|
U.S.
Department of Justice
Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness
Special Agent UREY W.
PATRICK
FIREARMS TRAINING UNIT
FBI ACADEMY
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA
July 14, 1989
Forward
The selection of effective handgun
ammunition for law enforcement is a critical and complex
issue. It is critical because of that which is at stake
when an officer is required to use his handgun to
protect his own life or that of another. It is complex
because of the target, a human being, is amazingly
endurable and capable of sustaining phenomenal
punishment while persisting in a determined course of
action. The issue is made even more complex by the
dearth of credible research and the wealth of uninformed
opinion regarding what is commonly referred to as
"stopping power".
In reality, few people have
conducted relevant research in this area, and fewer
still have produced credible information that is useful
for law enforcement agencies in making informed
decisions.
This article brings together what
is believed to be the most credible information
regarding wound ballistics. It cuts through the haze and
confusion, and provides common-sense, scientifically
supportable, principles by which the effectiveness of
law enforcement ammunition may be measured. It is
written clearly and concisely. The content is credible
and practical. The information contained in this article
is not offered as the final word on wound ballistics. It
is, however, an important contribution to what should be
an ongoing discussion of this most important of issues.
John C. Hall
Unit Chief
Firearms Training Unit
Introduction
The handgun is the primary weapon
in law enforcement. It is the one weapon any officer or
agent can be expected to have available whenever needed.
Its purpose is to apply deadly force to not only protect
the life of the officer and the lives of others, but to
prevent serious physical harm to them as well.1
When an officer shoots a subject, it is done with
the explicit intention of immediately incapacitating
that subject in order to stop whatever threat to life or
physical safety is posed by the subject. Immediate
incapacitation is defined as the sudden2
physical or mental inability to pose any further
risk or injury to others.
The concept of immediate
incapacitation is the only goal of any law enforcement
shooting and is the underlying rationale for decisions
regarding weapons, ammunition, calibers and training.
While this concept is subject to conflicting theories,
widely held misconceptions, and varied opinions
generally distorted by personal experiences, it is
critical to the analysis and selection of weapons,
ammunition and calibers for use by law enforcement
officers.3,4
Tactical
Realities
Shot placement is an important,
and often cited, consideration regarding the suitability
of weapons and ammunition. However, considerations of
caliber are equally important and cannot be ignored. For
example, a bullet through the central nervous system
with any caliber of ammunition is likely to be
immediately incapacitating.5
Even a .22 rimfire penetrating the brain will
cause immediate incapacitation in most cases. Obviously,
this does not mean the law enforcement agency should
issue .22 rimfires and train for head shots as the
primary target. The realities of shooting incidents
prohibit such a solution.
Few, if any, shooting incidents
will present the officer with an opportunity to take a
careful, precisely aimed shot at the subject’s head.
Rather, shootings are characterized by their sudden,
unexpected occurrence; by rapid and unpredictable
movement of both officer and adversary; by limited and
partial target opportunities; by poor light and
unforeseen obstacles; and by the life or death stress of
sudden, close, personal violence. Training is quite
properly oriented towards "center of mass" shooting.
That is to say, the officer is trained to shoot at the
center of whatever is presented for a target. Proper
shot placement is a hit in the center of that part of
the adversary which is presented, regardless of anatomy
or angle.
A review of law enforcement
shootings clearly suggests that regardless of the number
of rounds fired in a shooting, most of the time only one
or two solid torso hits on the adversary can be
expected. This expectation is realistic because of the
nature of shooting incidents and the extreme difficulty
of shooting a handgun with precision under such dire
conditions. The probability of multiple hits with a
handgun is not high. Experienced officers implicitly
recognize that fact, and when potential violence is
reasonably anticipated, their preparations are
characterized by obtaining as many shoulder weapons as
possible. Since most shootings are not anticipated, the
officer involved cannot be prepared in advance with
heavier armament. As a corollary tactical principle, no
law enforcement officer should ever plan to meet an
expected attack armed only with a handgun.
The handgun is the primary weapon
for defense against unexpected attack. Nevertheless, a
majority of shootings occur in manners and circumstances
in which the officer either does not have any other
weapon available, or cannot get to it. The handgun must
be relied upon, and must prevail. Given the idea that
one or two torso hits can be reasonably expected in a
handgun shooting incident, the ammunition used must
maximize the likelihood of immediate incapacitation.
Mechanics of
Projectile Wounding
In order to predict the likelihood
of incapacitation with any handgun round, an
understanding of the mechanics of wounding is necessary.
There are four components of projectile wounding.6
Not all of these components relate to
incapacitation, but each of them must be considered.
They are:
(1) Penetration. The tissue
through which the projectile passes, and which it
disrupts or destroys.
