Wounding mechanisms

[Skribs]

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.

I think some people are incapable of comprehending a world beyond what's right in front of them. Because I mention terminal ballistics in this thread, and not external ballistics or technique, the only logical conclusion is that all I do is discuss terminal ballistics, and I don't practice or have any consideration for technique.

 

[WrongHanded]

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?

That's not the thoughtless part. The thoughtless part is to say conversations on any other aspect of the system is meaningless because PrAcTiCe!!

If you want to talk about practice, tactics, training, drills etc, there's a forum for that. But there's absolutely no call to try and stop other people talking about wounding by prattling on about something which is off topic for the thread.

It's almost as if you and some others think that anyone who discusses cartridge efficacy and wounding is under the impression they can buy performance and therefore not train. I don't believe that to be th case, and I doubt anyone else here does either. But let's see...

Does anyone here think they can buy performance and therefore train less?

 

[Skribs]

Does anyone here think they can buy performance and therefore train less?

I think the two are related. In much the same way that in martial arts, you also need to lift weights and skip rope to be a good fighter, instead of just training technique.

When comparing guns to martial arts, hardware largely replaces athleticism. Having the right hardware is one piece of the puzzle. It's also one that the most efficient method of "training" is by discussion, because it can help you make smarter purchases and decisions.

 

[481]

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.

Your post reminded me of this:

"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice - in practice there is."―Yogi Berra

Inevitably, it seems, threads like these become complicated when egos compete. There is a balance to be struck between training (active) and research (passive). Priorities skewed toward either extreme seem to be the cause of this. Both have their place. Neither should be excluded.

 

[21H40]

Both have their place. Neither should be excluded.

Except when discussing one and not the other.

Again, no one is advocating skipping training or relying upon a magic bullet. We wanted to talk about what - if any - science is out there on how bullets damage living organisms. Even ballistic gel is only barely related.


When your car's tires are worn, do you talk about driver's education? This thread is about tires, not driving.

 

[481]

That's not the thoughtless part. The thoughtless part is to say conversations on any other aspect of the system is meaningless because PrAcTiCe!!

If you want to talk about practice, tactics, training, drills etc, there's a forum for that. But there's absolutely no call to try and stop other people talking about wounding by prattling on about something which is off topic for the thread.

It's almost as if you and some others think that anyone who discusses cartridge efficacy and wounding is under the impression they can buy performance and therefore not train. I don't believe that to be th case, and I doubt anyone else here does either. But let's see...

Does anyone here think they can buy performance and therefore train less?

To answer your question directly, doubtless there is a contingent within the market that subscribes to that concept. The idea that somehow, buying the newest iteration of self-defense ammo will mitigate the need to refresh perishable skills, is held by a certain portion of the public. We see it expressed in the subtle context of marketing all the time. Why it exists is self-evident. It sells ammunition and puts money in the pockets of the manufacturers.

 

[481]

Except when discussing one and not the other.

Again, no one is advocating skipping training or relying upon a magic bullet. We wanted to talk about what - if any - science is out there on how bullets damage living organisms. Even ballistic gel is only barely related.


When your car's tires are worn, do you talk about driver's education? This thread is about tires, not driving.

I think you might have missed my point. I can clarify. I never said that discussing one specific aspect is/was a problem. The issue is perspective. Focusing upon one aspect to the exclusion of all else is where the problem lies. Add to that tendency the competition of egos and the attached emotion that goes with it and perspective goes out the window with folks reading far too much into the written word.

 

[WrongHanded]

To answer your question directly, doubtless there is a contingent within the market that subscribes to that concept. The idea that somehow, buying the newest iteration of self-defense ammo will mitigate the need to refresh perishable skills. We see it expressed in the subtle context of marketing all the time. Why it exists is self-evident. It sells ammunition and puts money in the pockets of the manufacturers.

So advertising would have us believe if we buy X we don't need to train? I can agree that they use that tactic to sell products. I just don't believe there's a whole bunch of people on THR who believe ads in gun tags. Maybe there are.

 

[WrongHanded]

I think the two are related. In much the same way that in martial arts, you also need to lift weights and skip rope to be a good fighter, instead of just training technique.

When comparing guns to martial arts, hardware largely replaces athleticism. Having the right hardware is one piece of the puzzle. It's also one that the most efficient method of "training" is by discussion, because it can help you make smarter purchases and decisions.

So do you or do you not believe that by buying a more effectiv cartridge, you can train less due to the better cartridge somehow making up the difference?

