things work, which one is "the one", that will most likely get you through? If you think its the caliber and ammo, you need to do more research, and its going to require "field work". ;

You can have the latest and greatest man killing caliber and ammo in your gun according to all the papers and studies, but if "you" cant put them where they need to be to work, on demand, what good is it.

How much do you practice? Do you do anything besides practice?

This thread is isolating the variable of what happens when a bullet hits the target. It's focusing on terminal ballistics. A hit is implied. That's why discussion of things other than hits, or of how to get hits, is out-of-scope of this thread.
 
Optimal solution:
1. Study the anatomy of the 'likely adversary' to use a Cold War term. This includes learning the function of each organ and what damage to it does to speed up incapacitation. How it does this damage, as we are discussing, is obviously a part of this.
2. Practice with anatomically correct (at least in 2D) targets that show internal organs. Slowly at first, with emphasis on accuracy and smoothness of action. Develop speed. Change to B-27 or IDPA silhouettes. You do not have to be Reed Thell, but work to find the best balance of accuracy and speed for you.
3. Decide what projectile and load will accomplish your incapacitation goals, with a mind on what this projectile will do when placed non optimally.
4. Practice with your picked SD round, at least enough to know how it's going to shoot when needed.
5. Repeat 2 and 4 at regular intervals.
 
I only quoted you because I didn't want to grab evidence from everyone, sorry, I'm not actually ranting at you alone. This thread had some initial questions that have NOTHING to do with training, priorities, overpenetration, or even how many magic bullets it takes to grow a beanstalk.

It is almost like half of the people who post responses have the same answers regardless of what the question was.
Q: "How do bullets cause injury?"
A1: Train more
A2: Rifles are better
A3: Don't count on one-shot stops

:uhoh:

Perhaps I'm being too sensitive. It just feels like when I ask the kid "did you clean your room?" and get the answer "I ate a sandwich."
If all you want to do is argue what the bullets do, then I agree, the rest is meaningless. And when reality starts to seep into the conversation, and you start to get some reality added to the mix, and things start to go off in different directions. I dont think that can be avoided unless you specifically state at the beginning, this is all just numbers mental masturbation and nothing else will be discussed.

But if this discussion is about actually doing something with those rounds, calibers, bullets, then you just cant say that what the numbers say the bullets will do is the whole answer. And in fact, its actually down the list of things on the priority list.

I was simply pointing out that a person can practice, and still post online. The two are only going to be mutually exclusive if all of the person's free time is spent on practice. Which is obviously not financial feasible for the vast majority of us.

The concept of "stop talking about wounding and go practice" is therefore a thoughtless comment.
The whole point of practicing, is the wounding, and preferably, practice to quickly stop things, assuming youre practicing for that. So, how is that a thoughtless thing?

As far as the financial thing, thinking youre buying skills with magic bullets, is a lot less cost effective than time, money, and effort spent in practice, should that unlucky day come you might need them. ;)

How much do you practice? Do you do anything besides practice?

This thread is isolating the variable of what happens when a bullet hits the target. It's focusing on terminal ballistics. A hit is implied. That's why discussion of things other than hits, or of how to get hits, is out-of-scope of this thread.
I usually shoot 2-3 times a week (on my way out right after Im done here, as a matter of fact), and with a number of different guns. 99% of that is not spent on static bullseye type shooting.

And I still lead a fairly active life and do a lot of other things as well. I am retired now, and can get to do a bit more, but even when working 10-12 hours a day with an hour ride on each end of that in the past, I still was shooting pretty much exactly as I am today, and have been doing that for the past four decades or so. If there is a will, there is always a way. ;)

"Hits" (and preferably, good hits) are the whole point of things. How are they out of the scope of things, and not the most important part of all this? Other than that you just want to argue numbers out of context?

Optimal solution:
1. Study the anatomy of the 'likely adversary' to use a Cold War term. This includes learning the function of each organ and what damage to it does to speed up incapacitation. How it does this damage, as we are discussing, is obviously a part of this.
2. Practice with anatomically correct (at least in 2D) targets that show internal organs. Slowly at first, with emphasis on accuracy and smoothness of action. Develop speed. You do not have to be Reed Thell, but work to find the best balance of accuracy and speed for you.
3. Decide what projectile and load will accomplish your incapacitation goals, with a mind on what this projectile will do when placed non optimally.
4. Practice with your picked SD round, at least enough to know how it's going to shoot when needed.
5. Repeat 2 and 4 at regular intervals.
Thank you.
 
I usually shoot 2-3 times a week (on my way out right after Im done here, as a matter of fact), and with a number of different guns. 99% of that is not spent on static bullseye type shooting.

And I still lead a fairly active life and do a lot of other things as well. I am retired now, and can get to do a bit more, but even when working 10-12 hours a day with an hour ride on each end of that in the past, I still was shooting pretty much exactly as I am today, and have been doing that for the past four decades or so. If there is a will, there is always a way. ;)

You're definitely an outlier. I would say the vast majority of folks who aren't in some gun-related job don't get the opportunity to shoot as much as you do. I would keep that in mind when you're going to talk down to folks about not meeting your expectations of how often you should train.

"Hits" (and preferably, good hits) are the whole point of things. How are they out of the scope of things, and not the most important part of all this? Other than that you just want to argue numbers out of context?

The context is hits. Unless I forgot some part of my post where I talked about how the air pressure from a near miss can cause damage somehow?

Should I carry an airsoft gun for self-defense? I mean, as long as I hit the target, that's what matters, right?
 
If all you want to do is argue what the bullets do, then I agree, the rest is meaningless.

Exactly. There have been and will be more threads on other aspects of the entire situation. This started as a thread trying to narrow down the conversation to cover one aspect of a shooting. In an effort to make the discussion fruitful the scope from the beginning was on wounds - not even on bullet choices.

I've seen many things on THR, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue for less time spent training. I think you're preaching to the choir here - though some of the choir sings more often than others.
 
Back
Top