(2) Permanent Cavity. The
volume of space once occupied by tissue that has
been destroyed by the passage of the projectile.
This is a function of penetration and the frontal
area of the projectile. Quite simply, it is the hole
left by the passage of the bullet.
(3) Temporary Cavity. The
expansion of the permanent cavity by stretching due
to the transfer of kinetic energy during the
projectile’s passage.
(4) Fragmentation. Projectile
pieces or secondary fragments of bone which are
impelled outward from the permanent cavity and may
sever muscle tissues, blood vessels, etc., apart
from the permanent cavity.7,8
Fragmentation is not necessarily present in
every projectile wound. It may, or may not, occur
and can be considered a secondary effect.9
Projectiles incapacitate by
damaging or destroying the central nervous system, or by
causing lethal blood loss. To the extent the wound
components cause or increase the effects of these two
mechanisms, the likelihood of incapacitation increases.
Because of the impracticality of training for head
shots, this examination of handgun wounding relative to
law enforcement use is focused upon torso wounds and the
probable results.
Mechanics of
Handgun Wounding
All handgun wounds will combine
the components of penetration, permanent cavity, and
temporary cavity to a greater or lesser degree.
Fragmentation, on the other hand, does not reliably
occur in handgun wounds due to the relatively low
velocities of handgun bullets. Fragmentation occurs
reliably in high velocity projectile wounds (impact
velocity in excess of 2000 feet per second) inflicted by
soft or hollow point bullets.10
In such a case, the permanent cavity is stretched so
far, and so fast, that tearing and rupturing can occur
in tissues surrounding the wound channel which were
weakened by fragmentation damage.11,12
It can significantly increase damage13
in rifle bullet wounds.
Since the highest handgun
velocities generally do not exceed 1400-1500 feet per
second (fps) at the muzzle, reliable fragmentation could
only be achieved by constructing a bullet so frangible
as to eliminate any reasonable penetration.
Unfortunately, such a bullet will break up too fast to
penetrate to vital organs. The best example is the
Glaser Safety Slug, a projectile designed to break up on
impact and generate a large but shallow temporary
cavity. Fackler, when asked to estimate the survival
time of someone shot in the front mid-abdomen with a
Glaser slug, responded, "About three days, and the cause
of death would be peritonitis."14
In cases where some fragmentation
has occurred in handgun wounds, the bullet fragments are
generally found within one centimeter of the permanent
cavity. "The velocity of pistol bullets, even of the new
high-velocity loadings, is insufficient to cause the
shedding of lead fragments seen with rifle bullets."15
It is obvious that any additional wounding effect caused
by such fragmentation in a handgun wound is
inconsequential.
Of the remaining factors,
temporary cavity is frequently, and grossly, overrated
as a wounding factor when analyzing wounds.16
Nevertheless, historically it has been used in some
cases as the primary means of assessing the wounding
effectiveness of bullets.
The most notable example is the
Relative Incapacitation Index (RII) which resulted from
a study of handgun effectiveness sponsored by the Law
Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA). In this
study, the assumption was made that the greater the
temporary cavity, the greater the wounding effect of the
round. This assumption was based on a prior assumption
that the tissue bounded by the temporary cavity was
damaged or destroyed.17
In the LEAA study, virtually every
handgun round available to law enforcement was tested.
The temporary cavity was measured, and the rounds were
ranked based on the results. The depth of penetration
and the permanent cavity were ignored. The result
according to the RII is that a bullet which causes a
large but shallow temporary cavity is a better
incapacitater than a bullet which causes a smaller
temporary cavity with deep penetration.
Such conclusions ignore the
factors of penetration and permanent cavity. Since vital
organs are located deep within the body, it should be
obvious that to ignore penetration and permanent cavity
is to ignore the only proven means of damaging or
disrupting vital organs.
Further, the temporary cavity is
caused by the tissue being stretched away from the
permanent cavity, not being destroyed. By definition, a
cavity is a space18
in which nothing exists. A temporary cavity is only a
temporary space caused by tissue being pushed aside.
That same space then disappears when the tissue returns
to its original configuration.
Frequently, forensic pathologists
cannot distinguish the wound track caused by a hollow
point bullet (large temporary cavity) from that caused
by a solid bullet (very small temporary cavity). There
may be no physical difference in the wounds. If there is
no fragmentation, remote damage due to temporary
cavitation may be minor even with high velocity rifle
projectiles.19
Even those who have espoused the significance of
temporary cavity agree that it is not a factor in
handgun wounds:
"In the case of low-velocity
missiles, e.g., pistol bullets, the bullet produces
a direct path of destruction with very little
lateral extension within the surrounding tissues.
