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
Foreword
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 rimfire 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
1. FBI Deadly Force Policy.
2. Ideally, immediate incapacitation occurs instantaneously.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Wound Ballistic Workshop: "9mm vs. .45 Auto", FBI Academy,
Quantico, VA, September, 1987. Conclusion of the Workshop.
6. 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.
7. DiMaio, V.J.M.: Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier Science Publishing Company,
New York, NY, 1987: Chapter 3, Wound Ballistics: 41-49.
8. Fackler, M.L., Malinowski, J.A.: "The Wound Profile: A Visual
Method for Quantifying Gunshot Wound Components", Journal of
Trauma 25, 522-529, 1985.
9. Fackler, M.L., MD: "Missile Caused Wounds", Letterman
Army Institute of Research, Presidio of San Francisco, CA, Report
No. 231, April 1987.
10. 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. 11. Fackler, M.L., MD: "Ballistic
Injury", Annals of Emergency Medicine 15: 12 December 1986.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. DiMaio, V.J.M.: Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier Science Publishing
Company, New York, NY 1987, page 47.
16. Lindsay, Douglas, MD: "The Idolatry of Velocity, or Lies,
Damn Lies, and Ballistics", Journal of Trauma 20: 1068-1069,
1980.
17. 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.
18. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Inc.,
Springfield MA, 1986: "An unfilled space within a mass."
19. 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.
20. DiMaio, V.J.M.: Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier Science Publishing
Company, New York, NY 1987, page 42.
21. 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.
22. Fackler, M.L., MD: "Ballistic Injury", Annals of Emergency
Medicine 15: 12 December 1986.
23. Wound Ballistic Workshop: "9mm vs. .45 Auto", FBI
Academy, Quantico, VA, September, 1987. Conclusion of the Workshop.
24. Fackler, M.L., MD: "Ballistic Injury", Annals of Emergency
Medicine 15: 12 December 1986.
25. Fackler, M.L., Malinowski, J.A.: "The Wound Profile: A
Visual Method for Quantifying Gunshot Wound Components", Journal
of Trauma 25: 522-529, 1985.
26. Lindsay, Douglas, MD: "The Idolatry of Velocity, or Lies,
Damn Lies, and Ballistics", Journal of Trauma 20: 1068-1069,
1980.
27. Wound Ballistic Workshop: "9mm vs. .45 Auto", FBI
Academy, Quantico, VA, September 1987. Conclusion of the Workshop.
28. Wound Ballistic Workshop: "9mm vs. .45 Auto", FBI
Academy, Quantico, VA, September 1987. Conclusion of the Workshop.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. Lindsay, Douglas, MD, presentation to the Wound Ballistics Workshop,
Quantico, VA, 1987.
33. Wound Ballistic Workshop: "9mm vs. .45 Auto", FBI
Academy, Quantico, VA, September, 1987. Conclusion of the Workshop.
34. Jones, J.A.: Police Handgun Ammunition. Southwestern Institute
of Forensic Sciences at Dallas, 523D Medical Center Drive, Dallas,
TX, 1985.
35. Wound Ballistic Workshop: "9mm vs. .45 Auto", FBI
Academy, Quantico, VA, September, 1987. Conclusion of the Workshop.
36. Wound Ballistic Workshop: "9mm vs. .45 Auto", FBI
Academy, Quantico, VA, September 1987. Conclusion of the Workshop.
37. 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.
38. He defines a one shot stop as one in which the subject dropped,
gave up, or did not run more than 10 feet.
39. 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.
40. Severity is a function of location, depth, and amount of tissue
destroyed.
41. 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.
42. Fackler, M.L., MD, presentation to the Wound Ballistics Workshop,
Quantico, VA, 1987.
43. Smith, O'Brien C., MD, presentation to the Wound Ballistics
Workshop, Quantico, VA, 1987.
44. Fackler, M.L., MD, presentation to the Wound Ballistics Workshop,
Quantico, VA, 1987.
©
July, 2005 by Randy Wakeman
