The Captain's Journal » Bizarre Cartridge Complaint

Bizarre Cartridge Complaint

BY Herschel Smith

4 years, 11 months ago

Remus notes something he calls astonishing.

I’ve seen a lot of pistol shootings, much more than US police would ever see, and much more than experienced by most medics deploying solely with US personnel. And yet, I have zero, not one single experience, where a single gunshot wound from a 9X19 NATO round killed someone prior to them being able to return fire or flee. This includes people shot in the chest, back, back of the head (one hit behind the left ear) the neck and the face. None…

Unfortunately, the same goes for the 5.56 NATO round. I have yet to witness a single shot quick kill with this round… On the flip side, having a patient who was shot by a 7.62X51 NATO or larger round was a rarity. Dead people aren’t patients, they are a supply issue.

That isn’t so much astonishing as it is just bizarre to me. First of all, I dislike it when someone begins their post with bona fides. The data is the data, the analysis is the analysis, regardless of your bona fides.

But then the claim makes no sense. My youngest son had absolutely no complaints about his weaponry when he deployed to Iraq, not did he when he came home. He was quite pleased with the lethality of the 5.56mm round in CQB and urban combat (MOUT). He used both his SAW and an M4, and actually both during room clearing operations.

Then there is the issue of what we know about the lethality of the round even at distance. Everyone recalls the video that made Travis Haley famous, and it’s worth watching again just to demonstrate that in the hands of a competent individual, the round can be lethal out to 600 yards or beyond.

Then there is this picture of an insurgent who was shot with a 5.56m round in Afghanistan at 200 meters.

You think he was able to mount a counterattack?

One final video demonstrates what the 5.56mm round is capable of in the hands of a qualified marksman.

Ammunition,AR-15s

Comments

On May 15, 2019 at 2:13 am, Ratus said:

I’m calling shenanigans on that person’s comments on the effectiveness of different types of ammo.

It seems to have been posted around ’14 on the less than truthful “the truth about guns” site.

There is still a presentation on YouTube on GSW by a trama surgeon, his findings were that handgun wounds were mostly survivable and that rifle and most shotgun wounds weren’t. Also that they could only tell if it was a handgun or rifle/shotgun wound not the type or cailber.

On May 15, 2019 at 4:50 am, Bill said:

Don’t have much to say about the terminal effectiveness commentary; that’s like the caliber wars, you’ll NEVER settle it. But the video is very interesting. It suggests that some (at least) of our Troops problems in the Stan with longer range engagements is a matter of a) training, and b) the wrong optic. I’m not a big fan of full-on scopes on a carbine, but on my 308 rig I’ve got a 1-8×25 due to the legs of that cartridge and my old tired eyes. It has an intuitive ranging reticle and BDC & windage marks. Why don’t our Troops in the field have such a thing? This would seem a simple decision (maybe that’s the problem).

On May 15, 2019 at 6:53 am, John said:

That insurgent was still able to shoot back and support the attack.
He was not “out of the fight”.

On May 15, 2019 at 7:27 am, Jack said:

The data *is* available, so we don’t have to gauge the veracity or trustworthiness of the this member of the Internet Commando Force.

For example, this study (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2688536) evaluated deaths by caliber for 511 gunshot victims in Boston 2010-2014.

Of the 183 deaths, only one was the result of a rifle round (7.62×39). The rest are pistol rounds.

64/183 (35%) of fatalities were caused by a single gunshot (there’s no breakdown by caliber for this statistic).

35/64 (55%) of single gunshot fatalities were shots to the head/neck, 28/64 were to the chest/back/abdomen, and 1 was to an arm/shoulder/leg.

However, this study doesn’t address the immediacy argument – stopping the opponent with a single shot before they return fire. However, we don’t need data if we understand the human body — the desired outcome can only be achieved by destroying the brain’s ability to communicate with the extremities, and this has as much to do with shot placement as it does with the caliber.

Regarding lethality of calibers, the study categorizes calibers as small (.22, .25, and .32), medium (.38, .380, and 9 mm), or large (.357 magnum, .40, .44 magnum, .45, 10 mm, and 7.62 × 39 mm).