Only a small temporary cavity is produced. To cause
significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet
must strike that structure directly. The amount of
kinetic energy lost in tissue by a pistol bullet is
insufficient to cause remote injuries produced by a
high velocity rifle bullet."20
The reason is that most tissue in
the human target is elastic in nature. Muscle, blood
vessels, lung, bowels, all are capable of substantial
stretching with minimal damage. Studies have shown that
the outward velocity of the tissues in which the
temporary cavity forms is no more than one tenth of the
velocity of the projectile.21
This is well within the elasticity limits of tissue such
as muscle, blood vessels, and lungs, Only inelastic
tissue like liver, or the extremely fragile tissues of
the brain, would show significant damage due to
temporary cavitation.22
The tissue disruption caused by a
handgun bullet is limited to two mechanisms. The first,
or crush mechanism is the hole the bullet makes passing
through the tissue. The second, or stretch mechanism is
the temporary cavity formed by the tissues being driven
outward in a radial direction away from the path of the
bullet. Of the two, the crush mechanism, the result of
penetration and permanent cavity, is the only
handgun wounding mechanism which damages tissue.23
To cause significant injuries to a structure within the
body using a handgun, the bullet must penetrate the
structure. Temporary cavity has no reliable wounding
effect in elastic body tissues. Temporary cavitation is
nothing more than a stretch of the tissues, generally no
larger than 10 times the bullet diameter (in handgun
calibers), and elastic tissues sustain little, if any,
residual damage.24,25,26
The Human
Target
With the exceptions of hits to the
brain or upper spinal cord, the concept of reliable and
reproducible immediate incapacitation of the human
target by gunshot wounds to the torso is a myth.27
The human target is a complex and durable one. A
wide variety of psychological, physical, and
physiological factors exist, all of them pertinent to
the probability of incapacitation. However, except for
the location of the wound and the amount of tissue
destroyed, none of the factors are within the control of
the law enforcement officer.
Physiologically, a determined
adversary can be stopped reliably and immediately only
by a shot that disrupts the brain or upper spinal cord.
Failing a hit to the central nervous system, massive
bleeding from holes in the heart or major blood vessels
of the torso causing circulatory collapse is the only
other way to force incapacitation upon an adversary, and
this takes time. For example, there is sufficient oxygen
within the brain to support full, voluntary action for
10-15 seconds after the heart has been destroyed.28
In fact, physiological factors may
actually play a relatively minor role in achieving rapid
incapacitation. Barring central nervous system hits,
there is no physiological reason for an individual to be
incapacitated by even a fatal wound, until blood loss is
sufficient to drop blood pressure and/or the brain is
deprived of oxygen. The effects of pain, which could
contribute greatly to incapacitation, are commonly
delayed in the aftermath of serious injury such as a
gunshot wound. The body engages survival patterns, the
well known "fight or flight" syndrome. Pain is
irrelevant to survival and is commonly suppressed until
some time later. In order to be a factor, pain must
first be perceived, and second must cause an emotional
response. In many individuals, pain is ignored even when
perceived, or the response is anger and increased
resistance, not surrender.
Psychological factors are probably
the most important relative to achieving rapid
incapacitation from a gunshot wound to the torso.
Awareness of the injury (often delayed by the
suppression of pain); fear of injury, death, blood, or
pain; intimidation by the weapon or the act of being
shot; preconceived notions of what people do when they
are shot; or the simple desire to quit can all lead to
rapid incapacitation even from minor wounds. However,
psychological factors are also the primary cause of
incapacitation failures.
The individual may be unaware of
the wound and thus has no stimuli to force a reaction.
Strong will, survival instinct, or sheer emotion such as
rage or hate can keep a grievously injured individual
fighting, as is common on the battlefield and in the
street. The effects of chemicals can be powerful stimuli
preventing incapacitation. Adrenaline alone can be
sufficient to keep a mortally wounded adversary
functioning. Stimulants, anesthetics, pain killers, or
tranquilizers can all prevent incapacitation by
suppressing pain, awareness of the injury, or
eliminating any concerns over the injury. Drugs such as
cocaine, PCP, and heroin are disassociative in nature.
One of their effects is that the individual "exists"
outside of his body. He sees and experiences what
happens to his body, but as an outside observer who can
be unaffected by it yet continue to use the body as a
tool for fighting or resisting.
Psychological factors such as
energy deposit, momentum transfer, size of temporary
cavity or calculations such as the RII are irrelevant or
erroneous. The impact of the bullet upon the body is no
more than the recoil of the weapon. The ratio of bullet
mass to target mass is too extreme.
