WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEWthinlineweapons.com/IWBA/2000-Vol4No4.pdf · We invite cogent reviews of articles, books, news items, etc. Our goal is to commend good documentation as well

$20.00

http://www.iwba.com

International Wound Ballistics Association

WOUND BALLISTICS

REVIEW JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION

Citizen Injuries from Law Enforcement Impact Mu11itions: Evidence from the Field -David Klingt:r -Ken Hubbs

Comments on Impact Munitio11s -Duncan MacPherson

12 Gauge Beanbag Fatality Risk Investigation -Duncan MacPherson -Doreen Hudson -Richard Maruoka

Editorial note on the "Less than Lethal" Concept -Marlin L. Fackler

Preliminary Evaluation of.357 Sig JHP Bullets Intended for Law Enforcement Duty -Gary Roberts

Wound Ballistics Research of the Past 20 Years: A Giant Step Backwards -Martin L. Fackler

VOLUME 4 FALL 2000 NUMBER 4

I I

I N F O R M AT I O N F O R A UT H O R S

The Wound Ballistics Review welcomes manuscripts, articles, short notes and letters to the editor that contribute to the science of wound ballistics. Publication preference will lean strongly toward pertinent papers with clear practical applications. We invite cogent reviews of articles, books, news items, etc. Our goal is to commend good documentation as well as to point out the errors in the wound ballistics literature. The Wound Ballistics Review especially requests our readers' help in submitting short reviews which correct errors noted in the literature.

The review of all manuscripts reporting original work will be open; the names of reviewers will be given to authors of rejected papers and will be made available upon request to anyone.

Articles are accepted only for exclusive publication in IWBA, and when published, the articles and illustrations become the property of IWBA.

If submitting a letter or review which refutes or points out errors in another work, please provide the address of the source (please include a copy of the article reviewed-these will be returned if requested) .

In submitting original work, the manuscript and one copy are required; one set of high quality illustrations is required; black and white is preferred. Author's name must be clearly identified on the title page with addresses and telephone number. Manuscript must be double-spaced with ample margins (at least one inch on all sides) on standard (8 112" x 1 1 ") paper. NOTE: THE PREFERRED MANUSCRIPT FORM IS THE 3 112" ( 1.44 Meg or 720K) PC FLOPPY DISK WITH THE TEXT FILE AND A HARD COPY. Most major PC word processing files are acceptable but WordPerfect or Microsoft Word are preferred. (Please convert files to WordPerfect 5.1 or 6.0, or to Word for

Windows 3.0--2000.) PLEASE DO NOT PROVIDE COMPUTER TEXT WITH SPECIAL FONTS OR LAYOUTS: PLAIN: SIMPLE TEXT WITHOUT GRAPHICS OR MERGE FIELDS. Any graphs, tables, charts, etc. should be supplied as separate files and/or with a clean, high quality paper copy. Legends for all illustrations should be listed in order, double-spaced. An abstract of 150 words or less should precede the text.

References are to be numbered sequentially within the text and appear in the order cited at the conclusion of the article. Page numbers must be given in books, cited as references.

EXAMPLES: 1. Book: Broad W, Wade N, Betrayers of the Truth. New York,

Simon & Schuster, 1 982, p 192

2. Article in periodical: Fackler ML, Surinchak JS, Malinowski JA, et a!. Bullet fragmentation: A major cause of tissue disruption. J Trauma 1 984;24:263-266.

Articles submitted for publication consideration should be sent directly to the Editor-in-Chief: Dr. Martin L. Fackler, 211 Star Lake Drive, Hawthorne, FL 32640

WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION

VOLUME 4 FALL 2000 NUMBER 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Editorial ... ...... . .. . . . . . ...... . . .... . . . . . ... . ..... . .. . .. . . ... .... . .. . ... . .... . .. ... . . ... . ................ . . ... ....... . . .... · .. . . . · · . . · · · · .. · 3

Questions and Comments . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . . .. . .. . .. .. . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . . .. . . . .. . .. .. . 4

Citizen Injuries from Law Enforcement Impact Munitions:

Evidence from the Field........................................................................................................... 9 - D avid Klinger -Ken Hubbs

Comments on Impact Munitions . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . ..... . .. . .. . . ... . . . ... . ... . . .. ........... . . . . ......... .... .. . .. .. 14

-Duncan MacPherson

12 Gauge Beanbag Fatality Risk Investigation . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... .. .... . . . ... . .... . . . .... . . ... . .... .. ........... 16

- Duncan M acPherson -Doreen Hudson -Richard Maruoka

Editorial note on the "Less than Lethal" Concept . . . ......... . . . . .. . . ..... . . .... ............. . .... ... . . . ........... 31

-Martin L. Fackler

Preliminary Evaluation of.357 Sig JHP Bullets Intended for Law Enforcement Duty . . . ... . . 32

-Gary Roberts

Wound Ballistics Research of the Past 20 Years: A Giant Step Backwards . . ........ . . . .... . .. . . . ... 34

-Martin L. Fackler

Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Available Materials . . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . ... ..... . . ... . ... .. .... . . ... ....... ... ......... . ... . ... ... ... . 46

Volume 4, Issue 4 Fall 2000 1

I

2

.JOl!RNAL OF THE INTER�ATIONAL \VOliND HALLISTICS ASSOCIATION

IWBA ORGANIZATION The International Wound Ballistics Association (IWBA) is an IRS 501(c)(3) nonprofit

scientific, educational, and public benefit California corporation with Federal ID#943136817. The IWBA is devoted to the medical and techrical study of wound ballistics, including

evaluation of literature in the field as well as encouraging and promoting new work.

The WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW is the Journal of the IWBA.

Board of Directors

Martin L. Fackler, MD Alexander Jason Torrey D. Johnson Wound Ballistics Consultant Ballistics Consultant Criminalist

Gainseville, FL Pinole, CA Las Vegas NV

Peter G. Kokalis Duncan MacPherson Richard Mason, MD

Firearms Consultant Engineering Consultant Chief Medical Examiner

Phoenix, AZ El Segundo, CA Santa Cruz, CA

WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW Journal of the International Wound Ballistics Association

ISSN 1055-0305 ©Copyright 1995, IWBA. All Rights Reserved

Design & Production -Townsend Document & Design

The WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEWis issued twice a year. Subscriptions are included with membership, but are available without membership. Dues are $40 for 4 issues of the IWBA

Journal for both members and subscribers. Four issue mailing cost surcharges of$8. for Canadian and Mexican addresses and $18. for other foreign addresses are required with the dues.

All matters related to membership should be directed to: ---.M.� IWBA, PO Box 701, El Segundo, CA 90245-0701; Telephone (310) 640-6065. -or for information about the IWBA visit us on the web at

http://www.iwba.com

Fa/12000 Volume 4, Issue 4

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW E d i to ri a l

JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION

EDITORIAL Dr. Martin L. Fackler

IN MEMORIAM

EUGENE WOLBERG

1 947- 2000

On 26 May 2000, the IWBA suffered a great loss . Eugene Walberg died in his �leep of an apparent heart attack. Gene, a criminalist and deputy Sheriff from San Diego, has served as a member of our Board of Directors since the IWBA's inception. Gene's friends, those on his e-mail list, and those who own and use firearms will sorely miss his energetic struggle against the gun prohibitionists for the right to own and use firearms.

Gene left this world quietly, in his sleep, without suffering, and without cause to ruin any of his extraordinarily productive days worrying about an impending demise. Those of us whose profession exposes us to the sadness of prolonged illness and suffering, or those of us who have had family members victimized by gradual deterioration of their mental capacity readily appreciate this as a blessing.

When I think of my dear friend Gene W olberg, I recall him as always happy and upbeat. He could always cheer me up, always looked on the bright side; and was as intelligent, capable, honest, honorable, and full of integrity as anybody I know. He did have his sense of outrage - at those who defraud and mislead. He helped the IWBA expose deceit and mendacity in the field of wound ballistics and contributed mightily to society in the right to bear arms debate.

Gene lived his life to the fullest and left it at his peak, his mind bright and whole, without suffering. What more could one hope for?

EDITORIAL About this issue:

The two articles on "Less than Lethal" weapons are important to law enforcement. The first one reports the first comprehensive collection of data on the use of these weapons of which we are aware. The second is an experimental analysis vital to any law enforcement that uses these weapons. There is an editorial note accompanying these landmark articles so I will not dwell on them further here.

is having its desired effect. Wound Ballistics is gradually developing from being a field in which nobody was watching; in which the most ridiculous of nonsense would go unchallenged to a science in which if you publish nonsense your incompetence will be exposed in print - maybe not in the journal in which your nonsense was published, but somewhere. I believe this has had a chilling effect on the ignorant and the indolent -- who now must seek greener pastures elsewhere.

The literature review reveals yet another disappointing failure to obey the rigors of scientific method. Noted and pointed out to us by an alert IWBA member, Dr. Todd Moldower, who joined me as coauthor of a letter to the editor -- which he declined to publish. This is the first letter we have had to write in a long time. I believe the Wound Ballistics Review's policy of printing letters correcting errors when the editor refuses to do so

In addition to the letter from Dr. Stolinski (p. XX), your editor received more positive feedback after the last issue than after any previous ones. All mentioned being impressed by the Clegg article. Your editor was also pleased to note that all of these letters, notes, and comments came from persons with well established expertise in firearms technology or wound ballistics. I thank the readers for this feedback - it will help us to evaluate and improve the Wound Ballistics Review.

Volume 4, Issue 4 Fal/ 2000 3

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW Questions a n d Com m ents


QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS Letter to the Editor Dear Dr. Fackler:

The Spring 2000 issue of Wound Ballistics Review contained much useful technical information, but it was instructive in other areas as well. "Wound Profile of the 5.7 x 28 mm FN Cartridge (SS 190) fired from the FN P90 Submachine Gun" by Dahlstrom, Powley, and Gordon explains that a clearly inadequate round is being pushed to law enforcement, apparently for financial reasons. This taught me that some believe money is more important than human lives, even the lives of one's customers. "Terminal Performance of.38 Special and .380 ACP Hollow Point Bullets" by Roberts demonstrates that 147 and 158 grain bullets are more effective than lighter, faster bullets when fired from 2 or 3 inch .38 Special revolvers, thus contradicting "experts" in gun magazines who repeatedly advise the use of lighter bullets in these weapons. This taught me that although "experts" claim to be giving us information straight from the horse's mouth, often it is the product of the other end of the horse. "The Lee Clegg Case: A Study in Self Deception" by yourself describes how a private in the British Parachute Regiment was convicted of murder for allegedly shooting the occupant of a car that crashed a roadblock he was manning in Northern Ireland. The clearly inadequate autopsy and illogical forensic testimony eventually won Clegg an acquittal at a second trial. This taught me that erroneous "expert" testimony can be used to convict soldiers or police when a conviction is needed to appease public anger. Worse, it taught me that Americans are not the only people who send young men and women to dangerous places, then unfairly blame them when something inevitably goes wrong. These are important lessons, but I'm sorry to have to learn them.

David C. Stolinsky, MD

Letter to the Editor Dr. Fackler is right -- Sierra is inert, and does

n't care that the 168 gr. Matchking .308 usually doesn't expand. The SW ATers are complacent, and so vain in their marksmanship that they value good groups above good sounds.

Should Sierra re-tool to make a bullet police snipers aren't sure they want? Anybody with a #54 drill and a tap wrench can convert the Matchking into a reliable expanding bullet.

I don't accept the idea that us citizens would be better off if the Matchking slug had worked right at the Ruby Ridge. Suppose the bullet had hit heart, brain, or

spine? Then its expansion wouldn't have mattered. Randy Weaver would have died, and we would never have learned that that the BA TF entrapped him on a weapons charge so the feds could compel him to be an informant on his right-wing buddies.

I know what Dr. Fackler is trying to do when he analyzes a gunfight and says, "This shot made all the difference!" He knows policemen, and soldiers too, may suffer to no purpose if they ignore what bullets do in the human body. So he will never neglect to point out bad bullet performance.

I always think the decisive bullets are the ones that missed--- cops do miss about two out of three times. If we could find the weapons and training that made for just one miss of three, it would do more for police and public safety than any slug design we can imagine. Remember that from before the Civil war to about 1966, cops, crooks, cowboys, and soldiers all managed their mayhem with solid slugs. Even handgun hunters, like the legendary Keith, saw nothing of interest in hollow-points. These were people with common opportunity to kill large numbers of livestock and game, and they all noticed that it was better to punch through something vital than to bounce flesh just under the hide. It won't surprise anybody that loads designed to stop half-ton horses and steers worked well on us runty humans, too.

But science was about to intrude. The Medical Corps published a book, Wound Ballistics. It said that wounding was proportional to the energy loss of the bullet. Before long, everybody was testing loads in clay, or putty, or wet phonebooks, wax, or soap, and all kinds of Jello from stiff to soupy. It was plain that high-velocity hollow points-- "Super-Vel", in those days -- gave exactly what science said shooters should want. And pretty soon, people were getting fat government grants to test bullets in 6" slabs of gelatin. These mere pre-Fackler days, and there was nobody to point out that a pistol slug has to get pretty deep before it has even a chance of doing a good job.

The cops decided that if bad guys could buy dum-dums, they deserved them too. The ACLU didn't like this much, so the argument was advanced that the public would be safer if police bullets usually stopped in the bad guy. By this time, all the big ammo companies were coming up with their own Super-Vel types, and co-incidentally they quit selling cases to SuperVel, and the company couldn't fill orders and had to

4 Fal/2000 Volume 4, Issue 4

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW Questions a n d Com ments


fold. Pretty soon the Glaser slugs appeared, and the somewhat more conservative Mag-Safes, and Cor-Bon picked up the Super-Vel tradition.

Where are we now? The current sort of heavy hollow-points usually give enough penetration -- but only usually, for we find that some work well against summer-clad, but fail on winter clothes. Some expand fine from a 4" barrel, but too much from a 6" and not at all from a snub-nose. Often we find that one lot looks good, but the next quarter's production is very different.

What does this mean? We are expecting too much from ammo industry quality control and ammo executive attention span. The older forms of slugs -wadcutters, round-noses, semi-wad cutters, and FMJs- will show consistency over a wide range of velocity a_nq rifling twist. But as we get hollow-points, little tftitigs make a big difference in expansion. The American Rifleman once tested reversed hollow-base wadcutters in Colt and S& W snub-nose revolvers. The same loads always expanded more in the Colts. Colts have a faster twist, and that little bit of extra centrifugal force changed things.

WBR is a science journal, not a political magazine. So it's to Dr. Fackler's credit that he reserves his indignation for the scientific failures of the criminal justice system. But when I hear that a buck private in the British Army has been tried for murder and put through eight years of bullshit on the narrow issue of whether he shot through the side of the car or the back of the car, I get annoyed. The law seems to be that he must slaughter everyone in a vehicle running his checkpoint if he can do it while the car approaches, or is roughly abreast. But if he forgets himself for a moment or two and shoots into the back of the car, that is murder. This is an unreasonable idiocy that only lawyers could erect.

And we saw exactly the same thing in the Diallo case. I'm glad they were aquitted, but it was a justice screw up when they were held over for trial in the first place. The prosecutors will bend by any political wind that is blowing.

Leon Day

Editorial Comment Leon Day mentions the impropriety of the Bu

reau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) at Ruby Ridge. Recently the news media highlighted the results of the investigation into Waco. These incidents shared a common cause -- the incompetence of the BATF. They got into situations they couldn't handle and had to call upon the FBI to bail them out. Then the

FBI got blamed for the less than ideal outcomes. The evidence that the Davidians at Waco im

molated themselves has been clear from the beginning. But those opportunistic parasites, the-conspiracy purveyors, found, as always, a sensation-addicted press eager to pander to the eternally gullible and mostly intellectually-deprived public. Thus, many millions of dollars in taxpayer funds were spent, in years of investigation, to prove the obvious. But, just as with Ruby Ridge, the media furor and investigations acted to direct attention away from the cause of the incident - the incompetence of the BATF.

Four BATF agents were killed and more than a dozen wounded in the ill-conceived assault that started the Waco incident. I think the Waco incident set a record in infamy: four law 'enforcement officers hit by hostile gunfire in a single incident. But that ill-fated assault has been conveniently forgotten. Remember the uproar when two FBI agents were killed and five wounded in the "Miami shootout" of 1986? Where is the uproar over the far worse law enforcement losses at Waco? It is about time those in the upper-echelons of the BATF, or in the Treasury Department, are held responsible for the disastrous loss of life and suffering among the BATF agents in the Waco incident.

Some years ago, BATF declared illegal the 7.62 x 39 mm military ball round that had been used against us in Viet Nam. Somebody had produced a prototype handgun chambered for that cartridge and the BATF decided that the standard ball round therefore fell under the ill-conceived "Cop Killer" Bullet Law. Under that law, handgun bullets are prohibited if they contain significant amounts of some harder-than-lead metals: the 7.62 x 39 mm ball round contains a large steel core. As a combat surgeon ·in DaNang in 1968, I operated on many US Marines who had been hit by that bullet. As Director of the Department of Defense's Wound Ballistics Research Program from 1981 to 199 1, I studied that bullet, shot it into ordnance gelatin, and published a wound profile of it (Emergency War Surgery - NATO Handbook, GPO, Washington, DC, 1988, p 24). Many US Marines owe their lives to the fact that the 7.62 x 39 mm bullet used by the enemy in Viet Nam produces such minimal tissue disruption. The steel-core 7.62 x 39 mm bullet is very stable in tissue and ordinarily travels a foot or more pointforward before it yaws. Most perforating shots through the abdomen produce a bullet path that can not be differentiated from one made by a 32 ACP FMJ handgun bullet. To conform to the dictates of the BA TF, bullet companies had to modify the bullet by replacing the mostly-steel core with one of lead, and replacing the

Volume 4, Issue 4 Fa/12000 5

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW Questions a n d Co m ments


steel jacket with one of copper. The new "legal" bullet is far less stable in the human body: it remains pointforward for only about three inches before it starts to yaw significantly. When it yaws, the bullet can flatten, sometimes fragments, and it almost always produces a large temporary cavity in the body with its attendant increased tissue disruption. This "legal" bullet is far more disruptive in the human body than its predecessor. Thus, that ill-conceived decision by the BATF has increased the danger on our streets to law enforcement offices and civilians alike.

The enforcement of the highly restrictive laws against full-automatic small arms falls to the BATF, although they cannot be blamed for passing these laws (as well as the "Cop Killer" bullet law): misinformed lawmakers, swayed by the emotionally-based irrationalities of the gun-prohibitionists, must accept that responsibility. Aside from the unwarranted expense needed to enforce the anti-full-automatic laws, their effect is to promulgate public misinformation regarding wounding effects. The typical firearm-illiterate citizen assumes that full automatic rifles are far more dangerous than semi-automatic ones - because they are so stringently regulated. Yet those widely experienced with firearms are well aware that, in a gunfight, it is the hits that count- and hits are far easier to obtain using semi-automatic rather than full automatic firing mode. This has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt by controlled experiments in which the same shooters tried to hit targets, at varying distances, in a specified time period. First they fired the course firing full automatic, then repeated the identical experiment using semi-automatic fire. The number of hits while firing semi-automatic was far greater than those obtained firing full automatic (shown Ol'). the videotape "Deadly Weapons" ANITE Productions, Pinole, CA, about 1980).