 

[481]

So advertising would have us believe if we buy X we don't need to train? I can agree that they use that tactic to sell products. I just don't believe there's a reason hole bunch of people on THR who believe ads in gun tags. Maybe there are.

Yes, I believe that advertising frequently, but very obliquely, pushes exactly that concept. Nobody ever said that advertising has to be completely truthful. There's a certain amount of hyperbole that is acceptable in such ad copy, and so long as it does not explicitly state that concept, it is tolerable. Mind you, I never said that it was ethical, just tolerable or, perhaps permissible is a better term.

I have no idea as to the composition of the THR demographic. I would imagine, at the very least, that THR membership probably mimics the general shooting enthusiast community with proportional representations that run the gamut of the demographic from the educated, critical thinker to the emotionally driven folks upon whom fact and logic have little or no effect.

 

[Skribs]

So do you or do you not believe that by buying a more effectiv cartridge, you can train less due to the better cartridge somehow making up the difference?

I think most people are going to train the same amount regardless of what's in their gun, so practically-speaking, I don't think it's going to change much. For example, my recent goal has been at least one range trip per week, and at least 100 rounds per trip. That's been the same no matter what I'm shooting. I just ordered some premium ammo. I still plan on going once per week.

However, if it were a budget consideration, it would depend on a lot of factors. But let's try and summarize them:

• What is your current level of skill?
• If you are improving, what is your skill goal? If you are maintaining, what is the threshold you wish to maintain?
• How much training do you need to reach your goal, or to maintain your threshold?
• What is your current bullet choice?
• What is the delta between the current bullet and new bullet in terms of effectiveness?

Let's say you assume that any supposed loss of training will increase your group size at self-defense distances from 2" to 3", but that the ammo will go from making 0.5" holes to making 2" holes. That would be an acceptable trade-off.

Now let's say you assume that supposed loss of training will prevent you from getting 10" groups at self-defense distances, and you think you will be unlikely to hit the target. And the ammo change would only increase your holes from 0.6" to 0.7". In that case, training is much more important.

The two are part of a total package of your personal security program. Training without equipment, and equipment without training, are both recipes for failure.

 

[21H40]

I think you might have missed my point. I can clarify. I never said that discussing one specific aspect is/was a problem. The issue is perspective. Focusing upon one aspect to the exclusion of all else is where the problem lies. Add to that tendency the competition of egos and the attached emotion that goes with it and perspective goes out the window with folks reading far too much into the written word.

Without a doubt I missed what you were trying to communicate.

I wanted to learn more about wounding properties because of my limited experience. In Afghanistan, I got to see people receive wounds that incapacitated them, and I've seen people get up and run after what should have been an overwhelmingly destructive encounter. IME - stopping a human is best done with explosives that remove body parts, like arms and legs. No one seems to be able to focus on their previous goals once they lose their legs.

Reality is that I don't posses or carry anything that effective for self-defense. No amount of training or magic bullet design will turn a handgun into something like a hellfire missile. So I'm curious - having seen plenty of one extreme - how these smaller tools work.

 

[481]

Without a doubt I missed what you were trying to communicate.

I wanted to learn more about wounding properties because of my limited experience. In Afghanistan, I got to see people receive wounds that incapacitated them, and I've seen people get up and run after what should have been an overwhelmingly destructive encounter. IME - stopping a human is best done with explosives that remove body parts, like arms and legs. No one seems to be able to focus on their previous goals once they lose their legs.

Reality is that I don't posses or carry anything that effective for self-defense. No amount of training or magic bullet design will turn a handgun into something like a hellfire missile. So I'm curious - having seen plenty of one extreme - how these smaller tools work.

No problem. The written word makes it difficult to 'read' tone, intention, inflection, and the other nuances of discussion.

A good starting point for obtaining an initial understanding of how these tools (projectile wounding mechanisms) work is to read the research performed by the US Army BRL (which later became ARL in October 1992).

Despite the ''intellectual heartburn'' experienced by some very prominent researchers in the field of terminal ballistics, the fact is that the US Army's BRL Bio-Physics Division at Aberdeen Proving Grounds was able to select a small arms munition that successfully matched the battlefield capabilities of the 7.62x39 using these models. These models are the very same models that were used to select the ammunition that you carried when you were in Afghanistan.

Tons (literally) of paper and ink have been spent denying the historical fact that the energy-based (ΔE15) provisional incapacitation models were a tremendously effective methodology in matching our battlefield adversaries' small arms munitions, yet the Soviets must've seen the value in doing so since they later fielded the 5.45x39 in response to the 5.56x45. And, yet, here we are. The 5.56x45 still reigns as the dominant small arms cartridge in the US military with other developments in the pipeline.

