Responsible
Firearms Ownership 
Responsible
Firearms Ownership |
|
FBI Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness
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
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.
Work of the U.S. Government; not subject to copyright in
the United States.