In addition to the BATF, the US Treasury Department has another branch that has made fools of themselves regarding wound ballistics. I speak of the Secret Service. For many years the Secret Service have chosen bullets for their agents based on the "one-shot stop" pseudo-data which was proven so clearly fraudulent last year (Volume 4 issue 2 of this journal), that even the least analysis-inclined cannot fail to recognize it as such. In the 1980s, I was contacted by two extremely firearm-literate Secret Service agents who sought aid in trying to educate those in the US Treasury Department, or in the higher levels of the Secret Service, whose ignorance of bullet effects was forcing Secret Service agents to be handicapped (and have their lives unnecessarily endangered) by using the inef-

ficient too-light and too-fast bullets. These agents indicated that the Secret Service had been using the falsified "one-shot-stop" statistics as the basis for their choice of handgun bullets. Fortunately, the Secret Service is practically alone among major law enforcement groups in ignoring the findings of the FBI wound ballistics conferences where the importance of bullet penetration depth adequate to reach and disrupt major blood vessels was strongly emphasized. As any experienced hunter knows, in addition to good bullet placement, adequate bullet penetration is needed to have any chance of causing rapid and reliable incapacitation. The Secret Service agents who contacted me were stymied in their attempts to point out that the ill-chosen handgun bullets they were forced to use are a threat to the lives of Secret Service agents as well as those of the elected officials they are assigned to protect.

Martin L. Fackler

Comment POLICE SHOULDER WEAPON SELECTION AND THE DENIAL OF BIOLOGY Imagine that you are a big game hunter who is now face-to-face with a leopard that is poised to pounce on you from a nearby tree. You coolly take careful aim with your caliber .223 Remington rifle and start your trigger squeeze, which in the next instant will send a 55-grain soft-point crashing into the animal's vitals. In the midst of this drama, your professional hunter is set to back you up with his own mighty .223, his loaded with 69 grain hollow-points.

If the armament selection above seems less than ideal to an inane extent, consider that a determined human adversary is inherently no easier to put out of action than a leopard, wild boar, cougar, or similar sized dangerous game animal. What's more, unlike his four-legged contemporaries, the human assailant, when armed with a gun, need not even touch his intended victim to do him harm. Yet many technical planners from various law enforcement agencies expect shoulder weapons thoroughly unsuited for hunting large game to swiftly terminate the hostile advances of armed 200-pound sociopaths bent on wreaking havoc regardless of consequences.

It seems that when the dangerous target is human, the concept of basic biology goes out the window with respect to armament/ammunition selection. Whether these misconceptions stem from traditional beliefs in mankind being apart from nature or from a deep seated unwillingness to do one's fellow human beings harm, regardless of circumstances, the inability

6 Fal/2000 Volume 4, Issue 4

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW Questions a n d Com ments


to think biologically when selecting small arms and ammunition for police use can have dire consequences.

Police ammunition selection with respect to handguns has generally greatly improved over the last decade. These improvements have occurred primarily due to several well-publicized tragic ammunition failures leading to the losses of innocent lives (The private sector continues to be victimized by ballistic junk science regarding handgun ammo selection for personal defense.). However, many agencies that have selected the best pistol ammunition available choose varmint caliber rifles with low penetrating ammunition best suited to doing battle with gophers and the like. Then there are those .308 match bullets used by police sharpshooters that don't consistently expand and would be considered by knowledgeable hunters as poor choices for employment in the woods.

Those charged with educating others about weapon/ammo selection for use against violent criminals and terrorists should be well aware of the fact that humans are no less difficult to penetrate and incapacitate than game animals of the same weight category. They should also be aware that convincing others that this is the case is sometimes rather difficult. It is surprising just how many otherwise sophisticated people are astonished to discover that human tissues are just as resilient to penetration as the analogous tissues of other similar sized mammals, or that humans don't always quit their actions even when hit by "real stoppers", despite what appears on TV.

The inane choices made today regarding police shoulder weapons and ammunition are largely a function of biological ignorance regarding human assailants. This coupled with the fact that shoulder weapons are less frequently employed than pistols in most civil scenarios means that those in the know have their work cut out for them in endeavoring to convince official decision makers as to the biological realities of employing such weapons against human antagonists.

Gus Coley Jr.

directed towards me. I stated that I assumed that a torso hit with a breaching round would inflict serious damage, but that I had never seen any ballistic tests conducted on these rounds and had no first hand experience in using them against a human target.

Just how lethal are these breaching rounds when used in an antipersonnel role? Our team's breachers carry a shotgun that is loaded with breaching rounds. In the event that our breacher had to fire at a suspect or an animal (dog), what could we expect as far as the terminal ballistics? Is one brand or type of breaching round better for use on humans than others? We feel that there would be minimal chance of over penetration through the suspect's body and that in the event of a miss, the round would have limited penetration on the interior walls of a typical house.

Lewis Moore, REMTP

Answer I have checked with Dr. Fackler, and neither of

us know of any testing that has been done to assess the terminal ballistic performance of breaching rounds. The following comments summarize the information available from projectile penetration modeling and associated testing experience.

The most critical factor is whether or not the projectile breaks up on contact with soft tissue. It would appear that at least some of these projectiles that seem to have no binder (Lockbuster, Dustbuster) or potentially soft binders (T.E.A.R., Hatton, Demolition, T.E.S.C.R.) would break up in soft tissue, while the compressed metal projectiles may not (especially in the lower velocity loads).

If the projectile breaks up more or less completely, the penetration would likely be similar to birdshot fired at very close range. This overall penetration is substantially greater than for a single shot pellet because the leading shot open up a channel that the following shot follow with minimal resistance during initial penetration. The maximum depth depends on par-ticle size and other factors, but a range of 5-8 inches is

Question a reasonable estimate for birdshot or smaller size parti-Dear Sirs, cles. This will certainly cause an ugly wound, and

I am requesting information regarding the bal- could easily be fatal if vital body structures are hit. listie performance of "Tactical Breaching Rounds". The risk of serious trauma to a second person after the These 12 Ga. Shotgun rounds are frequently carried by projectile breaks up during penetration of the first per-SWAT Entry Teams and are designed to shoot the lock son is quite low. and/or hinges off of doors to facilitate a crisis entry. If the projectile does not fragment in soft tis-

During the course of training on these rounds sue, soft tissue penetration would be of the order of 20 the questions has come up "How effective are they inches more or less depending on the projectile shape, against people or animals (dogs)?" Since I am one of mass, and velocity. This penetration is obviously large the assigned medics on our team, this question was enough to present serious risks to secondary targets for


Questions a n d Com ments WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW


all the projectile types that do not break up in soft tissue. These average mass and velocity of these breaching projectiles is similar to shotgun slugs, so penetration of unfractured projectiles will tend to be larger because there will be no deformation during penetration.

Misses that impact typical housing walls are quite likely to penetrate because that is what the breaching load design really does; the potential for causing injury is obviously reduced by the penetration, but not by as much as might be supposed, and the potential for serious or even fatal trauma is significant if only a single wall is penetrated. The risk is greatly reduced behind a second wall because the projectile will usually fracture in the first wall (independent of what it does in soft tissue) and spread somewhat in the room sized space between walls; the separated small fragments will usually then be stopped by the second wall.

The only important uncertain factor is whether or not a particular projectile will break up in soft tissue, and the only way to determine this with confidence is by test. The best test would be to fire rounds of interest into ballistic gelatin, which would also have the advantage of more precisely determining the projectile penetration characteristics. The IWBA has a video that describes all aspects of ballistic gelatin testing for law enforcement (see WBR Volume 3 #3, page 28). Projectile breakup can also be determined by firing the loads into water, although this will not give any information about penetration. The projectile breakup of these projectiles will be the same in soft tissue and water because the breakup forces are totally inertial for practical purposes, and are even less a function of secondary dynamic effects than JHP expansion is. A frame that adequately supports several feet of water in trash bags will do the job nicely, although the water must be backed up by something that will stop the projectiles exiting at up to 300 ft/sec.

Sorry that we don't have more definitive information, but I hope the above is of use to you. If you do implement testing in any form, we would be interested in publishing the results for the benefit of our readers.

Duncan MacPherson

Question Has anyone ever tried filling the hollow point

cavity with ballistic gelatin? Though not practical for defensive purposes, it might keep the static preasure on the cavity high enough to cause reliable expansion after penetrating winter clothes.

8 Fa/12000

Careful tuning might allow a .357 or .44 Magnum slug to still reliably expand after piercing a more substantial barrier (assuming the bullet retains the necessary velocity) . If this works, some soft solid could be designed that would have the necessary properties for a new level of hollow point performance.

Does this idea have merit? Jeffrey L. Vaughn, PhD

Answer Dear Mr. Vaughn:

Sticking various things in hollow points to augment expansion has a long (dating back almost a century) and unsuccessful history. I have never made any attempts to use a material having properties similar to ballistic gelatin in hollow points, and I don't know of any experimentation done with this concept by anyone else. That doesn't necessarily mean that no one has tried and failed, because many people don't publish their ideas that don't work. There are two scenarios:

I. The first scenario is heavy clothing or other soft material. The key here is the hollow point design. Sophisticated state of the art JHP designs are robust in expanding after contact with these soft materials, other JHP designs are not. I don't believe that a gelatin like hollow point filler will be of much help in enhancing the performance of either of these design types, because the basic problem is not really within the hollow point, but in the pressure attenuation through the layers of soft material. The real solution here is to just use a good hollow point design, and forget the filler.

2. The second scenario is initial contact with a hard barrier of some kind. The performance here depends to a large extent on the barrier characteristics. Many JHP designs perform reasonably well after contacts with many kinds of hard barriers, but very hard barriers (e.g., heavy glass) create problems even though they are easily broken through. The problem here is the damage to the hollow point from barrier contact that prevents the expansion from proceeding normally. It isn't obvious that any soft filler would make much difference in this scenario.

The bottom line is that I am personally not optimistic about this concept for the reasons outlined above. I would be interested to learn of any good experimentation along these lines, but this would require significant facilities and expertise to implement.

Duncan MacPhers on

Volume 4, Issue 4

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW

JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION Impact M u n itions Fata l ities

CITIZEN INJURIES FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT IM

p ACT MUNITIONS: EVIDENCE FROM THE FIELD

David Klinger, Associate Professor of Criminology and �riminal Justice, University of Missouri-St. Louis

Ken Hubbs, President Pro Tac International and California Association of Tactical Officers (CATO)

Abstract In recent years, many law enforcement agen

cies in North America have added to their weapons inventories firearm-delivered impact munitions such as plastic batons, wooden dowels, and beanbags for use against combative and similarly uncooperative citizens whose actions justify the use of non-lethal physical force. While the popularity of impact munitions has increased considerably, very little systematic information exists about the physical consequences for humans that are struck by such projectiles. In an attempt to shed some empirical light on this important matter, data was collected and analyzed from 3 71 separate incidents in which officers fired a total of 967 impact projectiles at citizens. This article describes the data collection procedures, reports what the analysis disclosed about the injuries sustained by citizens, and discusses the implications of these findings for contemporary law enforcement.

Background The term "impact munitions" refers to a group

of firearm-delivered projectiles that are designed to have a low probability of causing death when they strike human targets. Such munitions were developed to allow police officers to apply force from a safe distance against combative and otherwise resistant citizens whose actions do not warrant the use of deadly force. Indeed, they are commonly called "less-lethal" or "less-than-lethal" projectiles in law enforcement circles. In contrast with the standard firearms ammunition that officers carry, which is designed to penetrate the skin and underlying tissues, impact munitions are designed to remain outside the body of the subject they strike and thus reduce substantially the likelihood that the projectile will cause fatal injuries. Among the most popular of the various sorts of impact munitions available to law enforcement agencies are 12 gauge "beanbag" rounds, which consist of 2" square cloth pillows filled with approximately 40 grams of lead shot that are rolled-up and placed into shells to be fired

from shotguns, and plastic baton rounds (PBRs), which are fired from 3 7 and 40 millimeter gas launchers.

Originally created as tools to help officers to deal with hostile crowds, impact munitions are currently used in a wide variety of law enforcement situations where deadly force is not justified, such as those involving barricaded subjects who do not pose an imminent threat to the lives of officers or innocent citizens, fleeing suspects who have not committed violent felonies, and suicidal citizens armed with deadly weapons.1 While police agencies are deploying impact munitions in a wider variety of situations, the extant literature contains essentially no systematic information about the effects they have when they strike human beings. This knowledge gap is especially crucial because researchers who have conducted tests of 12 gauge bean bag rounds with animal tissue and gelatin blocks have asserted that these projectiles should be classified as lethal munitions, to be used only when deadly force is justified.2 Given the paucity of data about the real-world consequences of impact munitions strikes, the laboratory research-based argument that 12 gauge bean bag projectiles should not be used in the sorts of circumstances they were designed for (i.e., those where deadly force is not justified), and the fact that police agencies often use impact munitions in cases where deadly force is not appropriate, information about the actual effects of impact munitions on human beings is clearly needed. The research described below was undertaken in an attempt to meet this need.

Methods Data was collected from I 06 North American

police agencies whose officers have used impact munitions against citizens during law enforcement operations. This was accomplished through a multi-step process that began with the development of a research instrument that officers could complete and send in following incidents where members of their agency fired impact munitions. After designing the instrument, we contacted the five largest impact munitions

Volume 4, Issue 4 Fa/12000 9

-1�-------------------------------------------------------------

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW Impact M u n itio ns Fata l ities


manufacturers (all impact mumbons used by North American law enforcement agencies are produced by private firms) and asked for their client lists. Four of these companies complied with our request, which yielded a list of 685 different police and corrections agencies that had purchased impact munitions from at least one company. During the Summer of 1 998, we then sent each of these agencies a packet that included copies of the data collection instrument and a letter of introduction that described the study and requested their participation in it. We also sent a follow-up mailing reminding each of these agencies about the project approximately three months later. We wanted to develop information from agencies that did not appear on the manufacturers ' client lists, but that might nonetheless be using impact munitions. To achieve this, we submitted to several law enforcement journals and newsletters an article describing the study and seeking participation from any interested agencies that might not have received our mailings. Finally, we posted information about the project and how interested agencies could participate on the web site of the California Association of Tactical Officers. In the end, these efforts yielded a total of 373 separate reports from the aforementioned 1 06 law enforcement agencies of incidents where their officers fired impact munitions at citizens.

The data collection instrument sought numerous points of information about the incidents where officers employed impact munitions, such as the name of the agency submitting the report, date and time of the incident, socio-demographic characteristics of the involved citizens, number of munitions fired, type(s) of munitions fired, distance between the officer(s) who fired and the citizen, body area where each projectile impacted, and injuries sustained from munitions strikes.

The purpose of this study was to address the physical consequences of impact projectile strikes; the following discussion of findings summarizes the injuries sustained by citizens when struck by these munitions.

Findings The first step in data analysis was to count the

number of munitions used in each of the 373 reports submitted. This exercise disclosed that a total of 969 projectiles were fired across the 373 cases. A case-bycase review of the data revealed two incidents in which

1 0 Fal/ 2000

the only munitions fired were single lethal projectiles that officers had mistakenly loaded into 1 2 gauge shotguns (in one case the projectile was a barricadepenetrating chemical agent round, in the other case a door breaching round) . The involved citizens died in both cases. Because no impact munitions were used in either of these cases, both were excluded from consideration for this article, which left 967 munitions fired in 3 7 1 incidents for the analysis presented below.

Analysis of the data provide two separate data sets. The first data set is an incident-based analysis that treated each of the 3 7 1 incidents during which officers fired impact munitions as a separate case. The second data set is a munitions-based analysis that treated each of the 967 projectiles fired during these 3 7 1 incidents as a separate case. This analytical strategy allowed us to explore not only what occurs in incidents where officers employ impact munitions, but to also examine the effects of each projectile fired.

Respondents reported the number of rounds that struck their intended target in 3 1 1 of the incidents. As indicated in Table 1 , the number of hits per case among those for which data was provided ranged from none (in one case) to 1 3 (in one other) . The modal number of projectiles striking citizens per incident is one (N=l 33), with the vast majority (99 .5%) of the subjects struck by 1 0 or fewer projectiles (and over 90% struck by four or fewer).

Table 1 Number ofMunitions Striking Subjects in 311 Cases

# of Hits Frequency Percent Cum Percent

0 1 . 3 . 3 1 1 33 42.8 43 . I 2 69 22.2 65.3 3 52 I 6.7 82.0 4 26 8 .4 90.4 5 1 4 4 .5 94 .9 6 7 2 .2 97 . I 7 I .3 97.4 8 0 -- --

9 4 1 .3 98 .7 10 2 .6 99.4 1 1 0 --- ---

1 2 1 .3 99.7 1 3 1 .3 I OO.O

Total 311 100.0

Volume 4, Issue 4


JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION Impact M u n itions Fata l ities

Respondents identified the type of munitions used in 960 of the 967 discharges reported in the study. This information indicates that officers used 2 1 different specific types of munitions. I 2-gauge beanbag rounds were by far the most commonly used projectiles among the 960 rounds identified, accounting for 623 (65%) of the identified projectiles fired. 37mm PBRs make up the second most prevalent class of impact munitions used (N = 267). The remaining 69 munitions that respondents identified included a variety of other 1 2-gauge, 37mm, and 40mm projectiles.

Table 2 Injury Sustained by Subjects from 780 Projectile

Impacts

Inj ury Sustain ed Fr eq uency

Bruise 398 Abrasion 239 Laceration 43 Fracture 27 Penetration 1 4 Death 8 None 5 1 Total 780

Percent 5 1 .0 30.6

5 . 5 3 .5 1 .8 1 .0 6 .5

99.9

Table 3

Respondents reported on the injuries caused by 782 of the munitions that impacted subjects . As indicated by the figures presented in Table 2, bruises were by far the most common injury subjects sustained, occurring in 5 1 % of the munitions strikes. Another 3 1 % of the munitions caused abrasions, 6% lacerated subjects ' skin, 4% led to fractured bones, 2% penetrated subjects ' skin, less than 1 % led to the death of the subject (see qiscussion below), while 6% of the munitions that struck subjects caused no physical injury.

One crucial issue regarding the use of impact munitions concerns the relationship between the area of the body they strike and the injury they produce. Manufacturers ' literature and impact munitions training programs typically advise officers to direct their aim towards certain areas (e.g., extremities and larger muscle areas) and away from others (e.g., head, neck, spine, liver and kidney areas) based on the assumption that more serious injuries are more likely to occur when subjects are struck in the later areas. 3.4 To shed some empirical light on this matter, we examined the injuries that citizens sustained when struck in specific areas of their bodies by cross-classifying the body area struck and injury type for the 768 munitions impacts for which respondents provided data on both area struck and injury sustained. Table 3 displays the results of this exercise.

Cross-Classification of Area Struck and Injury Sustained for 768 Munitions Impacts Inj ury Sustai ned

Area Hil Brui e Abrasion Laceration Fracture Penetration Death None Total Abdomen 1 58 62 8 9 2 1 4 253 Chest 69 49 3 6 6 5 7 145 Back 46 29 2 6 84 Groin 4 2 6 Leg 56 33 1 1 3 1 0 113 Arm 42 48 I l 6 7 115 Buttocks 1 5 1 1 1 27 Head 3 2 7 5 2 1 9 Neck I 3 I 6 Total 394 23 7 43 2 7 1 4 6 4 7 768

Volume 4, Issue 4 Fal/ 2000 1 1

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW Im pact M u nitions Fata l ities


Three points stand out in Table 3 . The first is that impacts to the head tend to produce a greater proportion of serious injuries than impacts to any other area of the body, with 1 4 of 1 9 head impacts causing a laceration, a fracture, or a penetrating wound. The second point is that five of the six fatalities for which we have clear information on the body area impacted were due to projectiles that struck subjects in the chest. The third is that the other fatality was due to one of just five projectiles that struck citizens on the neck which makes for a 1 6.7% fatality rate among neck i�pacts. The subjects were hit by multiple rounds in different body areas in the other two impact fatalities mentioned above. Since it was not possible to conclusively attribute either of these deaths to a projectile strike on a specific body area, neither of these cases was included in Table 3 .

The following synopses provide additional information about all eight of the deaths that have been attributed to impact munitions. The first six constitute the six fatalities included in Table 3, the last two the pair that were excluded from Table 3 .