If you would like to review any of these sources in order to obtain the insight you seek, let me know and I will provide links to the relevant documents.

 

[Simple Shooter]

Well, now. I seem to have ruffled a few feathers. That was not my intention.

Nor was it my intention to belittle anyone. I simply asked a question. You may agree with me. You may think I am wrong. And I welcome that. But let’s respond either way with a little respect and class; we as gun owners have enough detractors without turning on each other.

The point I intended to make was that maybe we spend a little too much time micro examining the subject.

I have a lot of people who consult me on guns and self defense. They see me as an expert based on my past experiences. It is a title I do not like for myself, as I don’t know everything and expect there are many people who know much, much more that I do.

The biggest issue I deal with as I speak with these people is ammo selection. You’ve got a guy sitting on 200 rounds of $$$$ 115 grain Super Zombie Killer 9mm. He is afraid to carry it because he read somewhere that the new $$$$$ 124 grain Super Duper Great Gazoo ammo is much better. So he sits around wringing his hands with worry that the slightly less expensive (but still overpriced) boutique ammo in his gun is now not good enough. He reads about all the mechanics of injury such as presented in the OP (which was presented very well, by the way). And now he is even more concerned about the subject of ammo selection than he is about practicing safety, operation of his firearm, or being able to make effective hits on target.

I’m not saying that’s anyone here. But I bet we all know a newbie or two who match the description. And the ammo manufacturers who pump out a new, more expensive Ultra Fantastic Borg Nanoprobe Infused round every so often backed by claims of better penetration, wound channel, etc. know they are out there, too.

I apologize if the intent of my post was not clear; that’s on me. I did not mean the subject is not worthy of discussion, only that it is secondary to knowing how to operate the firearm to begin with. And that’s a point we can share with those new gun owners who worry too much about the subject to their own detriment.

 

[Skribs]

Well, now. I seem to have ruffled a few feathers. That was not my intention.

Nor was it my intention to belittle anyone. I simply asked a question. You may agree with me. You may think I am wrong. And I welcome that. But let’s respond either way with a little respect and class; we as gun owners have enough detractors without turning on each other.

The point I intended to make was that maybe we spend a little too much time micro examining the subject.

I have a lot of people who consult me on guns and self defense. They see me as an expert based on my past experiences. It is a title I do not like for myself, as I don’t know everything and expect there are many people who know much, much more that I do.

The biggest issue I deal with as I speak with these people is ammo selection. You’ve got a guy sitting on 200 rounds of $$$$ 115 grain Super Zombie Killer 9mm. He is afraid to carry it because he read somewhere that the new $$$$$ 124 grain Super Duper Great Gazoo ammo is much better. So he sits around wringing his hands with worry that the slightly less expensive (but still overpriced) boutique ammo in his gun is now not good enough. He reads about all the mechanics of injury such as presented in the OP (which was presented very well, by the way). And now he is even more concerned about the subject of ammo selection than he is about practicing safety, operation of his firearm, or being able to make effective hits on target.

I’m not saying that’s anyone here. But I bet we all know a newbie or two who match the description. And the ammo manufacturers who pump out a new, more expensive Ultra Fantastic Borg Nanoprobe Infused round every so often backed by claims of better penetration, wound channel, etc. know they are out there, too.

I apologize if the intent of my post was not clear; that’s on me. I did not mean the subject is not worthy of discussion, only that it is secondary to knowing how to operate the firearm to begin with. And that’s a point we can share with those new gun owners who worry too much about the subject to their own detriment.

You train with what you train with, you carry what you carry, and you also do your research. It's not an either/or. In fact, I haven't been to the range much for the past few years, except for only recently. It was after I started going to the range that I started looking into ammo selection again.

If someone's sitting on one ammo and then the next and then the next and not training, that person would be sitting on one ammo and not training if they weren't worrying about it. They have excuses not to go to the range, because subconsciously they don't want to. Maybe it's loud. Maybe they don't want to admit they suck. Maybe they think that guns are easy, so they don't need to train.

We train so we can constantly improve. I spend a lot of time doing research for the same purpose. To spend all your time training and no time considering if there are other ways you can improve is just as silly to me as to spend all your time hoarding premium ammo and never going to the range.

 

[Skribs]

Nor was it my intention to belittle anyone. I simply asked a question. You may agree with me. You may think I am wrong. And I welcome that. But let’s respond either way with a little respect and class; we as gun owners have enough detractors without turning on each other.