However, there is enough data to look at individual calibers should one be willing to do the work.

On May 15, 2019 at 7:34 am, Jack said:

@Bill, I’m not familiar with all military optics.

I will note however that the Trijicon ACOG (I have a surplus TA31F) is a 4x optic, and is designed to be used like a red-dot for CQB and as a scope for distance. It can be had with a variety of reticles that include BDC up to 800 meters.

https://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product2.php?id=ACOG&mid=4%20x%2032%20BAC

On May 15, 2019 at 8:03 am, Bram said:

Heh. I remember a guy being prosecuted in Portland, Maine. He shot 2 “assailants” in the back of the head with a .22 revolver. Neither of them did anything except drop dead.

On May 15, 2019 at 8:06 am, Bram said:

I was in the first Gulf War and where all our fights were at long range. I’m glad I had the full-sized M16A2 instead of an M4. I would have preferred an M14 or something in 6.5mm. But that’s the last war.

In the next war, ability to penetrate body armor will be paramount. Not sure if 5.56 is up to it or something longer and heavier would be needed.

On May 15, 2019 at 12:20 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:

@ Herschel

Much of what is known about terminal ballistics today is as a result of the work of U.S. Navy and U.S. Army physician/pathologist Martin Fackler, M.D. For those interested in further reading on the subject, he is a good place to start. Be forewarned, however, that you’ll probably need access to an academic library (or inter-library loan with one) with a good selection of scientific & technical journals.

A relative is a physician with over thirty years experience treating trauma cases, including GSWs and wounds caused by edged weapons. Much of it gained in a big-city trauma ward and ER. I myself am trained as a medic, and have treated such patients as well, although not to near the extent of my older brother.

For what they’re worth, some observations are as follows:

1. One’s chances of surviving a handgun wound are much-greater than a wound from a high-powered center-fire rifle, all else being equal. The same is true for edged weapons. No one wants to get shot/stabbed, but if it is inevitable, then being stabbed or shot with a handgun is preferable to being tagged with a high-power rifle round.

2. Civilian physicians & surgeons see comparatively few trauma cases as a result of rifles, due to the lower survivability of such patients in the pre-hospital environment, and also because the vast majority of FA-related crimes involve handguns, not long guns.

3. The military, in order to prepare its trauma docs and medics/corpsmen for deployment, rotates them through the biggest and busiest level-VI urban trauma centers, which is where they’ll have the greatest exposure to GSWs, edged weapon, blunt force trauma and thermal injuries, as well as complex cases involving two or more types of injury mechanism.

4. Reports from some vascular surgeons seem to suggest that the surgical treatment of wounds sustained from M4/M16s – in particular those involving bullet shattering and fragmentation inside the target/victim – are amongst the most-challenging to treat successfully. Not only finding the various fragments, but debriding and/or repairing the multiple wound tracks and getting ahead of whatever infection may arise as a result of the introduction of foreign matter into the body cavity.

5. An acquaintance of mine is a former U.S. Navy FMF Corpsman who “went green” and served with the Marines in combat in Vietnam, including extensive patrols into the bush where he was the only “Doc” around. He states that fractures (of the kind shown in the photo) are extremely common with high-powered rifle wounds, and that the care/stabilization of such GSW victims almost always involves fractures and hypovolemic shock.

6. A “through and through,” i.e., a penetrative wound which does not encounter a vital organ or bone mass, is the “best” outcome of a high-powered rifle wound. In particular when such projectile has dumped much of its KE before hitting the target.

On the other hand, high-velocity projectiles with a significant supersonic shock wave, fragmenting bullets, or projectiles which are large and somewhat slow and therefore dump most of their energy into the target (i.e., such as the .45ACP or 7.62×39 in some circumstances), producing the most-challenging cases for the medic in the field.

Long story short, unless one is extraordinarily lucky, a center-mass hit from a high-powered rifle round isn’t something that can be “walked off,” as is the case with some handgun wounds. Mortality rates (death) in such cases tend to be very high, which is one reason so few of these patients can be saved, even with prompt trauma care, advanced life-support and a waiting surgical team.

