“The study of wound ballistics is based on a significant amount of science and a tremendous amount of art.” - Sydney Vail, M.D., F.A.C.S. The human body has yet to be replicated in a defined way that guarantees duplication of injuries for any specific bullet design. Depth of penetration, temporary cavity, degree of fragmentation and other definable bullet characteristics including reproducible wounding has not yet been 100% correlated to any simulated media. The human body is far too complex to be able to generate a ballistic model that will consistently reveal the wounding ability of any type of bullet. I have cared for patients in and out of the operating room that have been shot with 7.62 x 39, 30-06, 5.56, shotguns, and pistol calibers from .22 to .45 ACP. I have retrieved Hydrashoks®, Gold Dots®, Talons®, Golden Sabers®, Cor-bon® to ball ammo and continue to be impressed with the uncertainty of reliable expansion, injury and ballistic profiles. I can tell you from a practical standpoint that anything determined to be reliable in ballistic gelatin has the potential to be unreliable in the human body, i.e., intended tissue destruction, bullet expansion/function. There are too many factors that go into wound ballistics in living tissue that CAN NOT BE REPLICATED IN ANY KNOWN SIMULANT MEDIUM. The “Miami Shootout” on April 11, 1986 gave way to the current FBI ballistic gelatin 12-18 inch testing protocols which still dictate and limit today the accepted standard for the design, testing, and utilization for all current law enforcement and military bullet designs. Fackler, in 1987 wrote a paper “What’s Wrong With the Wound Ballistics Literature, and Why. In it he states: “The wound produced by a particular penetrating projectile is characterized by the amount and location of tissue crush and stretch. In our laboratory, we measure the amount and location of crush (permanent cavity) and stretch (temporary cavity) on the basis of shots fired into gelatin tissue simulant. Since we have calibrated this stimulant to reproduce the projectile characteristics equivalent to those observed in living animal tissue, measurements from these shots can be used to predict approximate animal tissue disruption.” It is true that a tissue simulation that allows for evaluation of similar types of bullets offers great value. The FBI ballistic gelatin protocol is such an evaluation tool. But if a specific type of bullet construction could not be accurately tested in ballistic gelatin for performance in living tissue should we dismiss validated performance in living tissue because a particular testing simulant did not accurately predict that performance in living tissue? In today’s scientific world, we should instead develop new ballistic test methods which accurately predict living tissue performance or accept performance in living tissue itself as a valid test medium for bullet performance. I recently attended a live fire demonstration of the Le Mas Ltd. Law Enforcement / Military armor piercing ammunition utilizing both bare and armored live tissue impact mediums. I attended voluntarily, with no contractual, financial or other agreements between myself and Le Mas Ltd. I paid all of my expenses (plane ticket, hotel, car, etc) and have received no funding or honorarium through any sources to attend this demonstration. With respect to Le Mas BMT AP law enforcement bullets, I had the opportunity to both witness and conduct living (immediately post mortem) tissue animal necropsies. Of immediate interest with respect to the Le Mas AP ammo were the dramatic tissue destructions that did not represent a wounding pattern that I have seen with any other bullet type. Fully anesthetized hog comparative thoracic cavity and then rear appendage impacts were conducted with both “conventional duty ammunition” and the Le Mas AP law enforcement/military ammunition. The study was a matched cohort, following published guidelines of live animal use, i.e., appropriate anesthetics and animal care from a research point of view. Two board certified veterinarians were on-site ensuring the appropriate treatment of these animals. The wounds were remarkable in that both the Le Mas rifle and handgun rounds caused significantly more injury than ‘expected’, as I have seen in my practice. As an example, both the expectation for known/predictable permanent and temporary cavities with a 9mm or .45acp bullet performance depending on solid or hollow organ hits was not appreciated with the Le Mas ammunition but was with conventional JHP ammunition. The Le Mas round wounds were devastating in that it appeared that a high powered fragmenting rifle round were used when in fact it was a handgun round used to cause the injury. Large temporary cavity injuries were noted similar to wounds demonstrated with high powered rifle rounds that were not accurately predicted from conducted impacts into 10% calibrated ballistic gelatin tissue simulant. None of the 9mm, .45, or 5.56 Le Mas armor piercing bullet impacts over penetrated thoracic cavity or rear appendages of the animals while conventional duty ammunition did over penetrate the animals. The Le Mas 5.56 AP bullet thoracic cavity tissue dissection additionally showed the heart of the hog, hard to the touch in areas that appeared not directly hit by the bullet fragments. There was obvious evidence of heart muscle hemorrhagic contusion (a severe bruise) which was not demonstrated from comparative point of impact current military 5.56 rifle ammunition designs. The Le Mas thoracic cavity handgun bullet impacts showed both small and large lung bullae (surface bubbles) that are usually only seen with a blast injury or high velocity rifle bullet fragmentations. The armor piercing, Limited Penetration 5.56 rounds performed as designed in both armor and tissue. They penetrated the 3/8th inch HAA armor yet still had expected effects in non armored live target tissues (Figures 1-9). It was surprising to me to see the wounding effects the rounds maintained after passing through armor plating. The effects were similar same for handgun or rifle rounds; this keeps our military with comparable lethality if the transition to the sidearm is necessary. The overall safety of no pass through during CQB operations should keep our troops safer during these challenging missions. PLEASE REFER TO REFERENCED PICTURES LISTED AS “FIGURE #” Figures 1 & 2. LeMas SRAP 5.56. Significant tissue injury: heart, lungs, chest wall. No over penetration. Figure 3. LeMas SRAP 5.56. Multiple wound channels, same animal. Figure 4. Same animal showing significant heart injury with extensive hemorrhagic contusion and missing tissue. Figure 5. M-262 5.56 77 grain OTM ammunition. Definable permanent cavity with minimal injury away from the bullet’s track. No heart injury with wound channel just behind the heart. (+) over penetration with pass through of bullet.
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910
Threaded Mode