1 2

I . A 42-year-old male who stood approximately 5' 1 0" and weighed approximately 1 65 lbs engaged in an altercation with several officers. After the officers had used an electronic "T ASER" 22 times with no effect, they fired several 37mm foam rubber and 37mm beanbag rounds at the subject (a total of 1 3 combined). One beanbag struck the subject in the throat. He died weeks later as a result of the impact to the throat.

2. A 60 year-old male (5' 4", 1 60 lb.) was struck three times with 37mm plastic baton rounds from approximately 1 0 feet; once in his left arm, and twice in his chest. One of rounds impacting the subject' s chest fractured a rib, a portion of which penetrated his heart and one of his lungs.

3 . A 6 1 year-old female (5' 4", 1 1 0 lbs.) was struck once in the. chest with a plastic baton round from approximately 9 feet. The impact fractured a

Fal/ 2000

rib, which penetrated her heart and one of her lungs.

4. A 34-year-old male (height and weight unknown) was struck twice in the chest with 1 2 gauge beanbags from approximately 2 1 feet. One of the beanbags broke two ribs, penetrated his chest cavity, and lodged in his heart.

5 . A 29-year-old male (height and weight unknown) was struck with five (5) 1 2 gauge bean bags from 2 1 - 30 feet. The last round, fired from approximately 26 feet, penetrated his chest and punctured one of his lungs.

6. A 22-year-old male who stood approximately six feet tall and weighed approximately 200 lbs was struck one time in the chest with a 1 2 gauge bean bag round from a distance of 2 1 feet. While the official cause of death was still pending at time of this report, the case is included for the sake of thoroughness .

7. A 68 year-old male who weighed some 270 lbs was struck by a total of more than 1 00 plastic baton, foam rubber, wood, and bean bag munitions from a distance less than 20 feet. He succumbed to the injuries 1 8 months later.

8. A 30-year-old male (approximately 5 ' 9", 257 lbs.) died after being struck several times in the head, neck, and chest with plastic baton rounds. While the autopsy report identified the cause of death as blood clots due to blunt trauma to the head, coupled with respiratory distress from chemical agent (CS) exposure, it did not specify that the impact munitions strikes were the source of the blood clots.

Volume 4, Issue 4

""""'

_W

_O_U_N_D_B_A_L_L_IS_T_I_C_RE_V_I_E_W _______ ___,_,.

JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS A SSOCIATION --------

Discussion and Conclusions The foregoing analysis indicates that impact

munitions strikes produced fatal wounds in just over 2% (8/3 7 1 ) of the incidents in the current sample. This one-in-fifty fatality ratio must be placed in proper context lest the reader conclude that impact projectiles lead to death in 2% of the cases in which they are used against citizens. The first point to consider in this connection is that the eight fatalities identified above constitute all of the known deaths that have been attributed to impact munitions as of May 30t\ 2000. The second is that the current study by no means includes all incidents where North American law enforcement officers employed impact munitions against citizens. Just 1 06 of the hundreds of law enforcement agencies that stock impact munitions participated in the research. While we have no way of knowing how many of the nonparticipating agencies have actually used them in the field, we know through informal channels (e.g., associates who work for such agencies and press accounts) that many of them have used impact munitions numerous times, in some cases in hundreds of situations over the last few years. Consequently, while we have the numerator for calculating the fraction of incidents where impact munitions are used that lead to death, our data vastly under-estimate the denominator, which means that the actual likelihood of death from impact munitions is far lower than the 1 in 50 reported above . Readers are advised to keep this crucial point in mind when considering the lethality of impact munitions.

In a similar vein, Table 3 suggests that the likelihood of fatal injury from impact munitions is substantially higher when they strike people in the chest and neck as compared to other parts of the body. This is true because these are the most vulnerable areas, but the fatal injury rate of such impacts is almost certainly lower than the assembled data indicates . The current data include all of the deaths, but only a fraction of the cases where officers have employed impact munitions. Because we cannot know how accurately the incident sample represents the total impacts, it is possible that there have been disproportionately more unreported neck and chest strikes in situations where impact munitions have been used. Such a situation would mean that the information in the current sample could substantially over-estimate the likelihood of fatal injury from neck and chest impacts.

Whatever the case might be about the distribution of impact locations among the multitude of cases

for which we have no data, we can draw some important conclusions about the lethality of impact munitions from the current data because our sample does include all know fatalities. First, as of May 30th 2000, there is no evi dence that any citizens have been killed by impact munitions strikes to the abdomen, back, groin, leg, arm, or buttocks. Second, in the current s ample, fatal injuries are far more likely when projectiles strike the neck and chest as compared to other areas; 1 6.7% of the projectiles striking citizens in the neck and 3 .4.% of those striking the chest produced fatal wounds, while 0% of those striking other areas did. Third, citizens died from impact munitions strikes in very few of the cases examined; just over 2%. Fourth, because the current sample includes but a small portion of the cases where law enforcement officers have shot citizens with impact munitions, the 2% fatality rate overestimates substantially the actual likelihood of death from impact munitions.

Taken together, these points clearly indicate that impact munitions are quite unlikely to produce fatal injuries, particularly when they strike areas other than the neck and chest. Consequently, we believe that the current law enforcement doctrine that holds that these projectiles are suitable for use in situations that would not justify the use of deadly force is appropriate.

References I . Ijames, Steve, Concepts and Considerations in the De-escalation

Phi losophy, The Tactical Edge, Summer, 1 995: 5 1 -5 5 . 2. Dahlstrom, D.B. , Powley, K.D., and Penk, D.V.R. , 1 2 Gauge

Bean Bag Ammunition Penetration, Wound Ball istics Review, Volume 3, Number 3, 1 99 8 : 3 8-4 1 .

3 . Defense Technologies Corporation o f America, Product Data Sheet, 1 999.

4. Cal i fornia Association of Tactical Officers, Training Manual, 1 998

This research was supported the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice Grant Number 98-LB- VX-K006. Points of view or opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.


I I

Co m m e n t s o n Fata l i t i es WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW


COMMENTS ON IMPACT MUNITIONS

Duncan MacPherson

Introduction The Klinger and Hubbs paper is the first report

of an extensive effort to gather field data on the "less lethal" munitions being ever more widely used, and as such provides law enforcement agencies data on actual shootings. This is an important contribution, and making the best use of this work requires thinking through and understanding the issues implicit in these results.

Thoughtful consideration of the Klinger and Hubbs data supports the differences in fatality concerns with the 37 or 40 mm plastic baton rounds (PBRs) and the 12 gauge beanbag rounds that would be expected from consideration of the projectile characteristics. This data also strongly suggests that some agencies are increasing fatality risk by using faulty aim point tactics and/or are using these "less lethal" munitions inappropriately. The following comments are offered on these issues raised by the Klinger and Hubbs data.

a street encounter. This diffi(;u]l problem merits very serious consideration by all senior firearms trainers .

Inappropriate "Less Lethal" Munitions Use

The Klinger and Hubbs report shows that "less lethal" munitions are being used inappropriately in some cases. The clearest example is death #7 already referred to, with over I 00 impacts in unspecified areas. The officers involved in this case either lost their heads or had no idea of the issues involved with these "less lethal" munitions. All users of these munitions should recognize that there is almost never a physiological response to these "less lethal" munitions that incapacitates the target or forces the target to stop whatever undesired activity the target is engaged in. The only reason for behavior modification of the target is a decision by the target the behavior is not worth the "less lethal" consequences. If the target does not make this

Aim Point Tactics choice after one or two impacts, more impacts are Deaths can occur from blunt trauma in the unlikely to change his mind. It is possible to ki ll the

neck and head, and very modest penetrations (less than target with 1 00 blunt trauma impacts, but it is easier all 2 inches) can lead to death from chest impacts that around to just use wel l placed buckshot or handgun fire produce heart trauma or groin impacts that sever the once non-lethality is abandoned. The Klinger and major arteries leading to the legs. Therefore, officers Hubbs data shows 5 or more impacts in about I 0% of trying to avoid fatalities when using impact munitions incidents where "less lethal" munitions were used. should not contact these areas. Seven of the eight fa- This seems to be a clear overuse of these "less lethal" talities listed by Klinger and Hubbs had reported im- munitions in incidents where the target does not choose pacts in the head, neck, and heart areas, and the other to comply. (#7) had over 1 00 impacts in unspecified areas (but Winston Churchill once claimed "nothing is almost certainly including impacts in hazardous areas). more exhilarating than being fired upon without ef-Deployment of impact munitions should require a feet" . Law enforcement officers should not encourage "belly button" aim point and a frontal quarter impact exhilaration in their targets, and accurate shot place-(to avoid spine impacts); the LAPD use of force policy ment with "less lethal" munitions is no less important includes these requirements, but it is not obvious that than with lethal projections. Targets should be encour-all departments do this. Impacts within six inches of aged to comply with one or two well placed "less le-the navel will not lead to fatalities from either blunt thai" projectiles, not a barrage of hasty, poorly placed trauma or penetration except in very atypical physio- impacts. logical conditions. The incidents where use of "less lethal" muni-

This problem is not just a use of force issue, tions are tried should be thoughtfully selected. An but also a training issue. The primary problem is that ideal scenario is crowd control , as in the recent De-officers are trained to use a "center mass" aim point for mocratic National Convention in Los Angeles . The all small arms except (presumably) the "less lethal" targets here were primarily troublemakers, not hard-munitions. This deeply ingrained training makes it ened criminals or others quite willing to die for an ob-very easy for officers to use the "center mass" aim jective. These groups were dispersed very effectively point for the " less lethal" munitions under the stress of by "less lethal" munitions, and the leaders were forced

1 4 Fa/1 2000 Volume 4, Issue 4

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW Co m m e n t s o n F a t a l i t i es

JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCI ATION

to fall back on complaints to sympathetic media that their civil rights had been violated because they had been prevented from starting a riot.

Use of "less lethal" munitions in situations where the target has firearms, is engaged in behavior potentially lethal to others, or shows any state of mind that indicates an indifference to consequences has a low probability of success and a significant probability of a bad result. There have been incidents where officers have been killed as a result of inappropriate reliance on "less lethal" munition effectiveness.

The bottom l ine is that "less lethal" munitions are not magic bullets that force target compliance or incapacitation. After all, even lethal small arms projectiles require skilled use to reliably achieve these objectives. "Less lethal " munitions have a place in law enforcement, but must be used wisely.

PBR Fatalities The PBR rounds are generally quite accurate,

which should minimize the number of unintended impacts in unintended body locations. While occasional unintended impacts are inevitable due to target movement and/or shooter error (especially at longer ranges), the relatively large number of chest impacts suggests that the use of force aim point policy was inappropriate in many of the shootings. The impacts in the head and neck (which everyone knows to avoid) are relatively small, and are probably mostly unintended impacts with a chest aim point. With a "belly button" aim point with PBR rounds, the number of chest impacts should be small (i .e . , similar to the data head and neck impacts) and the head and neck impacts should be very small. Klinger and Hubbs fatality #8 seems to have obviously incorporated an improper aim point ("struck several times in the head, neck, and chest with plastic baton rounds").

While the PBR rounds are generally quite accurate, the projectile does not always maintain the soft nose forward during flight. When the PBR projectile yaws in flight, the hard plastic base contacts the target, and often breaks the plastic if the target is resistant. Training round projectiles are usually reloadable until they are lost from this kind of damage. This hard plastic impact can produce much more trauma than impacts of the much softer projectile nose. In particular, fatalities resulting from rib fractures from PBR projectile chest impacts (two of the PBR fatalities reported by Klinger and Hubbs) are more likely when the PBR pro-

jectile yaws to produce hard plastic contact at impact.

12 Gauge Beanbag Fatalities The three fatalities from 1 2 gauge beanbag

impacts in the Klinger and Hubbs report were all due to chest penetration. The risks associated with 1 2 gauge beanbag impacts have been investigated very thoroughly by the LAPD, and are now understood in great detail . This detailed understanding of the projectile dynamics and wound ballistics issues makes it clear that chest penetration is the primary risk with this "less lethal" munition. These results are reported in pages 16-30 of this Journal .

Stopping the Heart,� The potential for fatalities from chest impacts

resulting in stopping the heartbeat has been a topic of great interest in some quarters . The munitions manufacturers are forced to take this seriously due to potential liability, and attempts to model this fatality are under way. The attempt to model this effect is desirable, but it is important to have such modeling compatible with what has actually been experienced. The concern is that while such a heartbeat termination effect is possible, the Klinger and Hubbs data shows that no such event has occurred in the 145 reported chest impacts. Furthermore, thousands of recorded torso impacts of small arms bullets on soft body armor clad officers have been recorded with no such event occurring (or any other form of blunt trauma fatality, for that matter) . Many, perhaps most, of these body armor impacts have more severe blunt trauma than beanbag impacts (note that while the bullet kinetic energy is much higher, complex impact dynamic effects attenuate some of this effect).

All of this data from impacts in the field without effect seems to suggest that the concern about heartbeat stoppage from impacts of "less than lethal" projectiles is very overblown relative to the true risk. Reducing "less lethal" projectile velocity to satisfy phantom heartbeat stoppage criteria would probably increase fatalities (because reduced " less lethal" munitions effectiveness would increase the probability of resort to deadly force). In any case, it seems obvious that the best way to reduce the fatality risk from "less lethal" projectiles is to work on factors that are causing the fatalities, not the factors that aren't.

Volume 4, Issue 4 Fa/1 2000 1 5

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW Bea n b a g F ata l ity R i s k


1 2 GAUGE BEANBAG FATALITY RISK INVESTIGATION Duncan MacPherson, Technical Reserve, Los A ngeles Police Department

Doreen Hudson, Supervising Criminalist, Firearms Analysis Unit, Los Angeles Police Department

Richard Maruoka, Criminalist, Firearms A nalysis Unit, Los Angeles Police Department

Abstract most (probably all) users. Low velocity projectiles are manufactured and The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)

sold in a variety of forms and are widely distributed to and other law enforcement agencies use 12 gauge law enforcement personnel as "less lethal ammunition" beanbag ammunition to avoid lethal confrontations or "less than lethal ammunition" . The most common when possible. LAPD uses a color-coded system for forms of this ammunition are beanbags (different de- weapons identification. Only shotguns identified with sign types of fabric bags filled with lead shot) loaded a large area of green tape on the stock are used for into a 1 2 gauge shotshell and using a 1 2 gauge shotgun beanbag deployment to avoid the accidental confusion as the delivery system. The increased use of this law of beanbag ammunition and lethal ammunition types enforcement tool has given rise to an increased number described in Reference 1 . LAPD beanbag use has in-of lethal consequences. This study determined the dy- creased over the last several years to about 400 namics of beanbag projectiles and quantified the fac- rounds/year at present. A fatality eventwilly occurred tors contributing to fatality risk. Information devel- (case 5 of reference 1 ), which initiated the investiga-oped during this study proves that decreasing fatality tion of the risk factors in 1 2 gauge beanbag deploy-risk requires the use of rifled barrels independent of ment described in this paper. beanbag ammunition type and all other factors, and Beanbag ammunition has been part of the public shows that modelable fatality risk can be reduced by a safety alternate arsenal for the past thirty years.2 How-factor of at least 1 00 . ever, i t has been noted3 that manufacturers do not always

expend the resources to implement scientifically valid

Introduction The beanbags referred to herein employ a fab

ric bag loaded with 40 grams (about 620 grains) of lead shot fired through a 1 2 gauge shotgun at low (-300 ft/sec) velocities. It is designed to deter the undesired behavior of subjects by delivering an impact conceptually similar to that of a thrown baseball, but with a somewhat smaller mass at a somewhat higher velocity. This system has grown in popularity due to its ease of implementation, reduction of officer injury risk, and its potential for neutralizing aggressive behavior with a greatly reduced risk of lethal consequences. However, as the frequency of beanbag usage increases, so does the statistical accumulation of penetrating injuries resulting in fatality.1

By concept and design, beanbag ammunition is intended to be a non-penetrating projectile. However, in application, the beanbag has proven to be capable of penetrating human skin and tissue and creating varying degrees of wound trauma. While at least some possibility of lethality appears inevitable with this ammunition type, any decision to accept this risk is inevitably a function of the risk presented. In retrospect, the factors related to this risk have not been well understood by

testing to enable full understanding of the risks in operational use. The fatality that occurred was at a deployment range and scenario approved by the beanbag manufacturer, which clearly indicated that LAPD needed to learn more about beanbag wound ballistics. It was recognized from the outset that the risk of creating serious trauma or even fatalities as a result of the use of beanbags or other armament intended to reduce serious injury can never be eliminated due to the possibility of unintended impacts and unknown physiological anomalies. However, it was also recognized that some kinds of hazards can be minimized through detailed understanding of the armament dynamics and the associated wound ballistics issues. This understanding was the objective of the LAPD investiga-tion of beanbag ammunition performance. A detailed evaluation of beanbag design types and the shotgun delivery system options eventually led to a heretofore un-precedented level of testing and analysis related to this issue. This paper describes the results of this study of the different beanbag designs and the use of smoothbore and rifled shotgun barrels. .

A combination of sophisticated testing and dynamic modeling provides reliable performance information relatively easily for most small arms ammunition. Evaluation of beanbag ammunition is much more com-

1 6 Fall 1000 Volume 4, Issue 4


JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION Bea n b a g Fata l ity R i s k

plex; the flexible projectile causes significant configurational uncertainty at impact (especially for the common folded beanbag designs) and skin effects at low projectile velocity can be significant and are hard to model accurately. The combination of these two effects further exacerbates modeling problems, and configurational variations can introduce substantial variation in test results. As a result, very conservative performance model assumptions and interpretations were used to provide margin to cover these uncertainties in operational use.

The various dynamic and wound ballistics considerations are discussed individually and supporting test results described; then a reasonable assessment of the combined totality of effects gives an assessment of relative risks under various conditions. This approach is based on an understanding of the issues, and provides a totally technically justifiable position; no single test or demonstration has this attribute.

Beanbag Ammunition Design Types Beanbag shotshells are typically loaded with a

powder charge, followed by an overpowder wad, a beanbag and an overbag wad. The shells are usually closed by a rolled crimp or a star crimp. The beanbags have two basic design types; flat bags (of several detailed designs) that are folded in the shotshell and flexible fabric bulbs (of several detailed designs) having nominal axial symmetry in the shotshell. The folded bags have overstitched seams at the beanbag edge, and are loaded into 1 2 gauge shotshells by folding them into an approximately cylindrical shape and inserting them into the open hul l . The flexible fabric bulbs (sometimes called a sock) are seamless balloonshaped vessels that are tied at one end, forming a tail of leftover fabric.

The folded beanbag designs are intended to reorient after leaving the barrel to present a flat surface perpendicular to the velocity. The dynamics of this reorientation are complex, but the aerodynamic forces in flight in combination with beanbag dynamics tend to produce this reorientation. In the early phases of this reorientation, the very small impact area of the relatively sharp edges of the overstitched seams of the flat beanbag can cause impact laceration and wound trauma risk through penetration. It takes some time for this beanbag reorientation, and a manufacturer's 30 feet minimum range specification is typical to provide time for this reorientation to be satisfactorily near completion before impact. This dynamic process is substan-

tially different for beanbags fired in smoothbore and rifled barrels, and was a major element in the study for each barrel type.

The flexible fabric bulb beanbag designs available through most of this investigation were intended for use in smoothbore shotguns, and usually have a significant fabric tail to provide orientation stability during flight. If this tail is loaded towards the rear, there is no reorientation in flight. If this tail is loaded towards the front, the bag reorients 1 80° in flight (when fired in an smoothbore shotgun), but this reorientation does not have significant wound ballistic consequences. This beanbag design does not have any relatively sharp edges in any orientation, but when fired from smoothbore -shotguns, the impact area is always about that of the shotgun bore (i .e . , about the same diameter as the unopened folded bag designs).

These two types of beanbag ammunition are discussed separately because the risk issues are quite different. These risk issues are basically a function of the design types, not the beanbag manufacturer. This point does not argue that all the manufacturers have very equivalent products in all the issues of importance (they do not), but merely recognizes that fatality risks are dominated by issues related to the beanbag design type, rather than by the design detail . As a result, manufacturers of tested ammunition are not identified herein to help avoid misunderstand�ngs of study results.