The often referred to "knock-down
power" implies the ability of a bullet to move its
target. This is nothing more than momentum of the
bullet. It is the transfer of momentum that will cause a
target to move in response to the blow received. "Isaac
Newton proved this to be the case mathematically in the
17th Century, and Benjamin Robins verified it
experimentally through the invention and use of the
ballistic pendulum to determine muzzle velocity by
measurement of the pendulum motion."29
Goddard amply proves the fallacy
of "knock-down power" by calculating the heights (and
resultant velocities) from which a one pound weight and
a ten pound weight must be dropped to equal the momentum
of 9mm and .45ACP projectiles at muzzle velocities,
respectively. The results are revealing. In order to
equal the impact of a 9mm bullet at its muzzle velocity,
a one pound weight must be dropped from a height of 5.96
feet, achieving a velocity of 19.6 fps. To equal the
impact of a .45ACP bullet, the one pound weight needs a
velocity of 27.1 fps and must be dropped from a height
of 11.4 feet. A ten pound weight equals the impact of a
9mm bullet when dropped from a height of 0.72 inches
(velocity attained is 1.96 fps), and equals the impact
of a .45 when dropped from 1.37 inches (achieving
a velocity of 2.71 fps).30
A bullet simply cannot knock a man
down. If it had the energy to do so, then equal energy
would be applied against the shooter and he too would be
knocked down. This is simple physics, and has been known
for hundreds of years.31
The amount of energy deposited in the body by a
bullet is approximately equivalent to being hit with a
baseball.32
Tissue damage is the only physical link to
incapacitation within the desired time frame, i.e.,
instantaneously.
The human target can be reliably
incapacitated only by disrupting or destroying the brain
or upper spinal cord. Absent that, incapacitation is
subject to a host of variables, the most important of
which are beyond the control of the shooter.
Incapacitation becomes an eventual event, not
necessarily an immediate one. If the psychological
factors which can contribute to incapacitation are
present, even a minor wound can be immediately
incapacitating. If they are not present, incapacitation
can be significantly delayed even with major,
unsurvivable wounds.
Field results are a collection of
individualistic reactions on the part of each person
shot which can be analyzed and reported as percentages.
However, no individual responds as a percentage, but as
an all or none phenomenon which the officer cannot
possibly predict, and which may provide misleading data
upon which to predict ammunition performance.
Ammunition
Selection Criteria
The critical wounding components
for handgun ammunition, in order of importance, are
penetration and permanent cavity.33
The bullet must penetrate sufficiently to pass
through vital organs and be able to do so from less than
optimal angles. For example, a shot from the side
through an arm must penetrate at least 10-12 inches to
pass through the heart. A bullet fired from the front
through the abdomen must penetrate about 7 inches in a
slender adult just to reach the major blood vessels in
the back of the abdominal cavity. Penetration must be
sufficiently deep to reach and pass through vital
organs, and the permanent cavity must be large enough to
maximize tissue destruction and consequent hemorrhaging.
Several design approaches have
been made in handgun ammunition which are intended to
increase the wounding effectiveness of the bullet. Most
notable of these is the use of a hollow point bullet
designed to expand on impact.
Expansion accomplishes several
things. On the positive side, it increases the frontal
area of the bullet and thereby increases the amount of
tissue disintegrated in the bullet’s path. On the
negative side, expansion limits penetration. It can
prevent the bullet from penetrating to vital organs,
especially if the projectile is of relatively light mass
and the penetration must be through several inches of
fat, muscle, or clothing.34
Increased bullet mass will
increase penetration. Increased velocity will increase
penetration but only until the bullet begins to deform,
at which point increased velocity decreases penetration.
Permanent cavity can be increased by the use of
expanding bullets, and/or larger diameter bullets, which
have adequate penetration. However, in no case should
selection of a bullet be made where bullet expansion is
necessary to achieve desired performance.35
Handgun bullets expand in the human target only
60-70% of the time at best. Damage to the hollow point
by hitting bone, glass, or other intervening obstacles
can prevent expansion. Clothing fibers can wrap the nose
of the bullet in a cocoon like manner and prevent
expansion. Insufficient impact velocity caused by short
barrels and/or longer range will prevent expansion, as
will simple manufacturing variations. Expansion must
never be the basis for bullet selection, but considered
a bonus when, and if, it occurs. Bullet selection should
be determined based on penetration first, and the
unexpanded diameter of the bullet second, as that is all
the shooter can reliably expect.
It is essential to bear in mind
that the single most critical factor remains
penetration. While penetration up to 18 inches is
preferable, a handgun bullet MUST reliably
penetrate 12 inches of soft body tissue at a minimum,
regardless of whether it expands or not. If the
bullet does not reliably penetrate to these depths, it
is not an effective bullet for law enforcement use.36
Given adequate penetration, a
larger diameter bullet will have an edge in wounding
effectiveness. It will damage a blood vessel the smaller
projectile barely misses. The larger permanent cavity
may lead to faster blood loss. Although such an edge
clearly exists, its significance cannot be quantified.