On May 15, 2019 at 12:22 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:

Re: “rotates them through the biggest and busiest level-VI urban trauma centers…”

Apologies for the typo – meant to say “level-IV trauma centers”….

On May 15, 2019 at 2:38 pm, Phil Ossiferz Stone said:

Two data points to bear in mind:

1) .223 milspec ball ammo is frangible out of a rifle barrel, which is what it was designed for. When it loses velocity it becomes an ice pick. I can see how in an M4 carbine at longer ranges this could happen.

2) More than half the murders in the US are inner city black hood rats shooting each other. Hood rats by nature do not have good shot placement. Using this data to determine the terminal effectiveness of *anything* is forecast to failure.

On May 15, 2019 at 4:33 pm, Pat Hines said:

I give short shrift to anyone that uses the phrase “poodle shooter”, it marks them as someone parroting the unknowledgeable.

The AR in 5.56NATO is the longest serving rifle, in the US Army and the rest of the military, in US history. That’s not accidental and not related to cost.

I like them.

On May 15, 2019 at 5:51 pm, Pat Hines said:

@Georgiaboy61 and others,

Sometimes it’s BS to state your bono fides up front, but I’ll do that this time. Hope not to do it again.

I was an civilian OR nurse, beginning in 1990, until my retirement in 2005. In addition to that, I was an OR nurse in the US army reserve, receiving my commission in 1993, I was enlisted for 19 years before that in a number of army MOS.

I worked briefly while waiting on my RN exam results as a scrub tech in various hospitals in the SF Bay area, including Alameda County Medical Center, aka the Oakland Knife and Gun Club results center. Before that, I worked at UNC Hospital while in nursing school, and that’s a trauma surgery center.

One of the worst gun shot cases I worked on was a young man shot, by his father, once in the chest with a .22long rifle. He took over 8 days to die. When we worked on him in the OR, most of his lower extremities were turning black, when we open up his abdomen, most of his internal organs were dead or dying. Cause? The .22 bullet nicked his aorta, without actual penetration, and that caused blood clots to be distributed throughout his body.

On May 15, 2019 at 5:59 pm, =BCE56= said:

I’ll just leave this here:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701267.pdf

On May 15, 2019 at 7:49 pm, Gryphon said:

Bill said – “Don’t have much to say about the terminal effectiveness commentary; that’s like the caliber wars, you’ll NEVER settle it.” I agree that’s probably the Best Statement on this thread, because given the Vast Number of possible combinations of Bullet Size/Type/Velocity and “Shot Placement”, how any given Individual reacts “When the Bullet Hits the Bone” is Impossible to predict. All one can do is Generalize; generally, a Larger, Heavier Bullet makes a Bigger Hurt on the Target, but even the lowly .22LR is Deadly with a Close-Range Head Shot.

As Pat mentions above, nearly Undetectable Damage can be Fatal from otherwise ‘minor’ Gunshot Wounds.

As for someone claiming “I Never Saw…” (fill in the blank) O.K., so You Didn’t. How does that make You an Expert on what You Never Saw? I’m sure there are Plenty of People who Have Seen ‘one shot kills’ with 9MM, so what’s your Point? A Flanking Maneuver in the Caliber Wars, IMO.

On May 16, 2019 at 12:04 am, Georgiaboy61 said:

@ Pat

Your training and experience marks you as someone who has “been there, done that” regarding trauma care. I, too, normally dislike listing my CV (or anyone else’s for that matter) as part of a discussion, but in this case, I made an exception. Why? In this case, it was the fastest way to make my points, and also to communicate to the reader that I have some basis in training/experience for making them.

Reading your comment about that young man wounded in the chest by a .22LR reminds me of a case I read about years ago, not in any specialist medical or similar journal, but in the popular press. Maybe “Reader’s Digest” or something, as I enjoyed that magazine as a young person.

It concerned a young woman from the NY City area who’d been found dead in her car beside the road. Apparently, she had perished while driving and her car coasted to a stop on the shoulder beside the road, which is how she was found. The authorities were mystified as to the cause of death as there were no apparent marks on her or other evidence of foul play, nor any evidence consistent with death due a motor vehicle accident.