Shotguns

Five different barrels mounted and two different 12 gauge shotguns were used in this study of beanbag performance. The shotguns were an Ithaca Model 3 7 and a Remington Model 870. The Ithaca was fitted with two different barrels, a smoothbore with an improved modified choke barrel and a fully rifled ( l /34 · twist) barrel. The Remington was equipped with an interchangeable smoothbore cylinder, a paradox (two inch rifled insert at the muzzle), and a fully rifled (1135 twist) barrel. The smoothbore barrel chokes were determined by measuring actual bore diameter; the rifled barrels had no choke by design (verified by groove diameter measurement). Some smoothbore barrels purported to be "cylinder bore" have been found to be modified choke or even smaller diameter. Therefore, choke should always be determined by measurement of bore diameter and not presumed or interpreted from product markings.

The paradox barrel was tested to determine if the standard smoothbore barrel could be retrofitted with a


WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW Bea n b a g Fa t a l i ty R i s k


rifled barrel insert. Preliminary tests performed with the paradox barrel were unsatisfactory and this option was abandoned without extensive testing. One manufacturer warned that any attempt to fully rifle a smoothbore barrel would remove too much material from the barrel and could result in catastrophic failure of the barrel if used with conventional ammunition. While such an application was not planned, this option is unsound based on fundamental safety principles.

Beanbag Ammunition Velocity Shotguns barrels foul more rapidly with beanbag

ammunition than other ammunition types as a result of the relatively soft plastic overpowder wads required by the low pressure loads. These soft wads scrape, melt and skip down the barrel, leaving ample residue behind. The manufacturers all state that their current beanbag ammunition is not sensitive to this fouling up to at least 50 rounds, and that they typically perform relatively extended testing without cleaning. The barrels used in this study were cleaned after every 20 shot interval with a conventional stainless steel bore brush to minimize the potential effects of accumulated bore residues.

The velocity of beanbag ammunition is somewhat dependent on bore fouling and temperature. The first shot fired after barrel cleaning or with a cold fouled barrel is usually noticeably lower than average; this result was confirmed by the manufacturers, who have all observed this effect. The cause of this phenomenon is not certain, but appears to be a barrel lubrication effect from trace residues at elevated temperature. This lubricating effect is not present when the barrel and the residues cool to ambient temperature (or when the residues have been removed). This first shot effect on velocity falls within maximum shot-toshot velocity variation, and so does not present a significant concern.

Beanbag ammunition has a much larger velocity variation in percentage than typical ammunition because the velocity is much lower than typical shotgun ammunition. This effect is not a result of beanbags per se, but merely a result of the fact that the dynamics of this low velocity greatly increases the sensitivity of the beanbag barrel exit velocity to typical perturbations. The physics is too detailed for this discussion, but the typical perturbing effects are gas blow by, all forms of barrel friction, and variations in all aspects of powder charge and ignition. Similarly, choke in smoothbore barrels significantly decreases beanbag muzzle velocities, even to the point of occasionally lodging beanbag ammunition components in the barrel. As a result, beanbag ammunition must be tested

1 8 Fall 2000

in the barrel type used operationally; the manufacturer's rated muzzle velocities of beanbag ammunition are often not valid in different barrel types. In principle, the beanbag ammunition powder charge can be adjusted to give whatever average velocity is desired in any shotgun barrel. In practice, the effort made by any of the manufacturers to fme tune a special load will be related to the size of the purchase order for that load.

Shot-to-shot velocity variation can be expected to depend somewhat on the shotgun and load. Data compiled during the course of this study on shot-to-shot velocity variation gives an indication of what might be expected from unchoked barrels. The data in Table I is from a single manufacturer's lot of folded beanbag ammunition, and was accumulated from shots fired in rifled barrels over several testing sessions. The chronograph used to measure these velocities was checked for consistency with three shots using a . 1 77 caliber laboratory BB gun, which measured 190, 192, and 194 ft/sec.

Table 1 Beanbag Velocity Data from Rifled Barrels

Velocity Ithaca Remington Condition 120 shots 40 shots

High 367 ftlsee 379 ftlsee Low 267 ftlsee 325 ftlsee

Average 336 fUsee 353 fUsee Standard Deviation 1 8 ftlsee 1 3 ftlsee

The extreme spread of velocities in the Ithaca is large, but a significant part of this variation is due to a few low velocity shots. The absence of anomalously low velocity shots in the Remington barrel is a statistical artifact of happenstance and a small sample size. A selected run of 40 Ithaca rifled barrel shots (# 53-92) has 362, 305, 338, and 1 4 ft/sec for high, low, average, and standard deviation respectively (with no anomalously low shots in this smaller sample). The anomalously low velocity shots are too uncommon to materially affect the average or standard deviation estimates of any relatively large sample.

The factors that are most likely to produce anomalous velocities will cause these velocities to be low. The only plausible cause of an anomalously high velocity is a double powder charge, which manufacturing quality control should essentially preclude. This characteristic of the anomalous velocities is fortuitous, because it means that while occasional rounds may have

Volume 4, Issue 4


JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS A SSOCIATION Bea n b a g F a t a l i t y R i s k

lower effectiveness, the possibility of excessive trauma from over velocity is very low.

The ammunition used in this study was not special order to match the rifled barrels. The reason for the 5% difference in measured average velocity between the two barrels is unknown, but probably represents a real difference, not a data sample artifact.

Experimental Designs Statistically significant quantities of beanbag

projectiles were fired into various media at a spectrum of ranges; velocities of all the test shots were measured by chronograph. Several techniques were used to assess bag configuration at impact during this study. Simple cardboard witness panels were used in the earliest preliminary assessment to verify that there was a concern; this concern was validated using Kodak highspeed video (EKT APRO Graphic for color, HG2000 for black and white) and high-speed photography (Hadland System image capture). The insights gained by experience led to the use of corrugated cardboard panels (typical target sheets) backed with a steel plate; this provides a very simple, reliable, and permanent record of impact areas. This test setup is illustrated in Figure 1 . Additional testing included shots into ballistic gelatin, both bare and covered with cloth and pigskin to simulate and assess the effects of human skin and clothing.

Figure 1

Chronograph

s o hotgon

Experimental Design ' ' '

Witne panel led back d ardboard

Note that all measurements of beanbag impact area (a parameter of considerable significance) depend somewhat on assumptions and technique. The values used in this study consistently represent the areas in the steel backed cardboard that show individual shot im-

pressions. Measurements of impacts in clay (often used by manufacturers) or on other materials are somewhat different. The steel backed cardboard areas are not necessarily "right", but are objective and practical to preserve for later review.

Impact Configurations of Folded Beanbag Designs There are only two basic bag impact configura

tions; the bag folded (in the cylindrical form as loaded), and the bag open. The intermediate partly opened configuration is too rare to be a factor, and does not present any special problems. The bag impact can be in any orientation relative to the impact surface; this orientation is a very significant risk factor, and in effect, bag orientation at impact is a configuration subset., Qualitative descriptions of the important beanbag configurations follow; descriptions of wound trauma considerations are discussed subsequently.

When the bag is unopened at impact (i.e., still folded into a cylindrical shape as loaded in the shell), the orientation of the bag axis relative to the impacted surface is critical. Beanbag impacts with the bag axis nearly perpendicular to the surface have a small projected total impact area exacerbated by the relatively sharp bag edges making initial contact, which causes significant penetration. The initial cylinder shape of an unopened bag perpendicularly impacting deforms (variably) during penetration, which reduces penetration depth below that of a solid cylinder of the same dimensions. In random orientation, about 25% of cylinders would be nearly perpendicular, but tests show a greater percentage, so muzzle disturbances and aerodynamic effects during flight appear to be too small to create a random distribution of the unopened beanbag axis. The primary muzzle disturbances are a result of asymmetrical gas flow past the over powder wad on the asymmetrical beanbag immediately following barrel exit. Unopened beanbag impacts with the bag axis nearly parallel to the surface impacted have slightly less than 1 square inch of projected area (and no sharp edge impact); this increased area produces a corresponding reduction in penetration depth. Unopened beanbag impacts with the bag axis at a modest angle to the surface have intermediate penetration.

When the bag is open and impacts the target with the plane of the bag nearly perpendicular to the target surface, the bag edge tends to cut into the surface, and the penetration sometimes approaches that in the lease desirable unopened bag configuration and orientation. Open beanbag impacts with the plane of the bag parallel to the surface or inclined to the surface with an impact area greater than about 1 .3 square

Volume 4, Issue 4 Fall 2000 1 9

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW B ea n b a g Fatal i ty R i s k


inches do not penetrate bare gelatin (and so will not penetrate soft tissue).

The probability of each of the various configurations occurring on any shot is generally a function of range. Since the dynamics of beanbag opening and orientation are complex and analytically intractable, the statistics associated with beanbag configurations must be determined empirically. The complexity of outcomes requires a large number of test firings to be statistically significant; this has been implemented for both smoothbore and rifled barrels.

Only a relatively limited number of rounds (52) were required to conclusively demonstrate the serious problems with smoothbore barrels. No additional rounds were fired to improve the statistics. The statistics derived f!om this limited data set are perfectly satisfactory because even large errors ( � 50%) would not significantly affect conclusions, and the modeling errors are not nearly this large. All of these rounds impacted the target at 30 feet or more (many were at 40 feet); statistics would be worse at shorter ranges. The smoothbore barrel statistics for impact bag configuration are given in Table 2; the case fractions have been rounded to a .05 quantum to avoid the appearance of unrealistic accuracy from the limited sample size.

Table 2 Smoothbore Barrel Statistics at ;:,>: 30 Feet Range

configuration

unopened bag impact near perpendicular intermediate near parallel

open bag imf)act area < 1 in

2

area > 1 in2

fraction of cases

.35

. 1 0

.25

. 1 5

. 1 5

This test data shows that these folded beanbags have an impact area greater than 1 square inch only 1 5% of the time (all of the unopened beanbags have less than 1 square inch of impact area). About 40% of the time these folded beanbags have an impact area of about .5 square inch (all of the unopened near perpendicular bags and some of the opened bags). This is dramatically less than the 2.3 square inches impact area with ideal beanbag orientation.

The smoothbore barrel tests shots were all fired at a range of at least 30 feet because the beanbag manufacturer recommended this minimum deployment range. High speed video and still photography of beanbags at 40

20 Fal/ 2000

foot range showed some of these bags were completely unopened with a wad still attached (see Figure 2); it is clear that these bags were not going to open in aerodynamic flight. Drag calculations show a total aerodynamic drag force of only a few ounces, and very little of this is functional in opening the bag. These unopened beanbags showed that forces from muzzle disturbances and aerodynamics in flight are not adequate to reliably open the folded beanbags that were tested. As a consequence, and contrary to common assumption, folded beanbags fired in smoothbore barrels retain a potentially lethal configuration a substantial fraction of the time independent of the range to the target. The unreliable opening may depend on many factors including total ammunition age and storage history and/or subtle design details that do not have obvious consequence. The effects of any of these issues were not investigated. These test results showed to our satisfaction that smoothbore barrels did not have the reliable folded beanbag opening performance required to minimize lethality in operational use.

Fig ure 2 Unopened Beanbag 40 Feet Down Range

Fully rifled barrels eliminate the possibility of the beanbag remaining folded; analysis shows that the rotating bag has several pounds of force directly opening the bag. As a consequence, analysis shows the bag should be fully open about a foot from the muzzle, and this has been demonstrated by test shots. The full deployment to the desired configuration (a flat surface perpendicular to the velocity, see Figure 3) occurs further downrange, but always occurs when rifled barrels are used.

Volume 4, Issue 4


JOURNAL OF TH E INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION B ea n ba g Fatal i ty R i s k

Figure 3 - Open Beanbag 40 Feet Down Range

Over 300 folded beanbag rounds were fired through rifled barrels under a variety of conditions. The primary variable affecting beanbag configuration statistics is range. The primary metric for performance is beanbag impact area; since all beanbags are open (not still folded), the impact area is a measure of the impact bag orientation relative to the impact surface. Photographs of imprints of folded beanbag impacts on steel backed cardboard are shown in Figures 4a and 4b for illustration.

Impact IR. 1 .5f.Tl .S3 (code is Ithaca Rifled, 1 . 5 feet range, Target 1 , Shot 3 ), and shows the impact

line of the fully open bag striking almost edge on at 1 .5 feet range muzzle to cardboard (parallel to and j ust under the ruler) . The overbag wad was driven into the cardboard by the beanbag at this very short range, and shows clearly in the center.

Impacts IR.6f.T l .S9, IR.6f.T l .S 1 , and IR.9f.T2.S20 show the spectrum of open bag impact orientations relative to the cardboard surface from nearly perpendicular (0.94 square inches), to significantly inclined ( 1 .75 square inches), to nearly parallel (2.07 square inches). These non-perpendicular imprints are clean (no powder residue on the cardboard) because the inside face of the bag folded in the barrel hit the cardboard.

Impacts IR. 1 2f.T2 .S9, and IR. 12f.T l .S8 were at 1 2 feet range and show open bag impact orientations relative to the cardboard surface significantly inclined ( 1 .7 square inches) and nearly parallel (2 . 1 9 square inches), respectively. These imprints are dirty from barrel residue on the cardboard because the outside face of the bag folded in the barrel (that scrubbed the bore) hit the cardboard. Retrieved folded beanbags always show one dirty and one clean face . The cardboard impacts average half dirty and half clean; there is no way to predict which side will hit on any shot at any range.

Figure 4a - Folded Beanbag Impacts on Steel Backed Cardboard

Volume 4, Issue 4 Fa/1 2000 21

� ---

22

Bea n b a g F a t a l i ty R i s k WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW


1 0.95

< 0.9 � 0.85 !!! 0.8 < 0.75 ... lil 0.7 c. 0.65 .§ 0.6 E o.55 3: 0.5 Xl 0.45 � 0.4 (.J 0.35

0 0.3 5 0.25 � 0.2 f! 0 . 1 5

LL. 0. 1 0 . 05

0

-

-

�

-

0

Figure 4b - Folded Beanbag Impacts on Steel Backed Cardboard

IR. 1 2f.T2 .S9 l R . 1 2 f. T 1 .

Figure 5 - Cumulative Rifled Barrel Beanbag I mpact Area Fraction at 4 ft, 6 ft, 8 ft, 9-1 2 ft, 1 5-24 ft

I ;.--- �� ------ � ...... / i / � / I / // / ' //I / I /I I /

I / I/ I I I / h y I / 6 ft 1/ II / / / I I / / � / I I / / // I I .

/ // 1 5-24 ft 4 ft I // I I I

I / / v / I I L'L/ / .

/ 9-1 2 ft 7/ / I

/ /7 /8 ft. / I / / /__./' � ;

I -- f-"""' I

0.2 0.4 0.6 0 .8 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2 2.2

Beanbag Impact Area - Square Inches

2.4

Fa/1 2000 Volume 4, Issue 4

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW B e a n b a g F a t a l ity R i s k


The impact area was calculated for all the folded beanbag impacts on steel backed cardboard in order to evaluate the beanbag opening dynamics as a function of range. The rifled barrel statistics for impact bag configuration are summarized in Figure 5 .

There i s some data scatter in the Figure 5 curves, especially (as expected) near both the high and low area fractions. However, the general results are clear; the rifled barrel enormously improves the folded beanbag impact configuration, even at short range. For simple comparison, the smoothbore barrel has a .85 fraction at an impact area of < 1 square inch at 30 foot range (compared to a .04 rifled barrel fraction at 1 5-24 feet). The dynamics of the rotating flexible beanbag are very complex and cannot be quantified analytically; no attempt will be made to explain the qualitative physics, but the test behavior has the qualitative form anticipated from analysis. No testing was done at longer ranges because the testing supports the analytical expectation that deployment statistics will continuously improve with range.

Wound Ballistics of Folded Beanbag Designs Beanbag penetration dynamics are similar concep

tually to conventional projectiles, but are greatly complicated in detail by the minimally constrained deformation. Some penetration model parameters must be quantified by test even for conventional projectiles. The testing that has been implemented has quantified beanbag penetration adequately for present purposes. The following descriptions incorporate model insights as well as test results.

When the beanbag is unopened, the critical factor is bag axis orientation relative to the impact surface. When the beanbag impacts with the bag axis nearly perpendicular to the surface, modeling shows soft tissue penetration could be more than 10 em (4 inches) if the bag retains cylinder shape (at 300 ft!sec). However, beanbag opening during initial penetration can significantly reduce total penetration. Some test impact penetrations in bare gelatin were over 3 inches deep. Note that this configuration has caused fatalities and clearly presents the greatest fatality risk. Penetration decreases as the projected impact area increases. Unopened beanbag impacts with the bag axis nearly parallel to the surface have slightly less than 1 square inch of measured impact area. Penetrations of unopened beanbag configurations are similar to open bag impacts with the same projected impact area. As might be expected, near perpendicular unopened beanbag impacts have penetration nearly as deep as perpendicular impacts.

Beanbag axis orientation relative to the impact

surface is still the critical factor when the beanbag is open. Beanbag impacts with the plane of the open bag nearly perpendicular to the surface cut into the surface and can penetrate about as deep as unopened beanbags with the bag axis perpendicular to the surface because these distinctly different bag configurations have a similar impact area. Beanbag impacts with the plane of the open bag nearly parallel to the surface have an impact area three to four times larger and rebound from bare gelatin (at 330 ft!sec). Beanbag impacts with the plane of the open bag inclined to the surface have penetration dependent on the impact surface area.

The dynamics of skin penetration are described in Reference 4; these dynamics are generally applicable to beanbags, with some quantification uncertainties associated with flexible projectile effects. The presence of skin significantly inhibits the penetration of many spheres and bullets impacting at velocities Jess than 350 ft!sec. The velocity threshold for penetration depends on projectile sectional density, but only minimally on shape. Beanbag flexibility probably enhances skin effectiveness somewhat. The skin penetration threshold model derived in Reference 4 is shown in Figure 6.

The skin used in the tests conducted to develop the Reference 4 model was from a fresh killed young pig (the closest known approximation to typical human skin) and is assumed to be the "standard". The pigskin used in the beanbag tests was obtained from mature pigs in a commercial meat plant with unknown processing procedures. Testing showed that the standard BB penetration threshold velocity for the beanbag test skin was about 450 ft!sec, compared to about 330 ft!sec for "standard" skin penetration threshold velocity. Beanbag penetration threshold velocities can be calculated from the Reference 4 model if beanbag flexibility effects are ignored; these penetration threshold velocities as a function of the beanbag impact area are shown in Figure 7 for both standard skin and the test skin. The pigskin covered gelatin test data are plotted on Figure 7 (+ for no penetration, o for penetration). Examination of this data shows that the beanbag flexibility appears to increase the penetration threshold velocity about 20 ft!sec relative to the solid projectile model of Reference 4 at about 0.8 square inch area. Beanbag impact test data on bare gelatin makes it clear that this difference grows substantially as the area increases, probably as a result of less impact load concentration near a bag edge. The best estimate of the beanbag penetration threshold velocity for standard skin is plotted in Figure 8.


24

B e a n b a g F a t a l i ty R i s k WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW


6 0 0 bl ! 4 0 0

I I I I I I 3 0 0

h-� . I- , I i. 2 0 0

1 -

1 0 0 1

CJ Cll

� '

I I I !-- -

400

380

360

340

� 320 CJ 0 300 Qj >

280 c 0

260 +I E .... 240 Cll c Cll 220 a.. "C 200 0 � 1 80 Ill e 1 60 � 1-

1 40

1 20

! I ! I

--

.