Just an FYI, if you're the one who ruffled the feathers, then turning around and complaining about the backlash makes you look like a crybully. Even if it wasn't your intent.

 

[21H40]

Dr. Vincent DiMaio is a renounce forensic pathologist. He is the author of Gunshot Wounds, a 401 page book that is considered a bible in the forensics field. His knowledge was developed through performing or witnessing thousands of autopsies of gunshot victims. The book can be borrowed from the Internet Library at this URL:
https://archive.org/details/Gunshot...ts_Of_Firearms_Ballistics_Forensic_Techniques

The paragraphs below are from the book. It shows the depth of the writing, and the entire book is just as analytical. If you want to understand wound ballistics, read the book.

As a bullet moves through the body, it crushes and shreds the tissue in its path, while at the same time flinging outward (radially) the surrounding tissue from the path of the bullet, producing a temporary cavity considerably larger than the diameter of the bullet.1,2 This temporary cavity, which has a lifetime of 5 to 10 msec from initial rapid growth until collapse, undergoes a series of gradually smaller pulsations and contractions before it finally disappears, leaving the permanent wound track (Figure 3.1). It is the combination of the crushed and shredded tissue and the effects of the temporary cavity on tissue adjacent to the bullet path (shearing, compression, and stretching) that deter- mines the final extent of a wound.

The location, size, and the shape of the temporary cavity in a body depend on the amount of kinetic energy lost by the bullet in its path through the tissue, how rapidly the energy is lost, and the elasticity and cohesiveness of the tissue. The maximum volume and diameter of this cavity are many times the volume and diameter of the bullet. Maximum expansion of the cavity does not occur until some time after the bullet has passed through the target. The temporary cavity phenomenon is significant because it has the potential of being one of the most important factors in determining the extent of wounding in an individual. For this potential to be realized, however, not only must a large temporary cavity be created but it must develop in strategically important tissue, e.g., a cavity in the liver is more significant than one located in the thigh.

In the case of handgun bullets, the bullet produces a direct path of destruction with very little lateral extension within the surrounding tissues, i.e., only a small temporary cavity is produced. As a general rule, the temporary cavity plays little or no role in the extent of wounding. To cause significant injuries to a structure, a handgun bullet must strike that structure directly. The amount of kinetic energy lost in the tissue by the bullet is insufficient to cause the remote injuries produced by a high-velocity rifle bullet.

If a 9-mm hollow-point bullet expands (mushrooms) to 12 mm in pass- ing through an organ, the amount of tissue crushed and shredded will, theoretically, be greater than if the bullet did not expand or if it was a solid bullet. In reality, a solid or non-expanding bullet may produce equal if not more direct injury to tissue, if it tumbles after achieving penetration while the hollow-point doesn’t. Solid bullets may even be more lethal than mush- rooming bullets. As a general rule, mushrooming bullets do not penetrate as deeply as solid bullets because they mushroom. If the aorta, for example, is 14 inches from the skin surface and the mushrooming bullet stops after 12 inches of penetration but the solid bullet travels for 18 inches, then the solid bullet is more lethal than the hollow-point.

This is exactly the thing I was looking for on a thread titled "Wounding mechanisms." Thank you dweis.

I'm NOT the person to read a 400 page medical journal, though. This is where I would love the insight from a THR person with a more medical background to break it down into simpler terms.

 

[jlmwrite]

Pneumothorax means there is air between the outside of the lung and the body wall. If caused by a projectile then it's a "sucking chest wound" which collapses the lungs and is considered immediately life threatening because how long can you hold your breath? I suspect those deer that run 100 yards die as much from pneumothorax as anything else.

A pneumo isn't always immediately life threatening. You can have a slow leak and be only mildly symptomatic. Sometime lungs will develop a pneumo spontaneously, and it's not until we get a chest film that we see it. Closed pneumos are common with smokers, as well as with patients who have underlying chronic respiratory disease. Even so, these aren't necessarily treated.

It's the traumatic pneumos that this thread that are being discussed; specifically, open pneumos. (Closed pneumos are caused by crush type injuries, such as auto accidents). Open pneumos always require treatment, but again aren't always immediately life threatening. The application of an occlusive dressing over the entrance and exit wounds is usually enough to treat this in the field until the patient reaches the ED for definitive care. It's when these simple pneumos turn into tension pneumos that they must be treated ASAP with needle decompression in the field or chest tube placement in the ED.

I glossed over a ton of basic anatomy and physiology as well as treatment methodologies, but the bottom line is that any hole in your chest is gonna make for a really bad day!