An issue that must be addressed is
the fear of over penetration widely expressed on the
part of law enforcement. The concern that a bullet would
pass through the body of a subject and injure an
innocent bystander is clearly exaggerated. Any review of
law enforcement shootings will reveal that the great
majority of shots fired by officers do not hit any
subjects at all. It should be obvious that the
relatively few shots that do hit a subject are not
somehow more dangerous to bystanders than the shots that
miss the subject entirely.
Also, a bullet that completely
penetrates a subject will give up a great deal of energy
doing so. The skin on the exit side of the body is tough
and flexible. Experiments have shown that it has the
same resistance to bullet passage as approximately four
inches of muscle tissue.37
Choosing a bullet because of
relatively shallow penetration will seriously compromise
weapon effectiveness, and needlessly endanger the lives
of the law enforcement officers using it. No law
enforcement officer has lost his life because a bullet
over penetrated his adversary, and virtually none have
ever been sued for hitting an innocent bystander through
an adversary. On the other hand, tragically large
numbers of officers have been killed because their
bullets did not penetrate deeply enough.
The Allure of
Shooting Incident Analyses
There is no valid, scientific
analysis of actual shooting results in existence, or
being pursued to date. It is an unfortunate vacuum
because a wealth of data exists, and new data is being
sadly generated every day. There are some well
publicized, so called analyses of shooting incidents
being promoted, however, they are greatly flawed.
Conclusions are reached based on samples so small that
they are meaningless. The author of one, for example,
extols the virtues of his favorite cartridge because he
has collected ten cases of one shot stops with it.38
Preconceived notions are made the basic assumptions on
which shootings are categorized. Shooting incidents are
selectively added to the "data base" with no indication
of how many may have been passed over or why. There is
no correlation between hits, results, and the location
of the hits upon vital organs.
It would be interesting to trace a
life-sized anatomical drawing on the back of a target,
fire 20 rounds at the "center of mass" of the front,
then count how many of these optimal, center of mass
hits actually struck the heart, aorta, vena cava, or
liver.39
It is rapid hemorrhage from these organs that will best
increase the likelihood of incapacitation. Yet nowhere
in the popular press extolling these studies of real
shootings are we told what the bullets hit.
These so called studies are
further promoted as being somehow better and more valid
than the work being done by trained researchers,
surgeons and forensic labs. They disparage laboratory
stuff, claiming that the "street" is the real laboratory
and their collection of results from the street is the
real measure of caliber effectiveness, as interpreted by
them, of course. Yet their data from the street is
collected haphazardly, lacking scientific method and
controls, with no noticeable attempt to verify the less
than reliable accounts of the participants with actual
investigative or forensic reports. Cases are
subjectively selected (how many are not included because
they do not fit the assumptions made?). The numbers of
cases cited are statistically meaningless, and the
underlying assumptions upon which the collection of
information and its interpretation are based are
themselves based on myths such as knock-down power,
energy transfer, hydrostatic shock, or the temporary
cavity methodology of flawed work such as RII.
Further, it appears that many
people are predisposed to fall down when shot. This
phenomenon is independent of caliber, bullet, or hit
location, and is beyond the control of the shooter. It
can only be proven in the act, not predicted. It
requires only two factors to be effected: a shot and
cognition of being shot by the target. Lacking either
one, people are not at all predisposed to fall down and
don’t. Given this predisposition, the choice of caliber
and bullet is essentially irrelevant. People largely
fall down when shot, and the apparent predisposition to
do so exists with equal force among the good guys as
among the bad. The causative factors are most likely
psychological in origin. Thousands of books, movies and
television shows have educated the general population
that when shot, one is supposed to fall down.
The problem, and the reason for
seeking a better cartridge for incapacitation, is that
individual who is not predisposed to fall down.
Or the one who is simply unaware of having been shot by
virtue of alcohol, adrenaline, narcotics, or the simple
fact that in most cases of grievous injury the body
suppresses pain for a period of time. Lacking pain,
there may be no physiological effect of being shot that
can make one aware of the wound. Thus the real problem:
if such an individual is threatening one’s life, how
best to compel him to stop by shooting him?
The factors governing
incapacitation of the human target are many, and
variable. The actual destruction caused by any
small arms projectile is too small in magnitude relative
to the mass and complexity of the target. If a bullet
destroys about 2 ounces of tissue in its passage through
the body, that represents 0.07 of one percent of the
mass of a 180 pound man. Unless the tissue destroyed is
located within the critical areas of the central nervous
system, it is physiologically insufficient to force
incapacitation upon the unwilling target. It may
certainly prove to be lethal, but a body count is no
evidence of incapacitation. Probably more people in this
country have been killed by .22 rimfires than all other
calibers combined, which, based on body count, would
compel the use of .22’s for self-defense. The more
important question, which is sadly seldom asked, is what
did the individual do when hit?