Figure 6 - Skin Penetration Threshold Velocity Model From Reference 4 Figure 9-1

! I I I �-! ! ' rn S: T UlL I ; I ' .J..! . I ; : ' : I I i l l I t o : ' i

' I ; . . . . ! :

I I

. ' l'

I ' ' I : : I . I ; j I i I

( , i l r l l 2

Skin Penetration Threshold Data

Data f rom Sources l i s ted in Table 9 - 1

I II I! i i -

m1 1it t I ! :i� il : 1 � h ' I t 1 J · i : i ' 1 - : . 1 1 1 : . : · 1 , , . . " ' ·m· .. : l .L , 1 . 1 I • I I . I ' : I

. . · • I · · · i ' l I I · j : ! : : ; ." I : ! 1 ' j i, . 1(:-� r. · I ' I ' 1 1 ' ' 1 . · · ' I I . .

I " · · " I ' I · · i i ' i . l T � ;� , fp lf 1 1 I i 4

' I I i i "

i l

I -

I · ,:

- I I -

I r-I

I I I ! - -

8 1 0

I i I I I :

f"t I

i

s

. --.

-. .

-

. . -- --

- - ·

-

2 0

. .

. . .

i

I r. ·

4 0

. .

Figure 7 - Model Threshold Penetration Velocities for Standard Skin

And Beanbag Test Skin

I ' i . I I

I i I ! I 1--1 ! I I

I i I � I I ' . .. I I I i i �.,. lkr I � it- I I + I � -+- ! ... . l ! � I 1 -1- � I + be I i / I I � It I I l +

I / v r I :=r:=:r I l v l ! L---t-- I 1

J--t I 1 I I ' I -- 1

I .....--r- ! I I I I I v I

I I I I I I ' I i I I I i ' I

I I I . I i I ' I l I I i I . I

:

8 0

l I I I I I

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 .8 0 .9 1 1 . 1 1 .2 1 .3 1 .4 1 . 5 1 .6 1 .7 1 .8 1 . 9 2


Fall 2000 Volume 4, Issue 4

'



Figure 8 - Best Estimate Penetration Velocities for Folded Beanbag

on Standard Skin

440

420 I (J

400 Cll Ill = 380 ' 360 � 340 0

'ii 320 > 300 c 0 280 +I I'll

tl 260 c 240 Cll a..

220 "C 0 200 �

I I I I I

i ! v I / 1/

/ / 17 I

� --� I

! v Ill 1 80 e

� 1 60 1-1 40

1 20

. I

0 0 . 1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0. 7 0.8 0. 9 1 . 1 1 .2 1 .3 1 .4 1 . 5. 1 .6


The effect of skin in reducing penetration is relatively small when the penetration threshold velocity is significantly lower than the impact velocity.4 These are the conditions when the impact areas is small because the beanbag flexibility effect in increasing the penetration threshold velocity is small (about 20 ft/sec). As a result, the test results and analysis show that skin has little effect in the most critical beanbag configuration impacts. The effect of skin in reducing penetration becomes significant when the beanbag impact area is larger than about 1 square inch, changing small penetrations to no penetration. While this is desirable, it has essentially no effect on fatality risk (for reasons described in the following subsection). Therefore, the effect of skin has been ignored in the estimation of fatal wound trauma risk for conservatism and simplicity. The penetration model without skin is essentially a conservative model of impacts upon pre-existing skin lacerations or cuts.

The penetration data collected on bare gelatin impacts provides a model of open beanbag penetration without skin, but this model has uncertainties. To provide a margin for these uncertainties, a simplified, conservative penetration model has been defmed; this model and the data points on which it is based is shown in Figure 9. The penetration depth is not sensitive to small impact velocity changes, so the impact data points (averaging about 330 ft/sec) adequately represent a more conservative 350 ft/sec

impact velocity. Perpendicular (or very near perpendicular) unopened beanbag impacts on bare gelatin were created by firing at very short range (about 3 feet) from smoothbore barrels into bare gelatin.

Clothing will tend to reduce wound trauma of all kinds (although minimally when impact area is small), but subjects wearing minimal clothing are not uncommon. The addition of light clothing and/or skin does not significantly reduce penetration in small area impacts because the small contact area reduces the penetration threshold velocity.

Fatal Wound Trauma of Folded Beanbag Designs Very conservative assumptions have been made to

model maximum penetration: 1 ) 350 ftlsec beanbag impact velocity (conservative, but

reasonable changes have only a minor effect) 2) No clothing (a conservative but plausible scenario) 3) Skin resistance not considered (effectively assuming

a skin laceration or cut at the impact point). The resulting conservative maximum penetration can create an unpleasant and unwanted wound, but this wound will not be fatal unless the location is in specific critical areas. Therefore, the estimation of fatal wound trauma risk from beanbag impact requires assessing bag impacts in these critical areas.


B e a n b a g F a t a l i ty R i s k WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW

1 0 9

E 8 CJ c 7 0 :;::1 I! 6 � c 5 Gl a. Gl 4 :::1 Ill Ill j:: 3 ¢::= 0 2 Ul

0 0


Figure 9 Conservative Model of Open Beanbag Penetration Without Skin

No Clothing, 350 ft/sec Impact Velocity

� I

� �

+ T I 1\ \ .\ \ [\.

I � ! \ I ' \

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 Beanbag Impact Area - Square Inches

1 .8 2

The head and neck are vulnerable to fatal blunt beanbag impact area constraint is dictated by being able to trauma from any configuration beanbag impact, and the penetrate an inter-rib space with minimal rib contact. This need to avoid impacts in these areas is well known. hn- condition is difficult to model precisely, but the following pacts in the head and neck should always be unintended, simple model of lethality factor is adequate for quantifica-and while the need to avoid these impacts is a factor in user tion of relative fatality risk (not absolute fatality risk): tactics and training, these impacts are not beanbag configu- 1 ) All impacts are centered on an inter-rib space. ration discriminators. All vulnerable body areas that 2) An unopened beanbag with near perpendicular im-should also be unintended targets, but those that dominate pact can always penetrate an inter-rib space. fatal wound trauma risk are sensitive to beanbag configura- 3) Other beanbag impacts (unopened or open) with bag tion and have occurred more often.1 impact area not greater than 1 square inch will pene-

The most vulnerable torso location is the heart trate in about 1/3 of the impacts on an inter-rib space area (the most common unintended vulnerable target); (i.e., when the long dimension is nearly parallel to heart trauma from penetration is the scenario that has been the rib spacing). used to assess relative beanbag fatal wound trauma risk. 4) Beanbag impacts with a bag impact area greater than Ribs will stop beanbag penetration, but the spacing be- 1 square inch will not penetrate an inter-rib space. tween ribs (about 1/2 to % inch) will permit beanbag pene- Note that this assessment does not produce a value of abso-tration in some bag configurations and orientations. Inter- lute risk, but is merely a mechanism for comparing relative rib penetrations as small as I inch can permit heart contact risk of fatal trauma given beanbag impact on an inter-rib in lean persons. The potential for fatal trauma from bean- space over the heart. The lethal fraction is the fraction of bag penetration will be assumed to exist whenever the beanbags in a potentially lethal configuration at target im-beanbag configuration can penetrate at least 1 inch be- pact; for each beanbag configuration and orientation this is tween ribs when centered on an inter-rib space. While the the product of the configuration statistics (Table 2) and the conservative penetration assumption of Figure 9 shows that lethality factor model given above (probability of the con-a no skin impact area of about 1 .3 square inches is required figuration penetrating ribs given impact on an inter -rib to limit penetration to 1 inch (2.5 em); this beanbag area is space). The total lethality fraction for the use scenario be-large enough to always have rib impact (which will elimi- ing evaluated is the sum of the contributions from all the nate or greatly reduce penetration). Therefore, the limiting configurations and orientations. The lethality fraction es-

26 Fa11 2000 Volume 4, Issue 4


JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION B e a n ba g F a ta l i ty R i s k

timate with a smoothbore barrel at a range of 30 feet is given in Table 3 .

Table 3 - Folded Beanbag in Smoothbore Barrel Lethality Fraction at 30 Feet

bag configuration and orientation

fraction of cases

unopened bag impact near perpendicular .35 intermediate . 1 0 near parallel .25

open bag impact area < 1 in . 1 5 area > 1 in

2 . 1 5

lethality factor

1 . .33 .33

.33

.00 total

lethal fraction

.35

.03

.08

.05

.00

.51

From Table 3, the smoothbore barrel lethality fraction is 0.5 1 at ranges of at least 30 feet, with values at shorter ranges undetermined. The lethality fraction estimates from a rifled barrel are given in Table 4 for selected ranges; the configuration statistics are taken from Figure 5 and the same lethality factor model is used.

Since we can only reasonably estimate relative risk (not absolute risk) from this analysis, we can combine Tables 3 and 4 to get relative fatal wound risk probabilities (Table 5), normalizing the maximum relative probability to 1 .

Table 4 - Folded Beanbag in Rifled Barrel Lethality Fraction

bag configuration and orientation at 20 foot range

fraction of cases

area < 1 in2 .04 area > 1 in2

.96

at 1 0 foot range area < 1 in

2 . 1 2 area > 1 in2

.88

at 6 foot range area < 1 in

2 . 1 7 area > 1 in2

.83

lethality factor

.33

.00

.33

.00

.33

.00

total

total

total

lethal fraction

.01 .00 .01

.04

.00 .04

.06

.00

.06

Table 5 - Folded Beanbag Relative Fatal Wound Creation Probabilities

deployment lethal relative risk

fraction probability

rifled barrel .01 .02 at 20 feet

rifled barrel .04 .08 at 1 0 feet

rifled barrel .06 . 1 2 at 6 feet

smoothbore barrel .51 1 . at 30 feet

The relative fatal wound risk probabilities in Table 5 assume beanbag impact over the heart; the probability that this impact will occur is a critical component of the total fatality risk. The present LAPD beanbag use of force aim point policy (belly button aim point) is correct because intended beanbag impacts (within 6 inches of the navel) will not produce fatalities with any beanbag configuration (assuming reasonably competent and timely medical treatment). Almost all of the t<'>tal fatality risk from beanbag use is due to unintended impact in high risk untargeted body locations; unavoidable anomalous results are rare.

Beanbag shootings from smoothbore barrels have many bag impacts outside the targeted area at the greater than 30 foot deployment range. This is a result of beanbag flight dispersions from smoothbore barrels as well as all types of inaccuracies attributed to the shooter. On the other hand, limited testing has shown very good accuracy from rifled barrels when the range is not extreme (typical group size less than 6 inches at 40 feet). This precision greatly reduces beanbag flight dynamics dispersions as a significant contributor to beanbag impacts in unintended locations at the ranges considered in this analysis. In addition, the faster beanbag opening with rifled barrels permits deployment at shorter ranges. Beanbag impacts outside the targeted area should be rare in short range deployments due to negligible beanbag flight dispersions and minimal shooter created inaccuracy. The probability of beanbag impact greater than 6 inches from the target (the navel) is at least 10 times larger from smoothbore barrels at 30 feet than it is from rifled barrels at 1 0 feet. This accuracy factor estimation is generalized in Table 6; the accuracy improvements are only estimates (true field accuracy is very hard to test), but are believed very conservative.


WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW Bea n b a g F a t a l i ty R i s k


Table 6 - Estimated Relative Probabilities of Folded Beanbag Impact Displacement From Target

deployment relative impact probability

smoothbore at 30 feet rifled at 30 feet

1 . <.5 <.3 <. 1 <.05

rifled at 20 feet rifled at 1 0 feet either at 6 feet

The relative probabilities of fatality given impact in a critical location (Table 5) and the relative probabilities of getting an unintended impact in the critical location (Table 6) can then be combined (by multiplication) to estimate the total relative fatality risk (Table 7).

Table 7 - Folded Beanbag Total Relative Fatality Risk

deployment

smoothbore at 30 feet rifled at 30 feet rifled at 20 feet rifled at 1 0 feet rifled at 6 feet smoothbore at 6 feet

* estimated

relative risk probabil ities wound impact total fatality location fatality

1 . 1 . 1 . .01 * <.5* <.005 .02 <.3* <.006 .08 <. 1 * <.008 . 1 2 <.05* <.006

2.* <.05* < . 10

The estimates in Table 7 do not include the effects of rare anomalous conditions, e.g., W1known physiological anomalies in the subject or unanticipated extreme subject movement. Note that the effects of subject movement are ameliorated by short range, but should in any case be almost completely avoided by shooting team tactics. Table 7 shows the estimated total beanbag heart impact fatality risk with rifled barrels is less than 1% of the total fatality risk with smoothbore barrels at a range of 30 feet. There is very little range dependence with rifled barrels because the improved precision of bag impact placement approximately compensates for the more likely undesirable bag impact configuration as range is reduced. Obviously, the precision intrinsic to short range deployments with rifled barrels should substantially reduce unintended beanbag impacts in the head and neck (an important reduction of a

small, but serious, risk). The problem with smoothbore barrels at very

short ranges is not fatalities, but the fact that the beanbag will essentially always have a small impact area (unopened with a perpendicular impact for folded beanbag designs, intrinsically with fabric bulb beanbag designs). The resulting wound will always be very ugly, which is an undesired result even though the fatality risk is low relative to smoothbore barrels at 30 feet.

The use of smoothbore barrels has been near universal, and the fatality risk as a consequence of this use can be judged small; Reference 1 derives about 1% per impact overall, and the historical fatality risk in LAPD deployments has been smaller by about a factor of 10. The lower LAPD value is probably a consequence of use of force rules (belly button aim point) and/or more extensive than typical training for all officers, but may also include a measure of good fortune. Nonetheless, any fatality must be taken seriously, and rifled barrels provide huge advantages relative to smoothbore barrels in fatality risk reduction with folded beanbag ammunition. Modeled fatality scenarios are almost eliminated (risk reduction by factor � I 00); the Reference 1 fatality rate (about 1 per 1 00 impacts) would be reduced to less than 1 per 10000 impacts. The rapid opening of folded beanbag designs fired in rifled barrels allows low risk deployment at ranges less than 10 feet, a huge tactical advantage by allowing deployment inside the limited confmes ofbusinesses and residential dwellings.

As a result of this intensive study, the LAPD has procured rifled barrels for beanbag use. The LAPD is presently in the process of refurbishing existing shotguns with new factory rifled barrels, and will no longer deploy smoothbore barrels for this purpose. Each law enforcement organization must evaluate the importance of lethality risk for itself, but should give careful consideration to all the issues that motivated the LAPD to reduce fatality risk as much as possible.

Impact Configurations of Fabric Bulb Beanbag Designs

The flexible fabric bulb beanbag designs intended for use in smoothbore shotguns usually have a significant fabric tail to provide orientation stability during flight. If this tail is loaded towards the rear, there is no reorientation in flight. If this tail is loaded

towards the front, the bag reorients 1 80° in flight (when fired in a smoothbore shotgun). These beanbag designs do not have overstitched seams or any other relatively sharp edges in any orientation, but when fired from smoothbore shotguns, the impact area is always only about that of the shotgun bore (about than

0.5 in2) .

28 Fall 2000 Volume 4, Issue 4


JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION Bea n b a g F a t a l i ty R i s k

The flexible fabric bulb beanbag designs intended for use in smoothbore shotguns can be fired in rifled shotguns. When fabric bulb beanbag designs are fired in rifled shotguns, the beanbag rotation created by the rifling forces the shot pellets into a rotating ring constrained by the fabric bulb. Analysis shows that almost all of this shot redistribution should occur within 2 to 3 feet from the muzzle, and imprints on steel backed cardboard at 3 feet and 20 feet appear identical. The maximum diameter of this ring depends on the design of the fabric bulb; tested designs that were intended for use in smoothbore barrels had maximum diameters from about 0.9 to 1 .4 inch.

Photographs of illustrative imprints of impacts on steel backed cardboard of fabric bulb beanbags designed for use in smoothbore barrels (i .e . , they had a

prominent tail) are shown in Figure 1 0 . Impacts IS . l Of.SockX, IR. 1 0f.SockY, and IR. 1 0f.SockZ were all at 1 0 feet range; the X, Y, and Z identification of manufacturer has been deleted. The first of these impacts was from a smoothbore, and shows the boresized shot impact configuration (with a larger cardboard dent as found in all beanbag configuration impacts) . The second and third of these impacts were fired in rifled barrels. The second impact was a design loaded with the tail to the rear, and shows the characteristic ring of shot impact. The third impact was a design loaded with the tail forward, and shows a gap in the characteristic shot impact ring where the large volume of tail fabric suppressed the individual shot impressions in the cardboard. (although the cardboard had a smooth impact depression).

Figure 1 0 - Fabric Bulb Beanbag Impacts on Steel Backed Cardboard

IR. I Ot:sock y , IR. l Of. sock z

Designing a fabric bulb beanbag for use in rifled barrels has substantial potential for design improvement.

In such a design, a significant tail is undesirable because spin dynamics dominate bag stability in flight and the vol-

designing a fabric bulb that has a larger diameter in flight (and impact). The authors are actively pursuing this design path with interested beanbag manufacturers.

ume inside the shotgun shell can be put to better use. Wound Ballistics of Fabric Bulb Beanbag Designs

Rather obviously, the absence of beanbag reorientation in As noted, flexible fabric bulb beanbag designs

flight means the residual stub tail closure needs to be ori- fired in smoothbore shotguns have an impact area only

ented in the desired direction (to the rear) to minimize bag about that of the shotgun bore (about 0.5 in2) . While

rupture on impact and other design problems. The most the bag does not have sharp edges, the area is about the

important advantage of this concept is the possibility of same as an unopened folded beanbag design impacting

Volume 4, Issue 4 Fall looo 29

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW B e a n b a g F a ta l i ty R i s l�


with the axis perpendicular, and has about the same penetration in gelatin (for the same impact velocity). As a result, these designs are often loaded to a lower velocity to reduce penetration somewhat, producing the unhappy combination of reduced effectiveness and a sti l l risky penetration. This limitation of impact area in smoothbore barrels appears intrinsic, and the inevitable conclusion is that at 30 foot range, the fabric bulb designs have about twice the lethality factor (Table 3) and relative fatal wound risk probability (Table 5) of folded bag designs frred in smoothbore barrels. The fabric bulb designs are much more accurate at range in smoothbore barrels than the folded bag designs in smoothbore barrels, so the estimated relative probabilities of beanb�ag impact displacement from target (Table 6) are smaller by a factor of about two at 30 foot range in smoothbore barrels. As a result, the total relative fatality risk (Table 7) of fabric bulb designs in smoothbore barrels is about the same as folded bag designs in smoothbore barrels at 30 foot range. The total fatality risk is reduced somewhat at shorter ranges, but not by nearly as much as the risk reduction achieved by the use of rifled barrels to increase bag impact diameter. Nevertheless, the capability to deploy at short ranges is very valuable tactically.

The impacts of flexible fabric bulb beanbag designs fired in rifled shotguns cannot be directly compared to folded bag design impacts; in particular, the area circumscribed by the shot ring cannot be validly compared to the folded bag impact area. The shot pellets in the rotating fabric bag are concentrated at the periphery, with essentially no shot pellets at the center of impact (this effect in rifled barrels is much larger in fabric bulb designs than in folded bag designs because the bag fabric and bag geometry are different). As a result, any penetration from fabric bag impact on gelatin has a hollow circular shape. The fabric in the center of the bag takes up load from contact with the center "post" of gelatin produced by the circumferential penetration, tending to pull the shot towards the center during the penetration. As a result, the diameter of the circular penetration in gelatin is slightly less than the maximum diameter of the shot ring measured on steel backed cardboard. If the fabric bag is strong enough to prevent rupture (which should be a design requirement), the force the central "post" of gelatin exerts on the bag fabric severely limits the maximum penetration into the gelatin. Under these conditions, the penetration can be so shallow that the beanbag is not retained inside the gelatin. Preliminary testing of penetration depth indicates that fabric bulb designs may be able to avoid fatal trauma from penetration even for frontal

30 Fa/1 2000

impacts directly over the heart. The design tradeoff is beanbag impact diameter; the fabric bag should be designed to make the impact shot ring diameter as large as practical without introducing other probl ems (e.g. , maintaining adequate fabric strength to prevent rupture during impact, maintaining control of beanbag mass properties in the shell and barrel). This design approach holds great promise for fatality risk reduction.