 

[kwguy]

Imagine when we move to energy weapons. We’ll have threads about phasers vs disruptors, and how much more humane a phaser is, because it vaporizes so quickly, that the act or vaporization is faster than the pain response, as opposed to disruptors, whose vaporization mechanism is much slower, allowing one to feel the process…

 

[21H40]

Imagine when we move to energy weapons. We’ll have threads about phasers vs disruptors, and how much more humane a phaser is, because it vaporizes so quickly, that the act or vaporization is faster than the pain response, as opposed to disruptors, whose vaporization mechanism is much slower, allowing one to feel the process…

Is a phaser the same as a disintegrator? Would they both leave open vessels to promote fluid loss, or would the excess heat cauterize the wounds?

I mean, if you vaporize someone's kidney, but there's not additional blood loss or something, they aren't out of the fight.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Does anyone here think they can buy performance and therefore train less?

I don't know if people think it. Wait, I am sure some do. That is neither here nor there. In reality, lots of people put this into regular practice. They own a gun. The know how it works. Maybe they got it to the range a few times over the years. They figure they don't need any refresher classes, training, or wasted time at the range to gain experience. They have effectively purchased a gun for defense and don't train with it. Straight up they are counting on purchased performance and not training.

 

[Ignition Override]

If a gun or knife is already on you, very close, ---and only If they indicate that they will kill you (don't risk your life over car keys if No passengers are inside, or wallet)--- know how to, or take classes to effectively/accurately learn how to use your Elbows and/ or Knees as "wounding mechanisms".

 

[Bfh_auto]

Back when I first got into guns, I had a very limited understanding of wound channels. My basic premise was: if a bullet is going under 2000 FPS, the wound tract is roughly the size and shape of the bullet. If a bullet is going over 2000 FPS, the wound tract gets proportionally bigger.

Over the past month or so, I've been doing as much second-hand research as I can (i.e. not shooting gel blocks myself, but looking at what others have done). A lot has been done, and publicly posted, in the last several years. The ability to see many different tests done in slow motion instead of in a final still image has led to a much different understanding. However, I don't have simple numbers anymore, as I believe the equations have gotten much more complex.

From what I can tell, there are three primary wounding mechanisms:

1. Crush damage
2. Cavitation damage
3. Fragmentation damage

Crush damage is basically what I had thought of before, although with some caveats. At the very least, a bullet will poke a hole through the target. The size of the hole depends on the size and shape of the bullet. A bigger bullet will leave a bigger hole. A flatter nose will leave a bigger hole.

Crush damage can be increased by expansion, fragmentation, or tumbling; at a loss of penetration.

Cavitation is the effect that a bullet's velocity, weight, diameter, and shape have on the transfer of energy through the target. A light, slow, small, round-nosed bullet will have a very low cavitation. A large, heavy, fast, blunt bullet will have a high degree of cavitation. This is why a shotgun slug, even moving at less than 2000 FPS, will have a massive cavity. As to shape, this is where something like a fluted bullet comes into play.

The process of deformation or destabilization (i.e. tumbling) can also lead to cavitation damage. This tends to create a wider bulge in the wound tract, but not necessarily a wider overall wound tract than the more permanent properties of a bullet.

Fragmentation can happen on impact (i.e. Glazer Safety Slug), during terminal ballistics (i.e. a 55-grain 5.56mm FMJ), or even before the round is loaded from the factory (i.e. a shotshell). What fragmentation does is amplify the effects of the other two wounding mechanisms, but often for a very shallow distance. Fragmentation increases crush damage by increasing the surface area of the round. Fragmentation increases cavitation damage by helping to tear elastic tissue that would otherwise have snapped back into place.

At least, this is my current understanding of how bullets (or pellets) affect the target. It's helping me build my new plans for what types of ammo to load for self-defense. (Put simply, buckshot in shotguns, FMJs in AR-type rifles, and fluted bullets in handguns).

Did I miss something? Get something wrong? Are there better numbers for the above?

You haven't missed much. But everything an fmj can do. A different bullet can do better. Except being inexpensive.
I've noticed the gel blocks don't always mimic the killing ability difference in real life.
FMJs are either devastating or a failure. I don't like the risk of a complete failure.
I like the premise behind the fluted bullets. Buckshot is almost never a bad choice in shotgun ranges. I've even shot clays with it to prove a point.
Having been shot by an a 7.62x39. I can say for a fact. One shot doesn't always stop your ability to move. I was hit in the pelvis. But could still walk for about 10 seconds. If you have to use your chosen ammo. Keep firing until it drops.