There is a problem in trying to
assess calibers by small numbers of shootings. For
example, as has been done, if a number of shootings were
collected in which only one hit was attained and the
percentage of one shot stops was then calculated, it
would appear to be a valid system. However, if a large
number of people are predisposed to fall down, the
actual caliber and bullet are irrelevant. What
percentage of those stops were thus preordained by the
target? How many of those targets were not at all
disposed to fall down? How many multiple shot failures
to stop occurred? What is the definition of a stop? What
did the successful bullets hit and what did the
unsuccessful bullets hit? How many failures were in the
vital organs, and how many were not? How many of the
successes? What is the number of the sample? How were
the cases collected? What verifications were made to
validate the information? How can the verifications be
checked by independent investigation?
Because of the extreme number of
variables within the human target, and within shooting
situations in general, even a hundred shootings is
statistically insignificant. If anything can happen,
then anything will happen, and it is just as likely to
occur in your ten shootings as in ten shootings spread
over a thousand incidents. Large sample populations are
absolutely necessary.
Here is an example that
illustrates how erroneous small samples can be. I
flipped a penny 20 times. It came up heads five times. A
nickel flipped 20 times showed heads 8 times. A dime
came up heads 10 times and a quarter 15 times. That
means if heads is the desired result, a penny will give
it to you 25% of the time, and nickel 40% of the time, a
dime 50% of the time and a quarter 75% of the time. If
you want heads, flip a quarter. If you want tails, flip
a penny. But then I flipped the quarter another 20 times
and it showed heads 9 times - 45% of the time. Now this
"study" would tell you that perhaps a dime was better
for flipping heads. The whole thing is obviously wrong,
but shows how small numbers lead to statistical lies. We
know the odds of getting a head or tail are 50%, and
larger numbers tend to prove it. Calculating the results
for all 100 flips regardless of the coin used shows
heads came up 48% of the time.
The greater the number and
complexity of the variables, the greater the sample
needed to give meaningful information, and a coin toss
has only one simple variable – it can land heads or it
can land tails. The coin population is not complicated
by a predisposition to fall one way or the other, by
chemical stimuli, psychological factors, shot placement,
bone or obstructive obstacles, etc.; all of which
require even larger numbers to evidence real differences
in effects.
Although no cartridge is certain
to work all the time, surely some will work more often
than others, and any edge is desirable in one’s self
defense. This is simple logic. The incidence of failure
to incapacitate will vary with the severity of the wound
inflicted.40
It is safe to assume that if a target is always 100%
destroyed, then incapacitation will also occur 100% of
the time. If 50% of the target is destroyed,
incapacitation will occur less reliably. Failure to
incapacitate is rare in such a case, but it can happen,
and in fact has happened on the battlefield.
Incapacitation is still less rare if 25% of the target
is destroyed. Now the magnitude of bullet destruction is
far less (less than 1% of the target) but the
relationship is unavoidable. The round which destroys
0.07% of the target will incapacitate more often than
the one which destroys 0.04%. However, only very large
numbers of shooting incidents will prove it. The
difference may be only 10 out of a thousand, but that
difference is an edge, and that edge should be on the
officer’s side because one of those ten may be the
subject trying to kill him.
To judge a caliber’s
effectiveness, consider how many people hit with it
failed to fall down and look at where they were hit. Of
the successes and failures, analyze how many were hit in
vital organs, rather than how many were killed or not,
and correlate that with an account of exactly what they
did when they were hit. Did they fall down, or did they
run, fight, shoot, hide, crawl, stare, shrug, give up
and surrender? ONLY falling down is good. All other
reactions are failures to incapacitate, evidencing the
ability to act with volition, and thus able to choose to
continue to try to inflict harm.
Those who disparage science and
laboratory methods are either too short sighted or too
bound by preconceived (or perhaps proprietary) notions
to see the truth. The labs and scientists do not offer
sure things. They offer a means of indexing the damage
done by a bullet, understanding of the mechanics of
damage caused by bullets and the actual effects on the
body, and the basis for making an informed choice based
on objective criteria and significant statistics.
The differences between bullets
may be small, but science can give us the means of
identifying that difference. The result is the edge all
of law enforcement should be looking for. It is true
that the streets are the proving ground, but give me an
idea of what you want to prove and I will give you ten
shootings from the street to prove it. That is both
easy, and irrelevant. If it can happen, it will happen.