Fatal Wound Trauma of Fabric Bulb Beanbag Designs

The use of flexible fabric bulb beanbag designs in smoothbore barrel s has limited potential for lethality risk reduction because the bag impact diameter is always small enough to pose a lethal risk of penetration to the heart.

The use of flexible fabric bulb beanbag designs in rifled barrels has the great advantage of eliminating the most potential ly lethal configurations (small impact area) of all other beanbag deployment options. Improvement of flexible fabric bulb beanbag designs for use in rifled barrels appears to have the potential to eliminate the modeled total relative fatality risk (Table 7), leaving only rare anomalous fatalities caused by unknown physiological anomalies in the subject or unanticipated extreme subject movement. The present lien on this design approach is primarily lack of design maturity, a lien that should be over come in the relatively near term.

Summary The fatality risk that exists when beanbags are

fired in smooth-bore 1 2 gauge shotguns is greatly reduced by the use of rifled barrels. Fabric bulb beanbag design improvements may further reduce this risk, but only in rifled barrels.

References I . Klinger, D. and Hubbs, K . . , Citizen Injuries From Law En

forcement Impact Munitions. Evidence From the Field, Wound Ballistics Review, 2000; Vol. 4#4, xx-xx

2 . M B Associates, Less Lethal Weaponry, page I I , Product catalog, 1 972

3. National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, TECH Beat, page 5, Spring Issue, 2000

4. MacPherson, Duncan, Bullet Penetration - Modeling the Dynamics and the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma, Ch. 9, El Segundo, CA, Ball istic Publ ications, 1 994

Volume 4, Issue 4

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW E d it o r i a l N ote

JOURNAL O F THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION

EDITORIAL NOTE ON THE "LESS THAN LETHAL" CONCEPT Dr. Martin L. Fackler

Wound ballistics defmes the mechanisms by which pen trating projectiles cause incapacitation of the human body. Dismption f the body's vital functi n physiology is the major mechanism relied up n to accomplish incapa ital ion using p nclraling pr �ecliles. Physiologic dismption is based on ol id, repr duciblc scientific fact : it can be relied upon. However, some persons will collapse despite U1e fact that the bullet might have caused insignifi ant physiologic dis111ption - or maybe none at all some collapse because they believe they have been hit when, in reality, the bullet missed them). Incapacitation fi·om purely psychological reasons is unreliable and largely unpredictable.

It must be made very clear to those who are forced to use the "less than lethal" projectiles that when these projectiles act as intended (don't penetrate) and incapacitation of the human body follows, the mechanism of incapacitation is clearly and solely psychological - with all the unreliability, unpredictability and uncertainty inherent in the psychological mechanism. Those who doubt this have the chance to prove it wrong: go hunting for wild pig or deer using these less lethal rounds in place of regular bullets. We would be happy to publish any verified accounts of these animals being incapacitated sufficient for their capture by hits with less than lethal rounds. Shooting people-sized wild game factors out the confounding psychological mechanism that irretrievably confuses data collected from human shooting incidents, and demonstrates the true physiological effects of various bullets.

Many in law enforcement have been misled by the exaggerations used by the National Institute of Justice in attempting to support the i ll-conceived testing for "backface deformation" that remains a part of their soft body armor evaluation. The "less than lethal" projectiles do, in fact, produce a momentary dent in the body surface analogous to the momentary dent produced under soft body armor when it stops a bullet. But policemen do not become incapacitated when their body armor stops an assailant's bullet. So why should we expect incapacitation in those struck by "less than lethal" projectiles?

Could the pain inflicted by hits from these projectiles cause incapacitation? No. I have interviewed several dozen police officers who have been hit by bullets while wearing soft body armor. They had a momentary dent at least as large as those caused by the "less than lethal" projectiles, yet pain was a complaint of none. These projectiles probably cause little pain even if they penetrate. It is a common misconception that penetrating projectiles cause pain, but most cause l i ttle or no pain, and none cause incapacitating pain.

Several years ago in the Tacoma, W A area, police were using the 39 mm Arwin or SageCo hard mbber or plastic projectiles, each weighing about three ounces. They struck a felon twice in the chest with these projectiles and then entered the room he was in, assuming he would be incapacitated. Far from incapacitated, he shot and killed one of the officers. This case and others like it demonstrate a disadvantage at least as serious as the occasional death caused by those hit by these well-intentioned but erratic-in-effect "less than

lethal" projectiles. The paper by Kli11.ger. and Hubbs implies that the "less than lethal" projccLi les are working well : apparently compared to lethal force where lbe assumpt1on is tbut many more would be kil led. l1·1e increased risk to officers did not appear to be a factor in their reasoning. One might cxpe t that the expen e, uncertainly, and risk to both those who use "less than lethal" project i le as well as those hi! by them woul l cau e some to question if their use is in fact, a rallonal approach to the problems they are currently being used to solve.

The paper by MacPher ·on, Hudson, and Maruoka pp. 1 6-30) pr ves, beyond any reas nable doubt that i f the

beanbag "less than lethal" rounds are to be used, tl1ey must be used .fi·om a rifled barrel . It is unCI Jtunate U1al U1e Los Angeles Police Department had to show the manufacturers of the beanbag rounds what was wrong. Why didn't the manufacturers test these rounds in rifled as well as smoothbore barrels before marketing the rounds? Although MacPherson happens to be one, it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that beanbags would be flattened in flight from the cenuifugal force added by rifling-imparted spin. This study by MacPherson, Hudson, and Maruoka is a valuable service to the law enforcement community.

In my forensic practice in the past several years I have been involved in many knife-wielding assailant cases. Most of these assailants ended up being killed by handgun fire - most after "less than lethal" projectiles had failed to produce the desired incapacitation or submission. In most of the cases numerous police officers were present. It seem to me that there might be a better tool than either "less than lethal" projectiles or handgun bullets against a knife wielding assailant when more than one officer is present. Recently, I took a six foot long galvanized 1 5/16 inch (outside diameter) pipe, heated and bent one end of it into a flat cross-bar and then bent the end of the cross-bar back to within 10 degrees of parallel to the long leg of the bar. After it cooled, I glued rubber cmtch-tips on each end. I believe that with two of these tools, two officers could control and disarm any knifewielding person at no risk to themselves. The five-inch crossbar could be used to hold the knife-wielder far enough away so he could not reach the officer with the knife. The hook formed by the five-inch cross-bar and the three-inch end bar could be used to grab one leg of the i6ufe-wielder and take him to the ground. The cross-bar could then be used to pin the hand holding the knife to the ground. Although the law enforcement friends with whom I have shared this idea were less than enthralled, perhaps at some police academy somebody might wish to make a few of these tools and try them out with rubber-knife wielding assailants.

It is understandable why law enforcement would rather use non-contact means to subdue those who need to be subdued. As we all know, quite necessary and sensible blows can be caught on video, edited by a sensation-eager media, and presented in a form that casts the police in the worst possible light.

Volume 4, Issue 4 Fall 2ooo 3 1

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW .357 Sig


PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF .357 SIG JHP BULLETS INTENDED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT DUTY Gary K. Roberts, D.D.S., Officer Don Lazzarini, Santa Clara Police Department

Abstract: 10% ordnance gelatin is used as a tissue simu

lant to analyze the wounding effects and physiological incapacitation potential of . 3 57 Sig JHP ammunition intended for law enforcement duty.

Introduction Semi-automatic pistols, most commonly in

9mm Parabellum, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP calibers, are the most common primary defensive handguns for American law enforcement agencies.

The . 357 Sig is a new pistol cartridge which combines a 9mm caliber bullet with what is essentially a necked-down .40 S& W cartridge case. This brief review assesses the terminal performance of .357 Sig jacketed hollow point bullets intended for law enforcement duty using 1 0% ordnance gelatin as a tissue simulant.

Materials, Methods and Results Five bullets of each type were fired. The . 357

Sig bullets were fired using a Sig P226 pistol with a 4.4 inch barrel, the 9mm bullets were fired from a S&W 5904 with a 4" barrel, the .40 S&W bullets were fired from a S& W 4006 with a 4 " barrel , and the .45

Load Lot # .357 Sig Speer 1 25-gr Gold Dot (53918) C03E24

.357 Sig Speer 1 25-gr Gold Dot (5391 8) C03E24

.357 Sig Win 1 25-gr JHP (RA357SIGT) 72PD03

.357 Sig Win 1 25-gr JHP (RA357SIGT) 72PD03

9 mm Win 1 47-gr JHP (RA9T) sv 9 mm Win 1 47-gr JHP (RA9T) sv .40 S&W Win 1 80-gr JHP (RA40T) MF52

.40 S&W Win 180-gr JHP (RA40T) MF52

.45 ACP Win 230-gr JHP (RA45T) PM 7 1

.45 ACP Win 230-gr J H P (RA45T) PM 71

ACP bullets were fired from a S&W 4563 with a 4" barrel . All testing was performed at the California Highway Patrol Academy Weapons Training Department Indoor Firing Range using the protocol described previously. 1 In addition, testing was performed using denim covered gelatin as specified in the IWBA ammunition testing protocol.2 Standard gelatin calibration for this testing was 9 .5 em @ 576 f/s .

Conclusion Compared to a 9mm, the . 357 Sig has a de

creased magazine capacity, more recoil, as well asgreater muzzle blast and flash, yet at best it offers no gain in bullet penetration and expansion characteristics. What is the point of this cartridge?

At this time, the new .357 Sig cartridge offers NO advantages and several disadvantages for Jaw enforcement use compared with current 9 mm Parabellum, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP loadings.

Acknowledgments: The author would like to thank the Weapons Training Staff at the California Highway Patrol Academy for their generous support.

Vel Gel Pen R. D. R. L. R.W. 1 408 f/s Bare 35.9 em ( 1 4 . 1 ") 0.63' 0.34" 1 24.2-gr

1 377 f/s Denim 46.6 em (1 8.4") 0.53' 0.42' 1 24.4-gr

1 346 f/s Bare 22.2 em (87'') 0.70' 0.32" 1 1 8 . 1 -gr

1 344 f/s Denim 34.5 em (1 3.6") 0.62' 0.35' 1 19.6-gr

942 f/s Bare 37.5 em ( 1 48') 0.62' 0.48" 1 48.8-gr

953 f/s Denim 42.5 em (1 6.7") 0.58" 0.53" 148.5-gr

1 000 f/s Bare 36.5 em ( 14 .4") 0.68' 0.4 1 " 1 82 . 1 -gr

991 f/s Denim 37.5 em (1 4.8") 0.66' 0.46' 1 82.0-gr

826 f/s Bare 32.0 em ( 1 2.6") 0.74' 0.44' 229.9gr

847 f/s Denim 40.9 em (16.1') 0.63' 0.60' 229.2-gr . , All orthe bullets formed relatJvely similar, /ns�gnlficant temporary cav1t1es with max1mum diameters of approximately 6 to 9 em. F1gure 1 Illustrates the wound pro

files and representative recovered bullets fired into bare gelatin.

32 Fa/1 2000 Volume 4, Issue 4



. 357 Sig vs. 9 mm /.40 S&W /.45 ACP

.45 ACP 230 g J H P at 825 f/

1 0 20 30 40 50 centimeters penetration

References I . Roberts G: Comparison of the Terminal Performance of 9mm

Parabellum, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP Jacketed Hollow Point Bullets Intended for Law Enforcement and Military Special

EDITORIAL COMMENT

Operations Applications, Using I 0% Ordnance Gelatin as a Tissue Simulant. Wound Ballistics Review. 1 994; 1 (4):32-37.

2. MacPherson D: "IWBA Handun Ammunition Specification Package". Wound Ballistics Review. 1 998;3(3):22-27.

I want to emphasize the question "What is the point of this cartridge?" posed by Roberts and Lazzarini in their article reporting testing of the .357 Sig (pp. XX). Apparently Sig's point is sell guns by pandering to the ignorance of those who still believe that bullets with more velocity invariably cause incr�ased incapacitation. Duncan MacPherson's book Bu llet Penet rat ion takes a great stride toward curing the widespread misunderstanding regarding bullet effects. On page 28 1 , we find that for handgun bullets "higher velocities produce lower wound trauma efficiencies for any bullet weight." Those whose lives might depend upon the incapacitation caused by bullets need to read Chapter 1 1

"Wound Trauma Incapacitation Modeling" in MacPherson's book (the IWBA website has a link to information about Bu llet Penet ration).

Martin L. Fackler


W o u n d B a l l i st i c s Resea rc h WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW


INSTITUTE REPORT NO. 447 LETTERMAN ARMY INST. OF RESEARCH, APRIL 1 987

WOUND BALLISTICS RESEARCH OF THE PAST TWENTY YEARS: A GIANT STEP BACKWARDS Dr. Martin L. Fackler

Abstract Wound ballistics research is supposed to aid the

surgeon in providing optimal care for the wounded, but recent trends in ballistics research have not provided the surgeon with objectively determined information. Twenty years ago, wounds from penetrating projectiles were likely to be treated in a rational and effective manner; today many surgeons are prone to remove excessive amounts of tissue when treating wounds caused by what they assume to be "high-velocity" projectiles.

The most common battlefield wound has a simple punctate entrance with tissue disruption limited to a diameter no larger than the wounding projectile. The rifle wound of the extremity where the bullet has not yet yawed, and virtually all individual wounds from explosive device fragments fall into this category.

Historically, this type of wound has healed well, despite little or no treatment - even in preantibiotic days.

Since the Vietnam era, the bulk of wound ballistics "research" has been politically motivated. This research has employed flawed methods to exaggerate wounding effects, seriously confusing current wound treatment doctrine. The battlefield surgeon determines treatment according to the amount, type, and location of tissue disruption, rather than the supposed velocity of the projectile.

Introduction The widespread misconception that "high

velocity" or "high-energy" projectiles invariably cause extensive damage1 ' 2 has been addressed recently.3' 4 In the past, critical reviews questioning this concept have gone relatively unheeded.5' 6 Interestingly, those who have questioned the "high-velocity/high-energy" concept of wounding (Lindsey, Hampton, Fackler) have all had extensive combat surgery experience.

Multiple penetrations by fragments from explosive devices are a common injury in most armed conflicts. Figure 1 shows a soldier who has suffered multi-

ple fragment wounds. Fragments generally penetrate less than 1 5 em in human soft-tissue; they cause a punctate entrance wound and track consistent with their size. Tissue surrounding their track is uninjured. Figure 2 shows the wounding pattern produced by a steel sphere; fragments from explosive devices produce similar wounding patterns, with the maximum disruption near the entrance where the projectile velocity is greatest. The last 1 5 em of projectile penetration shown in Figure 2 produces no significant temporary cavitation because the velocity of the projectile decreases with penetration. This last portion of the projectile path illustrates the typical battlefield fragment wound. Military rifle bullets cause this same type of wound, with negligible cavitation, in the first part of their path through tissue, before the bullet yaws. Figure 3 shows wound profiles produced by two common military rifle bullets compared with those produced by projectiles of lesser velocity. Note that the disruption produced in the first part of their path, the only part involved in most extremity wounds, does not differ significantly from that produced by the far lower velocity bullets. Thousands of these simple perforations of the extremity (Fig. 4) are seen each year in our larger city civilian hospitals; the great majority of these wounds are treated with systemic antibiotics but little or no surgery because they heal well . 5

Historical Review Before the wound ballistics research that fol

lowed the Vietnam conflict, uncomplicated military rifle wounds (and small fragment wounds for the most part) were also treated with little or no surgery because they healed well. Compare Stevenson's advice in 1 897 7

against surgical interference with the bullet path in rifle wounds with Theodor Kocher's observations from World War 1 ,8 that the minimal damage produced by the rifle bullet allowed the wounds (" . . . wie Verletzungen ohne hautwunde ausheilten. ") to heal so well that it appeared as if they had no skin wounds.


WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW W o u n d B a l l i s t i c s Resea r c h


Fig: 1 . All of the fragm�nts that caused these entrance wounds remained in the body, as 1s the case almost Without exception. This indicates that the striking velocity was probably not over 1 000 ft/s (305 m/s).


W o u n d B a l l i s t i c s Resea rc h WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW

O cm 5 10 1 5


2 0 2 5

0 6 m m Steel Sphere Ve l-3382 f/s ( 1 0 3 1 m/s ) W t - 1 3. 6 g r (0.9 g m )

3 0 3 5 40 43

Fig. 2. Wound profi le produ ced by a steel sphere. Observe that l ittle or no cavitation occurs in the last 1 5 em of penetration. This last part of the sphere's path corresponds to that observed in battlefield casualty, yet most wound ball istics researchers who use th is projectile concentrate exclusively on the initial part of the path. The cavitation effects of the first part of the projectile path are not seen in fragment wou nds of the wou nded combat casualty and the cavitation effects prod uced by rifle bul lets occur at a deeper penetration. Although the sphere does produce eas ily repeatable resu lts, these res u lts unfortunately do not reproduce battlefield type wounds.

Jolly, in 1 94 1 ,9 noted, age need be undertaken. Such wounds usually heal spontaneously within ten days. The high velocity bullet, unlike other projectiles, does not usually carry foreign matter into the tissues and tends to leave an aseptic track.

36

Many high-velocity bullet wounds of soft parts have small punctured wounds of entrance and exit. Often such wounds do not require operation; and if operation is performed, nothing more than excision of the orifices of the track to provide better drain-

Fall 2000 Volume 4, Issue 4

,....

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW \V o u n d B a l l i s t i c s Resea rc h

JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS A SSOCIATION

• •• 10 " ..

pmr·]J.Qiii;�Jt 7.11 •a .ATO w.t•IIIOIII (111•,.1 Wt•tiOer (l.'t•) ••c

Fig. 3 Comparison of the first 1 2 em of the projectile path in the five wound profi les pictured shows why the wounds from "high-velocity" rifle bullets may be no more disruptive than many simple extremity wou nds caused by the lowest velocity handgun bullet. ·

Volume 4, Issue 4 Fall 2000 37

W o u n d B a l l i s t i c s Resea rc h WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW


Fig 4. This through and through wound of the plantar s u rface of the foot was caused by an M-1 6 rifle bul let. Despite the "high-velocity", tissue disruption was min imal.

Bailey, in 1 942, 10 advised that the " . . . seton wound is innocuous, it should be left alone." Ferguson et al . , 1 1 S1esinger, 1 2 Crile, 1 3 and Cope14 made similar observations, and Ogilvie, 15 consultant surgeon to British forces in World War II, listed as his first "sin" of war surgery the unnecessary operations on through and through bullet wounds of the soft parts. He wrote, "The majority of these with rest and sulfonamide heal rapidly and leave no disability; operation means loss of time and loss of function."

King, 1 6 reporting on war wounds from South Vietnam, wrote that "Uncomplicated perforating softtissue wounds were the most common bullet wounds of the extremities. They showed small entry and exit wounds and a clean soft-tissue track with little or no devitalization of tissue. They usually healed if left alone. "

The author of this paper served in one of the busiest hospitals in South Vietnam (US Naval Support Activity Hospital, DaNang) during the most active period of the Vietnam conflict (December 1 967 to December 1 968). Immediately thereafter, he served three years at the US Naval Hospital, Yokosuka, Japan, caring for the combat casualties from South Vietnam who were transported there by air soon after initial surgery. He was also a delegate at the last two Tri-Service War Surgery Conferences ( 1 970, 1 97 1 ). 1 7 The author and his colleagues determined the treatment of penetrating war wounds by assessing the amount, type, and location of tissue disruption, evidenced by physical examination

d . d' 1 7 an appropnate x-ray stu 1es.