Upon detailed post-mortem examination, however, the ME found a small, nearly bloodless entrance wound behind her left ear consistent with a .22-caliber bullet similar to that fired from a .22LR cartridge or the like. The driver’s side window on her car was down when she was discovered.

Long story short, the police did some canvassing and door-to-door work in the immediate area, and discovered that someone more than a mile across the bay adjacent to the road had been firing a .22-caliber rifle that day around the estimated time the unfortunate victim was discovered.

I can’t recall if a ballistics match was made between the slug and the rifle or not, or whether any criminal charges were filed or not (this was during the mid-late 1960s, if memory serves), but the authorities were able to piece together a likely scenario.

The unfortunate victim was driving along with her window down, and a .22-caliber bullet – which had been fired across the bay and skipped on the water – chanced to hit her behind her left ear, in the precise spot where bone protection is minimal. The slug entered her brain and killed her. The forensic examiner stated that if her car window had been rolled up, it probably would have been enough to cause the fatal shot to deflect harmlessly away.

That haunting case has stayed with me all of these years since I first read about it in the mid-1970s.

On May 16, 2019 at 3:44 pm, Sanders said:

My buddy had two confirmed one-shot kills at ~600 meters in Desert Storm using an M16A2 with iron sights.

And 4 confirmed kills using a 1911A1 inside a bunker.

What does that say about caliber? Not a damned thing. What is does say is don’t piss off my buddy, except that Gulf War Syndrome (sickness) finally did him in. May he R.I.P.

On May 18, 2019 at 12:19 am, =TW= said:

Over the years I’ve tried to keep current with published data and opinions from authorities such as Marshall/Sanow, Massad Ayoob, Col Cooper, Fackler, Libourel, Seyfried, Hackathorn, Jordan, Sykes, Fairbairn, Keith, Taffin, Wilson and many others, including cops, combat vets, and my Old Man. Even some internet “experts.”

What have I learned?
Well, there are plenty of variables.
Some cartridges are more effective than others- bigger maybe better. Overpenetration is a waste of energy.
Ammo is getting better these days but there is no such thing as a magic bullet.
Speed is important but a miss is worthless.
Certain hits equal instant Lights Out.
But don’t count on it. A hit may not immediately stop the threat.

On May 19, 2019 at 12:38 pm, =TW= said:

7.62X39 450 yds iron sights
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucG9k5eRWuY
.

On May 19, 2019 at 2:46 pm, MTHead said:

Nadal Hassan anyone? 5-7×28. just a 22 at 2000 fps. Everyone hit was out of the fight. every torso hit ended in death.
I’ve watched several one shot stops on deer from 223/556.
It also impressed the Russians enough after Vietnam to move from a 7.62×39, to the 5.45x 39. (their advisers saw how well the 55 gr. bullet at 3200 fps worked). and I believe they’ve migrated from their original 80 gr. down to 55- 60 gr. bullets.

On May 15, 2019 at 2:13 am, Ratus said:

I’m calling shenanigans on that person’s comments on the effectiveness of different types of ammo.

It seems to have been posted around ’14 on the less than truthful “the truth about guns” site.

There is still a presentation on YouTube on GSW by a trama surgeon, his findings were that handgun wounds were mostly survivable and that rifle and most shotgun wounds weren’t. Also that they could only tell if it was a handgun or rifle/shotgun wound not the type or cailber.
On May 15, 2019 at 4:50 am, Bill said:

Don’t have much to say about the terminal effectiveness commentary; that’s like the caliber wars, you’ll NEVER settle it. But the video is very interesting. It suggests that some (at least) of our Troops problems in the Stan with longer range engagements is a matter of a) training, and b) the wrong optic. I’m not a big fan of full-on scopes on a carbine, but on my 308 rig I’ve got a 1-8×25 due to the legs of that cartridge and my old tired eyes. It has an intuitive ranging reticle and BDC & windage marks. Why don’t our Troops in the field have such a thing? This would seem a simple decision (maybe that’s the problem).
On May 15, 2019 at 6:53 am, John said:

That insurgent was still able to shoot back and support the attack.
He was not “out of the fight”.
On May 15, 2019 at 7:27 am, Jack said:

The data *is* available, so we don’t have to gauge the veracity or trustworthiness of the this member of the Internet Commando Force.