Any shooting incident is a unique
event, unconstrained by any natural law or physical
order to follow a predetermined sequence of events or
end in predetermined results. What is needed is an edge
that makes the good result more probable than the bad.
Science will quantify the information needed to make the
choice to gain that edge. Large numbers (thousands or
more) from the street will provide the answer to the
question "How much of an edge?".41
Even if that edge is only 1%, it is not insignificant
because the guy trying to kill you could be in that 1%,
and you won’t know it until it is too late.
Conclusions
Physiologically, no caliber or
bullet is certain to incapacitate any individual unless
the brain is hit. Psychologically, some individuals can
be incapacitated by minor or small caliber wounds. Those
individuals who are stimulated by fear, adrenaline,
drugs, alcohol, and/or sheer will and survival
determination may not be incapacitated even if mortally
wounded.
The will to survive and to fight
despite horrific damage to the body is commonplace on
the battlefield, and on the street. Barring a hit to the
brain, the only way to force incapacitation is to
cause sufficient blood loss that the subject can no
longer function, and that takes time. Even if the heart
is instantly destroyed, there is sufficient oxygen in
the brain to support full and complete voluntary action
for 10-15 seconds.
Kinetic energy does not wound.
Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed
"shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down"
power is a myth. The critical element is penetration.
The bullet must pass through the large, blood
bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote
rapid bleeding. Penetration less than 12 inches is too
little, and, in the words of two of the participants in
the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, "too little
penetration will get you killed."
42,43 Given desirable
and reliable penetration, the only way to increase
bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the
wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet.
Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs
from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of
those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the
bigger bullet.44
References/Endnotes
- FBI Deadly Force
Policy.
- Ideally,
immediate incapacitation occurs instantaneously.
- Fackler, M.L.,
MD: "What’s
Wrong with the Wound Ballistics Literature, and Why",
Letterman Army Institute of Research, Presidio of San
Francisco, CA, Report No. 239, July, 1987.
- Fackler, M.L.,
M.D., Director, Wound Ballistics Laboratory, Letterman
Army Institute of Research, Presidio of San Francisco,
CA, letter: "Bullet Performance Misconceptions",
International Defense Review 3; 369-370, 1987.
- Wound Ballistic
Workshop: "9mm vs. .45 Auto", FBI Academy, Quantico, VA,
September, 1987. Conclusion of the Workshop.
- Josselson, A.,
MD, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Walter Reed
Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C., lecture series to
FBI National Academy students, 1982-1983.
- DiMaio, V.J.M.:
Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier Science Publishing
Company, New York, NY, 1987: Chapter 3, Wound
Ballistics: 41-49.
- Fackler, M.L.,
Malinowski, J.A.: "The Wound Profile: A Visual Method
for Quantifying Gunshot Wound Components", Journal of
Trauma 25, 522-529, 1985.
- Fackler, M.L.,
MD: "Missile Caused Wounds", Letterman Army Institute of
Research, Presidio of San Francisco, CA, Report No. 231,
April 1987.
- Josselson, A.,
MD, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Walter Reed
Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C., lecture series to
FBI National Academy students, 1982-1983.
- Fackler, M.L.,
MD: "Ballistic Injury", Annals of Emergency Medicine 15:
12 December 1986.
- Fackler, M.L.,
Surinchak, J.S., Malinowski, J.A.; et.al.: "Bullet
Fragmentation: A Major Cause of Tissue Disruption",
Journal of Trauma 24: 35-39, 1984.
- Fragmenting rifle
bullets in some of Fackler’s experiments have caused
damage 9 centimeters from the permanent cavity. Such
remote damage is not found in handgun wounds. Fackler
stated at the Workshop that when a handgun bullet does
fragment the pieces typically are found within one
centimeter of the wound track.
- Fackler, M.L.,
M.D., Director, Wound Ballistics Laboratory, Letterman
Army Institute of Research, Presidio of San Francisco,
CA, letter: "Bullet Performance Misconceptions",
International Defense Review 3; 369-370, 1987.
- DiMaio, V.J.M.:
Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier Science Publishing
Company, New York, NY 1987, page 47.
- Lindsay, Douglas,
MD: "The Idolatry of Velocity, or Lies, Damn Lies, and
Ballistics", Journal of Trauma 20: 1068-1069, 1980.
- Bruchey, W.J.,
Frank, D.E.: Police Handgun Ammunition Incapacitation
Effects, National Institute of Justice Report
100-83. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1984, Vol. 1: Evaluation.
- Webster’s
Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster
Inc., Springfield MA, 1986: "An unfilled space within a
mass."
- Fackler, M.L.,
Surinchak, J.S., Malinowski, J.A.; et.al.: "Bullet
Fragmentation: A Major Cause of Tissue Disruption",
Journal of Trauma 24: 35-39, 1984.