38 Fall 2000 Volume 4, Issue 4

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW \-V o u n d Ba l l i st i c s Resea rc h


Origins of Current Misconceptions If we had no trouble treating the gunshot

wounds of the Vietnam War, why has this field regressed so badly since then? In 1 967, one small series of wounds caused by the then new M- 1 6 assault rifle was reported. 1 8' 1 9 These wounds were described using such emotionally charged terms such as "massively destructive" 1 8 and "devastating wounding power, " . . tremendous wounding and killing power" 1 9 rather than reporting wound dimensions and/or including measuring scales on photographs to give the reader an objective means of comparing these wounds with those caused by other weapons.

Remembering the political climate of that time, and the fact that the Swedish government, as a part of its anti-war stance, was actively encouraging desertion by American soldiers and providing them refuge, it is not surprising that Swedish interests saw an opportunity to exploit in these reports . They began a program to declare the M- 1 6 "inhumane" and to be outlawed by international convention. The "research" performed to support this program used methods of easily misinterpreted to make wounding effects of by the M- 1 6 bullet appear worse than those of other small-arms projectiles. For example, shooting projectiles through small ( 1 4 em) blocks of tissue simulant or the legs of 20 kg pigs in which the tissue path is even shorter, can provide misleading results. The photos in Berlin, et al.20 show a 1 5 em stellate exit wound caused by a 5 .56 mm bullet compared to an exit wound of only about I em caused by a 7 .62 mm bullet, thereby making the smaller bullet appear to have a far greater wounding capacity.

Military bullets begin their tissue path traveling point forward. They yaw (tum sideways in relation to their line of flight) at a penetration depth under 10 em to over 20 em, depending on the bullet. Even in groups of shots using the same type of bullet, variations in the penetration depth at which the bullet yaws can easily vary 25% from the average.2 1 This means that in any group of shots with a given bullet there are likely to be some that yaw within these small targets; these will show large exit wounds. There will be others that have not yet yawed; these will show minimal wounds. Individuals with an interest in "proving" one bullet less "humane" than another need only to photograph the ap-

propriate exit wound. This variation in yawing distance also explains apparent inconsistencies in bullet effects. Nordstrand, et al. ,22 showed comparative microsecond x-ray pictures comparing the same type bullets (5 .56 and 7 .62) for which Berlin et al.20 had indicated an apparently far greater wounding effect for the 5 .56 mm bullet. In the Nordstrand study,22 both bullets yawed and broke apart at the same depth of penetration in a soap block, and the 7 .62 mm bullet's disruptive effects were far greater.

By using enough tissue/tissue simulant to catch the entire projectile path, the entire potential of the projectile can be determined;�3 nothing is hidden. Only presentation of the projectile's disruption pattern along its entire tissue path allows meaningful comparison of wounding potential among various projectiles. Apparently overzealous in his attempt to justify the Swedish efforts, Berlin wrote, "During the 1 960's injuries of much greater severity were reported due to a new generation of small firearms. "24 Those who wish to check will find that only two of the seven citations Berlin gives to support that statement do, in fact, support it;

t s I f: · these two are by the same author. n act, tt appears tb_at all the furor over the M- 1 6, repeated and amplified in many papers, originated from this one source. 1 8

Objective Observers saw no More Severe Wounds from the M-16 than from Other Small-Arms

The five Tri-Service Vietnam war surgery conferences did not identify any special problems associated with "high-velocity" projectile wounds. The last conference17 listed "Topics Suggested for Further Study," but no need to study penetrating projectiles (wound ballistics) was mentioned.

Scott/5 in a superbly comprehensive study which combined an outstanding historical review, comparative shots into tissue simulant and live animals at ranges up to 600 m, and case reports of 70 shootings with the new 5 .56 mm caliber, concluded, "The experimental observations which I have made under widely varying circumstances do not indicate that light weight rifle bullets inflict more severe wounds than those caused by rifles in use since - the early part of this cen-


W o u n d B a l l i st i c s Resea rc h WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW


tury. My experience in the field supports this conclusion."

Albreht et al. 26 did an extensive study shooting various military rifle bullets through the tied-together thighs of 59-66 kg swine to study bullet effects in a more realistic tissue thickness (25 em) than was used in the Swedish studies. Their findings were clear; the 7 .62 NATO bullet caused more damage than the 5 .56 mmM-1 6 bullet. Bellaml7 recently reviewed the information collected on approximately 1400 gunshot wound casualties by the Wound Data and Munitions Effectiveness Team (WDMET) in Vietnam. Wounds caused by the M - 1 6 rifle comprised about one fourth of these cases and Bellamy states unequivocally that they did not cause more severe wounding than other small arms used in this conflict.

Scope of the Misinformation Five International Wound Ballistics Symposia

have been sponsored by the Swedish research group. The proceedings of these symposia have been published, and many readers assume that the information is valid scientific literature, selected by peer review. It is not. Papers submitted to these symposia are accepted and published without critical review. The major emphasis appear� to be on attracting participation and interest in the symposia; this has resulted in greatly increasing the volume of data with no regard for the quality of this data. Serious contradictions in this work have gone unaddressed, e.g. , two papers by Swedish researchers concluded that the amount of nonviable tissue around a projectile wound increases with time.28•29 Three papers from other countries30-32 reported contradictory findings.

The degree of exaggeration is well illustrated by recommendations given by Rybeck.33 He wrote that " . . . the clinical experience [is] that tissues which have been subjected to the formation of the temporary cavity after a high velocity missile will not survive" , and " . . . the temporary cavity, especially after missiles traveling at high velocities, is very large (30 times the diameter of the projectile) . . . " . Using Rybeck's conclusion to calculate extent of the tissue excision recommended for the wound shown in Figure 4, for example (5 .56 mm M-1 6 bullet diameter, multiplied by 30), we find a diameter of

1 6.68 em (over 6 inches). Compare this with the experience of King, cited above, 16 that this type of wound " . . . usually healed if left alone." The reader can judge for himself which treatment recommendation appears to be the more reasonable.

Rather than striving for a rational synthesis, correcting and striving to replace flawed data with more valid work, those in control of the symposia have attempted to suppress contrary information. For example, the printed Proceedings of the 5th Symposium (they did not appear until 1 988 although the symposium was held in 1 985) omitted a panel discussion in which data very critical of Swedish research methods was presented. Additionally, the printed Proceedings contained none of the comments made from the floor on the papers presented (many of these comments were critical of methods, conclusions, etc.).34

Conclusion

Scientific work demands hard choices, separating the valid from the unsound, the significant from the trivial, and the common from the rare. When this is not done, the flawed works pile up, greatly outnumbering the valid; repetition compounds the problem and many are misled. The sad legacy of the misguided studies of the past twenty years can be found in the faulty understanding of wounding mechanisms and irrational treatment recommendations in recent surgical textbooks. 35-38

The detrimental effects are clear. Most wounds seen on the battlefield are simple and have been treated by simple means with good results for the past one hundred years. 5• 7-1 7 Since it has resulted in recommendations for unnecessarily radical explorations and excision of tissue for all "high-velocity" projectile wounds, and assumptions that all battlefield wounds fall into this category, the overall effect of the past twenty years of wound ballistics research can only be considered a giant step backwards. It is hoped that this documentation of the problem will stimulate corrective measures.

References

I . Owen-Smith M S . Wounds caused by the weapons of war. In : Westaby S , ed. Wound Care. London: Heineroann Medical Books, 1 98 5 ,' 1 1 2.


WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW Wo u n d Ba l l i s t i c s R e s e a r c h


2. Pi lcher DB, Davis JH. Aorta and peripheral arteries. In : Davis JH, Drucker WR, Foster RS Jr. et al . eds. Clinical Surgery. St. Louis: Mosby, 1 987:2 1 1 7 .

3 . Fackler ML. What's wrong with the wound bal l i stics l iterature, and why. Presidio of San Francisco, California: Letterman Army Institute of Research, 1 987; Institute Report No. 239.

4. Fackler ML. Wound ball istics: A review of common misconceptions. JAMA 1 988,-259 : 2730-2736.

5 . H ampton O P Jr. The indications for debridement o f gunshot (bullet) wounds of the extremities in civi l ian practice. J Trauma 1 96 1 ,- 1 :368-372.

6. Lindsey D . The idolatry of velocity, or l ies, damn l ies, and ballistics. J Trauma 1 980,-20: I 068 - 1 069.

7 . Stevenson WF. Wounds in War. London, Longmans Green & Company. 1 897: I 07.

8. Kocher T. Eindrucke aus Deutchen kriegsiazaretten. Correspondenz-blatt fuer Schweitzer aerzte. 1 9 1 5 :45 :449-4 79.

9. Jolly DW. Field Surgery in Total War. New York, Hoeber. 1 94 1 :68.

1 0 . Bailey H. eds. Surgery of Modem Warfare, 2nd ed, Vol I . Baltimore: Wil l iams & Wilkins, 1 942: 1 6 .

1 1 . Ferguson LK, Brown RB, N icholson JT, et al. Observations on the treatment of battle wounds aboard a hospital ship. US Nav Med Bull 1 943, 4 1 :299-305.

1 2 . Slesinger EG. The treatment of flesh wounds. In: Maingot R, Slesinger EG, Fletcher E eds. War Wounds and Injuries, 2nd ed. Baltimore: Will iams and Wilkins. 1 94 3 : 22.

1 3 . Cri le G Jr. Experiences of the surgical service of the USNH, Aukiand, NZ with casualties from the initial Solomon Island engagement. US Nav Med Bul l l 94 3 : 4 1 :306-324.

1 4. Cope Z. ed. Surgery. London: Her M ajesty's Stationery Office, 1 95 3 :29.

1 5 . Ogilvie WH. Cardinal sins of war surgery. Bull U S Army Med Dept 1 944: 76:35-36.

16 . King KF. Orthopaedic aspects of war wounds in South Vietnam. J Bone & Joint Surg 1 969: 5 1 B: 1 1 2- 1 1 7 .

1 7 . Commander in Chief Pacific (CINCPAC). War Surgery. In : Proceedings of the Commander in Chief Pacific Fifth Conference on War Surgery, 29 March - 2 April 1 97 1 , Tokyo, Japan. 1 97 1 : 3 3 . (Available from CINCPAC, Attn: Surgeon, FPO San Francisco, Cal ifornia 966 1 0).

1 8 . Rich NM, Johnson EV, Dimond, FC Jr. Wounding power of missiles used in the Republic of Vietnam. JAMA 1 967 : 1 99 : 1 57 - 1 6 1 , 1 68 .

1 9 . Dimond FC Jr, Rich NM. M- 1 6 r ifle wounds in Vietnam. J Trauma 1 967: 7 : 6 1 9-625 .

20. Berlin R, Gel in LE, Janzon B, et al. Local effects of assault rifle bullets in l ive tissues. Acta Chir Scand: Suppi 1 979:459.

2 1 . Fackler ML. Wounding pattern of mi l i tary rifle bullets. Int Def Rev Jan 1 989:59-64.

22. Nordstrand I , Janzon B, Rybeck, B . Break-up behaviour of some small calibre projecti les when penetrating a dense medium. Acta Chir Scand; Suppi 1 979:489: 8 1 -90.

23. Fackler ML, Malinowski JA. The wound profile: a visual method for quantifying gunshot wound components. J Trauma 1 985 :25 : 5 22-5 29 .

24. Berlin R. Energy transfer and regional blood flow changes following missile trauma. J Trauma 1 979, 1 9 : 1 70- 1 76.

25. Scott R. Projectile Trauma: an Enquiry into Bul let Wounds. Oxford: University College,' 1 976.

26. Albreht M, Scepanovic D, Ceramilac A, et al . Experimental soft tissue wounds caused by standard mil itary rifles. Acta Chir Scand; Suppi 1 979, 489: 1 85- 1 98 .

27. Bel l amy RF. Personal communication 1 988.

28. Dahigren B, Berlin R, Janzon B, et a l . The extent of muscle tissue damage fol lowing missi le trauma one, six and twelve hours after the infliction of trauma, studied by the current method of debridement. Acta Chir Scand; Suppi 1 979:489: 1 3 7-1 44.

29. Rockert H , Berl in R, Dahigren B , et al. Cell damage at different distances from wound channels caused by spherical missi les with high impact velocity 1 - 1 2 hours after injury. Acta Chir Scand; Suppi 1 979,-489: 1 5 1 - 1 5 8 .

30. Wang ZG, Qian CW, Zhan DC, et al . Pathological changes of gunshot wounds at various intervals after wounding Acta Chir Scand; Suppi 1 982:508 : 1 97-2 1 0.

3 1 . Zhang D, Qian C, Liu Y, et al . Morphologic observations on high-velocity steel bul let wounds at various intervals after wounding. J Trauma; Suppi 1 988; 28 : S98-S I 04.

32. Z iervogel JF. A study of the muscle damage caused by the 7.62 NATO rifle. Acta Chir Scand; Suppi 1 979:489: 1 3 1 - 1 35 .

3 3 . Rybeck B. Missile wounding and hemodynamic effects o f energy absorption. Acta Chir Scand: Suppi 1 974:450:5-32.

34. Proceedings of the 5 th International Symposium on Wound Bal l i stics. Gothenburg, Sweden, June 1 1 - 1 4, 1 985 . J Trauma 28, Suppi, 1 988.

3 5 . Davis JH, Drucker WR, Foster RS, et al . Cl inical Surgery. St. Louis: Mosby, 1 98 7 : 2 1 1 7, 233 7.

36. Owen-Smith M S . Wounds caused by the weapons of war. In : Westaby S, ed. Wound Care, London: Heinemann Medical Books, 1 985 : 1 1 0, 1 1 2 , 1 1 4.

37 . Dufour D, Kroman Jensen S, Owen-Smith M , et al . Surgery for victims of War. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross, 1 98 8 ; 7, II , 1 3 , 1 4,43.

38. SedwitzMM , Shackford SR. Vascular trauma. In: Cuschieri A, G i les GR, Moossa AR, eds. Essential Surgical Practice, 2nd ed, London: Wright, 1 98 8 : 305.

1 1'!'1 :f!W


L iteratu re Review WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW ' JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUN D BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION

LITERATURE REVIEW Dr. Martin L. Fackler

Preface This Institute Report was published, in shorte11ed

form, as a11 i11vited review article, "Wou11d Ballistics: A Review of Common Misconceptions, " in the Journal of the America11 Medical Association issue of 13 May 1988 (Vol 259, No. 18, pp. 2730-2736). It was then chosen as one of the articles to be tra11slated into Japanese and was published in the Joumal of the American Medical Associatio11 's Japa11ese language edition(259[6]:119-126;1988).

THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS FAILS TO CORRECT ERRORS

As mentioned in the Spring 2000 issue, Dr. Todd Mol dower and I wrote a letter to the editor of the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons furnishing corrections to an extremely flawed 1 6 page paper by Bartlett, et al. On 1 6 August, I got a letter from the editor who thanked us for our interest but not publish the corrections because "It is not the usual practice of the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons to publish letters to the editor. . . . "

I must admit that this is the outcome I expected. One clue was that I recognized none of the authors of the paper as contributors to the wound ballistics literature. Nor did I recognize any of the members of the Editorial Review Board of the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (listed on the letterhead used by the editor) as contributors to the wound ballistics literature. Then I noted that the paper included 26 references citing the papers of Ordog et al . It is, of course, common for those who publish beyond the limits of their expertise to make serious errors and to be taken in by spurious literature . It is also common for them to try to avoid, by any means necessary, the exposure of their incompetence. Those competent and secure in their field wouldn' t make the errors in the first place, but if any errors were detected, they would most likely accept responsibility, apologize, and correct them without hesitation. Scientific writing and publishing has a lot to do with basic honesty and integrity.

This incident compels us to remind the editor of the Journal of Trauma, and the administrators of the King/Drew Medical Center that they must share the

42 Fa/1 2000

responsibi l ity for the unfortunate publ ication of th is error-and-misconception-filled paper by Bartlett, et a l . Because of their failure to retract the Ordog papers (see Wound Ballistics Review, Vol 3 NO. 1 , 36-43) those who lack the expertise to tell valid work from nonsense will continue to be misled.

It is true that publishing our letter would have been embarrassing for the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, as it would have for Bartlett, et al. But the embarrassment would have been tempered by the realization that readers would respect the integrity demonstrated by honestly admitting and correcting mistakes . As it stands now, the editor of the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and the authors of thi s i l l-conceived paper will have the specter of lack of credibility and integrity hanging over them for the rest of their lives. Should any of them testify in court as an expert witness, with our letter of corrections in print and data retrieval efficiency via the internet increasing daily, they will always need to fear the appearance of our letter during cross examination as prima-facie evidence of their lack of credibility.

This case demonstrates so well the problem that the International Wound Ballistics Association was formed to combat that I suspect we will make use of it often. The errors and misconceptions in the Bartlett, et al . paper are so conspicuously fallacious that nobody familiar with the wound ballistics literature can fail to be struck by them. Most of them have previously been corrected in the literature - apparently unnoticed by the paper' s authors, reviewers, or editors. Those who don' t know their field are condemned to remain eternally gullible .

It is difficult to believe that any journal in a science-based discipline could have a policy not to publish letters correcting its errors. This policy implies a "we don't make errors" attitude that is the epitome of arrogance - and ignorance. So long as it maintains that policy, the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons cannot be considered a serious or valid scientific journal.

As can be seen in our cover letter, we suggested a simple retraction of the paper as a way to avoid embarrassment to the authors and the journal -

Volume 4, Issue 4

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW L itera ture Review


as well as protecting readers from being misled. They were not wise enough to follow that suggestion.

If our corrections had been published by the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Bartlett, et al . would probably have been given the chance to rebut our letter if they desired. In the cause of fairness and in the belief that scientific writing can best be served by marshalling as much data as possible on disputed points, I invite Bartlett, et al . , or the editor who doesn't publish letters, or both, to submit any reasonable length response to our letter (or to these comments on the failure to publish it) . It is our policy to publish letters - and our highest priority is to correct our own errors as soon as they are pointed out to us.

Martin L. Fackler, MD

26 March 2000

Alan M. Levine, MD, Editor-in-Chief Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 6300 N. River Road Rosemont, IL 600 1 8-4262

Dear Dr. Levine : We read with dismay the article by Bartlett et

a!. in the Jan/Feb issue of the J Am Acad Orthop Surg (pp 2 1 -36). We have enclosed, for your consideration for publication, a letter commenting upon some of the errors, inconsistencies, and misconceptions we found in that paper.

Unfortunately, Bartlett et al. fell victim to some of the most flawed papers in the wound ballistics literature. We have included copies of published letters pointing out many of the fallacies and misconceptions in some of the works that Bartlett et al . relied upon most heavily for their paper.

enclosed letters) . On 2 1 Feb 95 , eight of Ordog's colleagues wrote a letter to a journal editor accusing Ordog of fabricating data. We have enclosed a published description of that incident.

Although Ordog was fired from the Martin Luther King Hospital and the staff of Drew Medical School, that institution has, thus far, failed to request that the Journal of Trauma retract Ordog 's papers. If Bartlett et al. will agree to retract their paper, for the reason that they were victimized by Ordog's papers, we believe that courageous act would induce Drew Medical School to request that J Trauma retract Ordog 's papers. Such would be a great blow for honesty and integrity in the wound ballistics literature; and would end the possibility" of other honest researchers being victimized by Ordog et al . .

letter. Thank you for your kind consideration of our

Yours truly, Martin L. Fackler, MD, Todd D. Moldawer, MD

To the editor: (FOR PUBICA TION) Bartlett CS, Helfet DL, Hausman MR and Strauss E. Ballistics and Gunshot Wounds: Effects on Musculoskeletal Tissues. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2000;8:21-36.

This unfortunate paper underscores the need for the existence of the International Wound Ballistics Association, which was formed because the peer review system in the medical-surgical literature was clearly incapable of accurately evaluating wound ballistics papers. Bartlett et a!. have fallen prey to many of the errors and misconceptions that have appeared in that literature . Once in print, fallacies continue to mislead, since there is no adequate mechanism to rid the literature of them. Journals and institutions are ex-tremely hesitant to retract papers, even those that have been shown to be fraudulent. So, until we find a better mechanism, the letter to the editor remains the only recourse.