For example, this study (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2688536) evaluated deaths by caliber for 511 gunshot victims in Boston 2010-2014.

Of the 183 deaths, only one was the result of a rifle round (7.62×39). The rest are pistol rounds.

64/183 (35%) of fatalities were caused by a single gunshot (there’s no breakdown by caliber for this statistic).

35/64 (55%) of single gunshot fatalities were shots to the head/neck, 28/64 were to the chest/back/abdomen, and 1 was to an arm/shoulder/leg.

However, this study doesn’t address the immediacy argument – stopping the opponent with a single shot before they return fire. However, we don’t need data if we understand the human body — the desired outcome can only be achieved by destroying the brain’s ability to communicate with the extremities, and this has as much to do with shot placement as it does with the caliber.

Regarding lethality of calibers, the study categorizes calibers as small (.22, .25, and .32), medium (.38, .380, and 9 mm), or large (.357 magnum, .40, .44 magnum, .45, 10 mm, and 7.62 × 39 mm).

However, there is enough data to look at individual calibers should one be willing to do the work.
On May 15, 2019 at 7:34 am, Jack said:

@Bill, I’m not familiar with all military optics.

I will note however that the Trijicon ACOG (I have a surplus TA31F) is a 4x optic, and is designed to be used like a red-dot for CQB and as a scope for distance. It can be had with a variety of reticles that include BDC up to 800 meters.

https://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product2.php?id=ACOG&mid=4%20x%2032%20BAC
On May 15, 2019 at 8:03 am, Bram said:

Heh. I remember a guy being prosecuted in Portland, Maine. He shot 2 “assailants” in the back of the head with a .22 revolver. Neither of them did anything except drop dead.
On May 15, 2019 at 8:06 am, Bram said:

I was in the first Gulf War and where all our fights were at long range. I’m glad I had the full-sized M16A2 instead of an M4. I would have preferred an M14 or something in 6.5mm. But that’s the last war.

In the next war, ability to penetrate body armor will be paramount. Not sure if 5.56 is up to it or something longer and heavier would be needed.
On May 15, 2019 at 12:20 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:

@ Herschel

Much of what is known about terminal ballistics today is as a result of the work of U.S. Navy and U.S. Army physician/pathologist Martin Fackler, M.D. For those interested in further reading on the subject, he is a good place to start. Be forewarned, however, that you’ll probably need access to an academic library (or inter-library loan with one) with a good selection of scientific & technical journals.

A relative is a physician with over thirty years experience treating trauma cases, including GSWs and wounds caused by edged weapons. Much of it gained in a big-city trauma ward and ER. I myself am trained as a medic, and have treated such patients as well, although not to near the extent of my older brother.

For what they’re worth, some observations are as follows:

1. One’s chances of surviving a handgun wound are much-greater than a wound from a high-powered center-fire rifle, all else being equal. The same is true for edged weapons. No one wants to get shot/stabbed, but if it is inevitable, then being stabbed or shot with a handgun is preferable to being tagged with a high-power rifle round.

2. Civilian physicians & surgeons see comparatively few trauma cases as a result of rifles, due to the lower survivability of such patients in the pre-hospital environment, and also because the vast majority of FA-related crimes involve handguns, not long guns.

3. The military, in order to prepare its trauma docs and medics/corpsmen for deployment, rotates them through the biggest and busiest level-VI urban trauma centers, which is where they’ll have the greatest exposure to GSWs, edged weapon, blunt force trauma and thermal injuries, as well as complex cases involving two or more types of injury mechanism.

4. Reports from some vascular surgeons seem to suggest that the surgical treatment of wounds sustained from M4/M16s – in particular those involving bullet shattering and fragmentation inside the target/victim – are amongst the most-challenging to treat successfully. Not only finding the various fragments, but debriding and/or repairing the multiple wound tracks and getting ahead of whatever infection may arise as a result of the introduction of foreign matter into the body cavity.