- DiMaio, V.J.M.:
Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier Science Publishing
Company, New York, NY 1987, page 42.
- Fackler, M.L.,
Surinchak, J.S., Malinowski, J.A.; et.al.: "Bullet
Fragmentation: A Major Cause of Tissue Disruption",
Journal of Trauma 24: 35-39, 1984.
- Fackler, M.L.,
MD: "Ballistic Injury", Annals of Emergency Medicine 15:
12 December 1986.
- Wound Ballistic
Workshop: "9mm vs. .45 Auto", FBI Academy, Quantico, VA,
September, 1987. Conclusion of the Workshop.
- Fackler, M.L.,
MD: "Ballistic Injury", Annals of Emergency Medicine 15:
12 December 1986.
- Fackler, M.L.,
Malinowski, J.A.: "The Wound Profile: A Visual Method
for Quantifying Gunshot Wound Components", Journal of
Trauma 25: 522-529, 1985.
- Lindsay, Douglas,
MD: "The Idolatry of Velocity, or Lies, Damn Lies, and
Ballistics", Journal of Trauma 20: 1068-1069, 1980.
- Wound Ballistic
Workshop: "9mm vs. .45 Auto", FBI Academy, Quantico, VA,
September 1987. Conclusion of the Workshop.
- Wound Ballistic
Workshop: "9mm vs. .45 Auto", FBI Academy, Quantico, VA,
September 1987. Conclusion of the Workshop.
- Goddard, Stanley:
"Some Issues for Consideration in Choosing Between 9mm
and .45ACP Handguns", Battelle Labs, Ballistic Sciences,
Ordnance Systems and Technology Section, Columbus, OH,
presented to the FBI Academy, 2/16/88, pages 3-4.
- Goddard, Stanley:
"Some Issues for Consideration in Choosing Between 9mm
and .45ACP Handguns", Battelle Labs, Ballistic Sciences,
Ordnance Systems and Technology Section, Columbus, OH,
presented to the FBI Academy, 2/16/88, pages 3-4.
- Newton, Sir
Isaac, Principia Mathematica, 1687, in which are
stated Newton’s Laws of Motion. The Second Law of Motion
states that a body will accelerate, or change its speed,
at a rate that is proportional to the force acting upon
it. In simpler terms, for every action there is an equal
but opposite reaction. The acceleration will of course
be in inverse proportion to the mass of the body. For
example, the same force acting upon a body of twice the
mass will produce exactly half the acceleration.
- Lindsay, Douglas,
MD, presentation to the Wound Ballistics Workshop,
Quantico, VA, 1987.
- Wound Ballistic
Workshop: "9mm vs. .45 Auto", FBI Academy, Quantico, VA,
September, 1987. Conclusion of the Workshop.
- Jones, J.A.:
Police Handgun Ammunition. Southwestern Institute of
Forensic Sciences at Dallas, 523D Medical Center Drive,
Dallas, TX, 1985.
- Wound Ballistic
Workshop: "9mm vs. .45 Auto", FBI Academy, Quantico, VA,
September, 1987. Conclusion of the Workshop.
- Wound Ballistic
Workshop: "9mm vs. .45 Auto", FBI Academy, Quantico, VA,
September 1987. Conclusion of the Workshop.
- Fackler, M.L.,
M.D., Director, Wound Ballistics Laboratory, Letterman
Army Institute of Research, Presidio of San Francisco,
CA, letter: "Bullet Performance Misconceptions",
International Defense Review 3; 369-370, 1987.
- He defines a one
shot stop as one in which the subject dropped, gave up,
or did not run more than 10 feet.
- This exercise was
suggested by Dr. Martin L. Fackler, U.S. Army Wound
Ballistics Laboratory, Letterman Army Institute of
Research, San Francisco, California, as a way to
demonstrate the problematical results of even the best
results sought in training, i.e., shots to the center of
mass of a target. It illustrates the very small actually
critical areas within the relatively vast mass of the
human target.
- Severity is a
function of location, depth, and amount of tissue
destroyed.
- The numbers can
be held down to reasonable limits by a scientific
approach that collects objective information from
investigative and forensic sources and sorts it by vital
organs struck and target reactions to being hit. The
critical questions are what damage was done and what was
the reaction of the adversary.
- Fackler, M.L.,
MD, presentation to the Wound Ballistics Workshop,
Quantico, VA, 1987.
- Smith, O’Brien
C., MD, presentation to the Wound Ballistics Workshop,
Quantico, VA, 1987.
-
Fackler, M.L., MD, presentation to the Wound Ballistics
Workshop, Quantico, VA, 1987.
|
|