This paper is filled with misconceptions that have already been dealt with and corrected in the wound ballistics literature . Bartlett et al . have been

We would like to see the necessary corrections accomplished with the least possible embarrassment to Bartlett et al. and the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. We suggest that the maximum benefit with minimum embarrassment might be derived from this situation if you would ask Bartlett et al. to voluntarily retract their paper _ thereby obviat- badly misled by several authors whose work has been ing the necessity for publishing our letter. Bartlett et al. shown to be seriously flawed (their refs 2, 6, 1 3 , 20, were seriously misled by papers of Ordog et al . which 37). The most serious damage was done by Ordog et were allowed to remain in the literature after it was al .(2 , 6, 3 7) whose work was cited 26 times. Detailed established that they were not only predominantly fal- corrections

_of the

_ seriously flawed work from the Or-

lacious but were based largely on fabricated data (see dog group IS available from the International Wound

Volume 4, Issue 4 Fa11 2000 43

Literatu re Review WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW


Ballistics Association (www . IWBA.com, or 3 1 0 640 6065).

There are too many errors, questionable and clearly fallacious concepts, misconceptions and misleading prose in this sixteen page paper for us to deal with it all Thus we must leave some serious problems without comment, The first author, however, can be contacted through the IWBA and would be happy to indicate the areas of concern that we had to omit due to time and space constraints.

Our concerns include: p 22 - "Low velocity wounds ,, are less severe . . . . " This unqualified generalization is simply not true. The first author has treated many wounds of the extremities caused by military rifle bullets which had no greater tissue disruption than that found in wounds caused by the lowest velocity handgun bullets. We suggest that the authors reread their ref. 7 which is but one of six invited review articles which have clearly explained this point as well as illustrating its rationale with experimentally produced wound profiles ' -5

p 22 & abstract - In the abstract a limit is given to separate "low" and "high" velocity, but on p 22 a velocity range (from 1 000 to 2000 f/s) is used for the same purpose. This is unclear and contradictory. Also, a projectile ' s velocity and its mass are inseparable. Mentioning one without the other is like describing a tabletop by giving only its length.

p 22 - Bartlett et al. recommend designating wounds as "high energy" or "low energy," apparently depending on "the amount of damage to the tissues" to separate the two. Unfortunately, they failed to give guidelines on 1 ) how to quantify tissue damage reproducibly, 2) where to draw the line between "low" and "high," and 3) how such a division would help anybody. They might wish to consult a paper which shows photographs of the tissue disruption produced in four different tissue types in a live anesthetized pig shot with identical bullets.6 From that paper, Bartlett et al. would learn that the amount of tissue disruption produced by the same amount of kinetic energy can vary widely - which appears to us an insurmountable confounding variable standing in the way of their recommendation.

44 Fall 2000

p 22 - In referring to bullet velocity, Bartlett et al. wrote "at the speed of sound (4,760 fps) the rate of energy conversion into mechanical disruption of tissue can become proportional to the third power of velocity or even higher. 1 3" First, the speed of sound is about 1 , 1 00 f/s -- not 4, 760. Here, Bartlett et al. were misled by their ref 1 3 , which is an extremely flawed book. 7 The authors of that book referred to the flawed study of Charters & Charters in which they claimed that bullets which struck tissue at velocities above the speed of sound in tissue caused greatly increased damage. That concept of Charters & Charters was shown to be false by experimental work done at the Wound Ballistics Laboratory at the Letterman Army Institute of research in the 1 980s. 8• 9

p 23 - Bartlett et al. repeated the excellent advice, "treat the wound and not the weapon," but falsely attributed it to Cooper & Ryan. Credit for this belongs to Douglas Lindsey, MD (Col US Army Ret) who was coauthor (along with the first author of this letter) of Chapter II, Missile Caused Wounds in the current edition of Emergency War Surgery - NATO Handbook (Washington, GPO, 1 988). Dr. Lindsey's sage advice comprises the last seven words of that chapter.

p 23m - Bartlett et al. wrote "Even at 300 yd, bullets fired from these particular weapons [M 1 6 & AK 4 7] retain nearly half of their original muzzle velocity." Actually, rather than less than half, these bullets retain more than two-thirds of their muzzle velocity at 300 yds.

p 24 - Here we find, in referring to "Fully jacketed bullets," that " . . . they invariably exit the victim if he is the primary target within a few hundred yards of the muzzle." This is a serious misconception, and especially surprising from authors who are orthopedists. Striking a major bone in the body often causes full metal jacketed bullets to break and remain in the body. Also, the M 1 6 bullet breaks at ranges closer than 200 yds. and often remains in the torso even when no bone is hit (the authors are invited to consult Figures 1 and 4 in their reference 7).

p 24 - Shot shells are described as "handgun cartridges with bird shot encased in plastic. The plas-

Volume 4, Issue 4

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW Literatu re Review


tic contains the shot until impact . , . " This is a misinterpretation. Such shells are supposed to release the shot as soon as it leaves the barrel so it spreads and acts l ike a mini-shotgun.

p 24 - "Damage is caused by several mechanisms, including . . . a secondary shock wave . . . " This is a formerly widespread misconception that has been corrected: the "shock" wave, more properly called the sonic pressure wave, causes no significant tis-

d 2-4 sue amage.

p 24 - The maximum size of the temporary cavity is described as up to " . . .40 times the diameter of the bullet. This is another widespread exaggeration that has been dispelled by objective measurement of the temporary cavity.3 Steel spheres striking tissue at 3380 f/s produce temporary cavities of only about 1 2 .5 sphere diameters . Note that nondeforming bullets produce their largest temporary cavities at the point where they yaw to 90° . 1 -9 In that case, the maximum temporary cavity diameter must be compared to the bullet' s length, rather than its diameter, since the bullet ' s ful l length is striking tissue at 90° of yaw.

p 25 - Bartlett et al. describe "hunting ammunition" as causing "a track with a cone based at the entry site." This is another misconception. The expanding hunting bullet expands only after it has penetrated an inch or so of tissue; the cavity extends forward from there . The authors should study Figure 3 of their ref 7. Also, they have cited DiMaio as one of the sources for this. I believe this is a false citation; but they have failed to give the page reference (as is standard practice when the information is in a book). This makes it extremely time-consuming for the reader to try to check the veracity of the citation.

p 26 - "Beyond 20 to 50 yd . . . spherical pellets create negligible damage." Actually, deer are killed regularly beyond that range by spherical pellets of 0.24 to 0.33 inch diameter -- called buckshot.

p 26 - It is surprising that authors who are orthopedists would repeat the misconception that it takes a threshold velocity of 200 f/s to penetrate the cortex of bone. Do they really think it possible

Volume 4, Issue 4

that a projectile would require the same threshold velocity to penetrate the cortex of the shaft of the femur as it does to penetrate the thin facial bones or the near paper-thin parts of the scapula?

p 35 - In their summary, Bartlett et al . "mandate aggressive . . . debridement" for "High energy injuries . . . . " This is done without ever defining objectively what a "high energy" injury is, or giving any objective indication of what they mean by "aggressive". We are concerned that some surgeons might be misled by this recommendation and remove crippling amounts of healthy tissue as they proceed with an unnecessary "excision" of a wound path because it was made by an "assault rifle" which they falsely believe must certainly cause a "high energy" wound. The exaggerations in the political propaganda surrounding military type "assault rifles" has so distorted reality as to endanger if not the lives at least the future function of shooting victims. 1 0

Martin L . Fackler, MD Todd D. Moldawer, MD

References I . Fackler ML. Civil ian Gunshot Wounds and Ballistics: Dispel

ling the Myths Emerg Med Clin N Am 1 6( 1 ): 1 7-28, 1 998 2. Fackler ML. Gunshot Wound Review. Ann Emerg Med

28(2): 1 94-203, 1 996. 3. Fackler ML. Wound ball istics: A review of common miscon

ceptions. JAMA 259:2730 2736, 1 3 May 1 988. 4. Hollerman JJ, Fackler ML. Gunshot Wounds: Radiology and

Wound Ballistics. Emergency Radiology, July/Aug 1 995, 1 7 1 -1 92 .

5 . Fackler M L . Bal l istic Injury. A n Emerg Med 1 5 : 1 45 1 1 45 5 , 1 986.

6. Fackler ML, Surinchak JS, Mal inowski JA, Bowen RE Wounding potential of the Russian AK 74 assault rifle. J . Trauma 24:263 266, 1 984.

7 . Fackler ML. Book review: Swan KG, Swan RC. Gunshot wounds: Pathophysiology and Management, 2nd ed, Yearbook Med Pub Inc, Chicago, 1 989. Wound Bal l istics Rev I (2) : 3 3 -3 5 , 1 992.

8 . Fackler ML, Bellamy RF, Malinowski JA. Wounding mechanism of projectiles striking at over I .5 knilsec. J Trauma 26 :350 3 54, 1 986.

9 . Fackler ML, Bellamy RF, Malinowski, JA. A reconsideration of the wounding mechanism of very high velocity projectiles -

importance of projectile shape. J Trauma 28 Suppl :63 67, 1 988.

Fal/ 2000

1 0. Kates DB, Schaffer H E, Lattimer JK, Murray GB, Cassem EH., Guns and Public Health: mEpidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? TN Law Rev 1 995 ;62(3) : 5 1 3-596.

45

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW I m p a c t M u n i t i o n s


Available Materials We have announced the availability of various materials of interest to members in past Journal issues

over the years. Some of these are still available and useful, and we are repeating a description of these materials for our newer members and others who might have missed the original announcements.

IWBA Web Page The IWBA web page is www.iwba.com.

This page contains organizational information, forms for membership and back issue orders, and a technical section (which will be updated from time to time). This page is not interactive; the IWBA does not have an email address because we cannot afford the cost of responding to email from non-members (and you may be sure we would get a lot of that) . Members can contact the IWBA office for all services, any administrative problems, and with any technical questions.

www.iwba.com

Gelatin Source We have learned of a new source of gelatin

(Vyse) from Gary Roberts. Gary tells us that both he and the FBI have been using this gelatin very successfully. This gelatin costs about 1 /3 of the Kind and Knox product, which obviously makes it very attractive. The only known negative is that it is slightly less clear, which makes it less desirable if photographs are desired. However, the difference is apparently small enough so that it is only obvious to the eye in a side-by-side comparison.

Vyse phone number (847) 678-4780.

Video of Gelatin Testing Information for Law Enforcement The ammunition manufacturers and some other researchers have equipment and facilities devoted to

the manufacture, storage, and use of gelatin in ammunition testing. Others who would like to do limited gelatin testing either cannot or do not wish to invest in special facilities and equipment for this purpose. While working with the LAPD SWAT team in making gelatin and using it in ammunition testing, we have worked out a modification of the "warm water" procedure used by the ammunition manufacturers that requires only the equipment and facilities available in the LAPD Academy kitchen (and gelatin). This equipment is typical of large kitchens, and similar facilities are probably available to most law enforcement agencies either in academy or j ai l kitchens. This approach produces large gelatin blocks that are necessary for SWAT rifle ammunition evaluation and very desirable for handgun ammunition evaluation. Those who lack the muscle or desire to utilize large blocks can make smaller blocks with this procedure.

Some discussions with other l aw enforcement agencies indicate that this description of gelatin production and use is of interest to agencies and some individuals who want to do gelatin testing, but are uncertain about the details of implementation. As a service to these potential users, the IWBA and the LAPD SWAT team have made a videotape of this gelatin manufacturing process, with all the equipment and procedures shown and explained in great detail . The second part of the videotape shows good practice in test procedure, including all aspects of gelatin calibration and examples of ammunition testing by the LAPD SWAT team. Copies of this videotape can be ordered from the IWBA for $35 . each postpaid to cover the costs of tape reproduction, mailing, and handling. Payment must be check or money order in USA dollars.

46

IWBA PO BOX 701 - EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245

(310) 640-6065

Fal/ 2000 Volume 4, Issue 4

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW A v a i l a b l e M a t e r i a l s


Forensic Analysis of the April ll, 1986 FBI Firefight This is a 1 27 page (8.5 x 1 1 inch) soft

cover book describing all aspects of this famous firefight, voluminously illustrated with photographs (many in color) and drawings of the scene and the wounds sustained by the participants. This is a superb analysis and reconstruction, and universally recognized as such. This book should be owned by all law enforcement officers and all others who have an interest in wound ballistics; the information contained is invaluable as general education, and not just as history.

This widely acclaimed investigation was done as a public service by Dr. W. French Anderson (well known for his innovative work in gene therapy) . This book is not on sale to the public, but Dr. Anderson makes copies available to law enforcement and to IWBA members at his expense. IWBA members can order copies of this book from the IWBA office at PO Box 701 , El Segundo, CA 90245 for $5 . each postpaid to cover the costs of mailing and handling. Payment must be check or money order in USA dollars.

Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda ?

W e are happy to announce that the reprints of Kates, et al . (Ref 2 in the above letter) are available from the IWBA. We thank IWBA member Ed Bachner, Vice President of Second Chance Body Armor Company for having these reprints of the Tennessee Law Review article made and donating them to the IWBA so we can make them available to our readers for the price of shipping and handling, which is $5 .00. Send a written request for the " Kates Reference 2 reprint" and a check for $5 USD to IW,BA, PO Box 70 1 , El Segundo, CA 90245 .

We thi11k maki11g this outsta11ding work of scholarship available is especially useful si11ce copyi�tg such all 84 page article at a library is both time co11Sumi11g a11d costly. We hope that making Kates, et a/. more easily availability will assist the scholarly and academic communities - a11d possibly even the media - to recognize and expose the failure of the medical community (my colleagues, I am ashamed to admit) to adhere not only to scielltijic method but to the basic tenets of honesty a11d integrity.

Additional Material Order Form ./

Gelatin Preperation Video D $35. 00 0

Forensic Analysis of the Apri/ 1 1, 1 986 FBI Firefight w $5. 00 0

Guns and Public Health: []11 $5. 00 0 Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda?

TOTAL $

PRE-PAYMENT IS REQUIRED - ALLOW 4 WEEKS DELIVERY - ORDER QUESTIONS (3 1 0) 640-6065


M em b e r s h i p A p p l ic a t i o n WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW

JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONA L WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION

For more information about the organization, please sign on to our web site at

www. iwba. com We ask that our members continue to promote awareness of the IWBA and our publication by using this referral form

MEMBERSHIP REFERRAL I BACK ISSUE ORDER .../CHECK

ONE U I qualify for membership and have enclosed the required

documentation. (See the IWBA Membership Po licy)

0 I want to be a subscriber only .

PREPAYMENT BY CHECK OR MONEY ORDER IN US DOLLARS REQUIRED

.../CHECK USA addresses Canada/Mexico addressed Other foreign addresses

ONE 0 $40. 0 $48. 0 $58. (checks will not be deposited unti l membership is approved

NAME: __________________ Mr., Miss . , Mrs . , Ms

MAIL ING ADDRESS : ________________________________________ _

Referred By:

MAIL TO: IWBA

48

PHONE: (

Member or Subscriber Name

PO BOX 701 EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245-070 1 USA (31 0) 640-6065

Fall 2000

0 I have enclosed a check or money order including shipping charges* for the journals selected below

$20 Vol 1 /1 $20 Vol 3/1

$ 1 0 Vol 1 /2t $10 Vol 3/2

$ 1 0 Vo1 1 /3t $10 Vol 3/3

$ 1 0 Vol 1 /4 $ 1 0 Vol 3/4

$ 1 0 Vol 2/1 $ 1 0 Vo1 4/1 $ 1 0 Vol 2/2 $ 1 0 Vol 4/2

$ 1 0 Vol 2/3 $ 1 0 Vol 4/3

$ 1 0 Vol 2/4 $ 1 0 Vo1 4/4

t reprint • SHIPPING Canada/Mexico - add $2 p issue

Other foreign addresses - add $4 50 p/issue

$ _____ BACK ORDERS

$ _____ SHIPPING

$ _____ MEMBERSHIP/SUBSCRIPTION

$ _______ TOTAL ENCLOSED

Volume 4, Issue 4

IWBA STATEMENT OF PURPOSE The widespread misinformation and lack of understanding concerning ballistic injury are well known to anyone who

understands the subject and keeps up with its literature. The undesirable consequences of these deficiencies range from substandard

gunshot wound treatment to lessened law enforcement effectiveness. The effects of penetrating projectiles on the body is of vital concern to trauma surgeons, weapon designers and users, and

those involved with the forensic aspects of ballistic trauma. Yet, we know of no other organization that deals with the subject

exclusively and in depth. Papers containing ballistic injury data appear in widely scattered sources, since many groups include

projectile effects peripherally in their interests. In each source, however, wound ballistics papers comprise a very small percentage of

the total, and most of these papers contain numerous errors . Wound ballistics expertise is sparse, and human inertia being what it is,

once in print, errors are likely to go uncorrected. Even when discredited by letters to the editor, these substandard papers remain in the

literature to mislead the unwary. What needs to be done? First, the valid literature needs to be identified. This will give the interested reader the scientific

background material on which to build a solid understanding of the subject. Next, an ongoing periodic critical review of the wound bal l istics literature needs to be initiated. Finally, an easily accessible source of wound ballistics expertise needs to be established.

The International Wound Ballistics Association has been founded to fill these needs. The IWBA publishes a journal, the Wound Ballistics Review, which contains original articles and reviews of other publications. By focusing its expertise upon the l iterature relating to wound ballistics, the IWBA hopes to stimulate an increased awareness among editors, writers, and readers and to help minimize future inaccuracies. Additionally, the International Wound Ballistics Association is prepared to offer expertise to assist any publication concerned with avoiding error and maintaining technical accuracy.

The IWBA encourages skepticism. We are convinced that only by encouraging active questioning, reevaluation and verification of views, data and cherished beliefs, etc. in the open literature can wound ballistics assume its full potential as a science.

IWBA MEMBERSHIP POLICY Membership Classes

Dues

The IWBA has only a single class of membership ("member"); but an individual or an organization can be a "subscriber" to receive the IWBA Journal without membership status.

Dues are $40 for the period covering four issues of the IWBA Journal (published semi-annually starting in 1 995) for both members and subscribers. Mailing cost surcharges of $8. for Canadian and Mexican addresses and $ 1 8. for other foreign addresses for the four issues are required with the dues. Prepayment in US funds, drawn from a US bank is required. Other options exist for foreign payments, contact the IWBA office for details.

Qualification for Membership 1 ) Persons in the following categories can become IWBA members b y submitting the appropriate documentation, indicating the

category and paying the dues. a) Prior IWBA members b) Full-time law enforcement officers (copy of ID badge, business card) c) Members in good standing of any of the following organizations: (certificate/member listing)

Association of Firearms Toolmark Examiners American Academy of Forensic Sciences American College of Emergency Physicians American College of Surgeons Societe Frans;aise Ballistique Lesionelle

2) P�rson� w?o have contributed to the body of knowledge in wound ballistics (either by adding to the scholarship or by d1ssemmatmg that body of knowledge) may apply for membership by submitting to the IWBA a letter of application along with evidence supporting their qualifications. Acceptance by the IWBA Membership Committee and payment of the dues will confer membership.

3) Persons who have an interest i n learning wound ballistics but who d o not qualify under any o f the above categories may apply for membership by submitting to the IWBA a letter of application stating their reasons for wishing membership and including two letters attesting to their integrity and good character from IWBA members or persons who would qualify for IWBA membership in section 1 above. Acceptance by the IWBA Membership Committee and payment of the dues will confer membership.

Application as a Subscriber An individual or an organization can become a subscriber by paying the dues and requesting the IWBA Journal without membership status.

Documents

WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEWthinlineweapons.com/IWBA/2000-Vol4No4.pdf · We invite cogent reviews of articles, books, news items, etc. Our goal is to commend good documentation as well