5. An acquaintance of mine is a former U.S. Navy FMF Corpsman who “went green” and served with the Marines in combat in Vietnam, including extensive patrols into the bush where he was the only “Doc” around. He states that fractures (of the kind shown in the photo) are extremely common with high-powered rifle wounds, and that the care/stabilization of such GSW victims almost always involves fractures and hypovolemic shock.

6. A “through and through,” i.e., a penetrative wound which does not encounter a vital organ or bone mass, is the “best” outcome of a high-powered rifle wound. In particular when such projectile has dumped much of its KE before hitting the target.

On the other hand, high-velocity projectiles with a significant supersonic shock wave, fragmenting bullets, or projectiles which are large and somewhat slow and therefore dump most of their energy into the target (i.e., such as the .45ACP or 7.62×39 in some circumstances), producing the most-challenging cases for the medic in the field.

Long story short, unless one is extraordinarily lucky, a center-mass hit from a high-powered rifle round isn’t something that can be “walked off,” as is the case with some handgun wounds. Mortality rates (death) in such cases tend to be very high, which is one reason so few of these patients can be saved, even with prompt trauma care, advanced life-support and a waiting surgical team.
On May 15, 2019 at 12:22 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:

Re: “rotates them through the biggest and busiest level-VI urban trauma centers…”

Apologies for the typo – meant to say “level-IV trauma centers”….
On May 15, 2019 at 2:38 pm, Phil Ossiferz Stone said:

Two data points to bear in mind:

1) .223 milspec ball ammo is frangible out of a rifle barrel, which is what it was designed for. When it loses velocity it becomes an ice pick. I can see how in an M4 carbine at longer ranges this could happen.

2) More than half the murders in the US are inner city black hood rats shooting each other. Hood rats by nature do not have good shot placement. Using this data to determine the terminal effectiveness of *anything* is forecast to failure.
On May 15, 2019 at 4:33 pm, Pat Hines said:

I give short shrift to anyone that uses the phrase “poodle shooter”, it marks them as someone parroting the unknowledgeable.

The AR in 5.56NATO is the longest serving rifle, in the US Army and the rest of the military, in US history. That’s not accidental and not related to cost.

I like them.
On May 15, 2019 at 5:51 pm, Pat Hines said:

@Georgiaboy61 and others,

Sometimes it’s BS to state your bono fides up front, but I’ll do that this time. Hope not to do it again.

I was an civilian OR nurse, beginning in 1990, until my retirement in 2005. In addition to that, I was an OR nurse in the US army reserve, receiving my commission in 1993, I was enlisted for 19 years before that in a number of army MOS.

I worked briefly while waiting on my RN exam results as a scrub tech in various hospitals in the SF Bay area, including Alameda County Medical Center, aka the Oakland Knife and Gun Club results center. Before that, I worked at UNC Hospital while in nursing school, and that’s a trauma surgery center.

One of the worst gun shot cases I worked on was a young man shot, by his father, once in the chest with a .22long rifle. He took over 8 days to die. When we worked on him in the OR, most of his lower extremities were turning black, when we open up his abdomen, most of his internal organs were dead or dying. Cause? The .22 bullet nicked his aorta, without actual penetration, and that caused blood clots to be distributed throughout his body.
On May 15, 2019 at 5:59 pm, =BCE56= said:

I’ll just leave this here:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701267.pdf
On May 15, 2019 at 7:49 pm, Gryphon said:

Bill said – “Don’t have much to say about the terminal effectiveness commentary; that’s like the caliber wars, you’ll NEVER settle it.” I agree that’s probably the Best Statement on this thread, because given the Vast Number of possible combinations of Bullet Size/Type/Velocity and “Shot Placement”, how any given Individual reacts “When the Bullet Hits the Bone” is Impossible to predict. All one can do is Generalize; generally, a Larger, Heavier Bullet makes a Bigger Hurt on the Target, but even the lowly .22LR is Deadly with a Close-Range Head Shot.

As Pat mentions above, nearly Undetectable Damage can be Fatal from otherwise ‘minor’ Gunshot Wounds.

As for someone claiming “I Never Saw…” (fill in the blank) O.K., so You Didn’t. How does that make You an Expert on what You Never Saw? I’m sure there are Plenty of People who Have Seen ‘one shot kills’ with 9MM, so what’s your Point? A Flanking Maneuver in the Caliber Wars, IMO.
On May 16, 2019 at 12:04 am, Georgiaboy61 said:

@ Pat

Your training and experience marks you as someone who has “been there, done that” regarding trauma care. I, too, normally dislike listing my CV (or anyone else’s for that matter) as part of a discussion, but in this case, I made an exception. Why? In this case, it was the fastest way to make my points, and also to communicate to the reader that I have some basis in training/experience for making them.

Reading your comment about that young man wounded in the chest by a .22LR reminds me of a case I read about years ago, not in any specialist medical or similar journal, but in the popular press. Maybe “Reader’s Digest” or something, as I enjoyed that magazine as a young person.

It concerned a young woman from the NY City area who’d been found dead in her car beside the road. Apparently, she had perished while driving and her car coasted to a stop on the shoulder beside the road, which is how she was found. The authorities were mystified as to the cause of death as there were no apparent marks on her or other evidence of foul play, nor any evidence consistent with death due a motor vehicle accident.

Upon detailed post-mortem examination, however, the ME found a small, nearly bloodless entrance wound behind her left ear consistent with a .22-caliber bullet similar to that fired from a .22LR cartridge or the like. The driver’s side window on her car was down when she was discovered.

Long story short, the police did some canvassing and door-to-door work in the immediate area, and discovered that someone more than a mile across the bay adjacent to the road had been firing a .22-caliber rifle that day around the estimated time the unfortunate victim was discovered.

I can’t recall if a ballistics match was made between the slug and the rifle or not, or whether any criminal charges were filed or not (this was during the mid-late 1960s, if memory serves), but the authorities were able to piece together a likely scenario.

The unfortunate victim was driving along with her window down, and a .22-caliber bullet – which had been fired across the bay and skipped on the water – chanced to hit her behind her left ear, in the precise spot where bone protection is minimal. The slug entered her brain and killed her. The forensic examiner stated that if her car window had been rolled up, it probably would have been enough to cause the fatal shot to deflect harmlessly away.

That haunting case has stayed with me all of these years since I first read about it in the mid-1970s.
On May 16, 2019 at 3:44 pm, Sanders said:

My buddy had two confirmed one-shot kills at ~600 meters in Desert Storm using an M16A2 with iron sights.

And 4 confirmed kills using a 1911A1 inside a bunker.

What does that say about caliber? Not a damned thing. What is does say is don’t piss off my buddy, except that Gulf War Syndrome (sickness) finally did him in. May he R.I.P.
On May 18, 2019 at 12:19 am, =TW= said:

Over the years I’ve tried to keep current with published data and opinions from authorities such as Marshall/Sanow, Massad Ayoob, Col Cooper, Fackler, Libourel, Seyfried, Hackathorn, Jordan, Sykes, Fairbairn, Keith, Taffin, Wilson and many others, including cops, combat vets, and my Old Man. Even some internet “experts.”

What have I learned?
Well, there are plenty of variables.
Some cartridges are more effective than others- bigger maybe better. Overpenetration is a waste of energy.
Ammo is getting better these days but there is no such thing as a magic bullet.
Speed is important but a miss is worthless.
Certain hits equal instant Lights Out.
But don’t count on it. A hit may not immediately stop the threat.
On May 19, 2019 at 12:38 pm, =TW= said:

7.62X39 450 yds iron sights
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucG9k5eRWuY
.
On May 19, 2019 at 2:46 pm, MTHead said:

Nadal Hassan anyone? 5-7×28. just a 22 at 2000 fps. Everyone hit was out of the fight. every torso hit ended in death.
I’ve watched several one shot stops on deer from 223/556.
It also impressed the Russians enough after Vietnam to move from a 7.62×39, to the 5.45x 39. (their advisers saw how well the 55 gr. bullet at 3200 fps worked). and I believe they’ve migrated from their original 80 gr. down to 55- 60 gr. bullets.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Bizarre Cartridge Complaint

Comments

Leave a comment