Documented risks of SOB carry

Status
Not open for further replies.
David Armstrong, I have to agree with you on your post. It is probably the most intelligent thing said here.
I peeked into this thread because i carry SOB occasionally and though it might be useful, boy was i wrong. II have been advised if you have anything right on your spine you have more of a chance to get injured. I carry with the muzzle at the 5:30 position because it is more comfortable. Nothing is in direct contact with my spine.

I think a bunch of trolls took this thread over with there "ultimate wisdom" and turned this into a p*ssing match, PBP.
 
In fact, I don't carry SOB. I merely asked for this documentation that is so readily available.
Click to expand...

You're the only person in this thread who talks about readily available documentation... Nobody claims there is any, everybody just tries to explain why/that it is in fact dangerous to carry SOB.
 
Silvanus, that isn't true. I started this thread because it was a direct quote from several other threads, one of which was already linked to in this thread, and the other is currently on the first page about CCW while riding a motorcycle. Multiple people in each thread, including the same ones that have posted here, said, and I quote, "it is well documented" that SOB carry can cause spinal cord injury.

That is why I asked for it.
 
Seems like this question is alot like the "8 rounds is not enough" or "is 9mm enough gun" or "I only carry when I expect trouble"

Anybody who pretends that carrying something hard on the base of their spine CAN'T cause injury is a fool. Anybody who thinks that carrying something hard on the base of their spine is GOING TO ABSOLUTELY (or frankly, that it's even likely to) cause injury is equally foolish. Seriously, since you were like 2 years old, how many times have you fallen on your spine? Yep, sometimes 9mm is not enough, sometimes 8 rounds is not enough and we should understand that trouble is uninvited. The instances of SOB injuries are real and rare. Both things can be true at the same time.

One more example, I've known people who were told after a car accident that they were lucky that they were NOT wearing their seatbelt. Does that make seat belts bad? NO, many more have been killed because their weren't wearing than because they were, but try convincing those few "lucky" ones.
 
Last edited:
Gentlemen, if you fall on your back period. You stand a good chance of spine injury. I am proof of that for 17 years. Back Surgery and pain management gets me through each day. I still carry SOB and have been for 40 years and by the way was not carrying at the time I injured my back. But I don't know, I guess if your pron to falling a lot you shouldn't carry that way. :rolleyes:
 
i carry SOB with a bladetech UCH holster, it is like a flat plate across my spine.

i have been in several motorcycle wrecks, sliding on my back several times.

i have also tumbled down a long flight of icy stairs, still no injury to sob.

it is a very comfortable way to carry, and it is probably the easiest way to conceal as well.

my bladetech uch makes pointing the muzzle at myself nearly impossible as well.
 
For those of us silly enough to get professional degrees - we know that there exist medical and safety databases that can be easily referenced. I'm sure that searching on back, spine, injuries, police, guns, etc. would come up with cases or not.

Thus, instead of arguing about who is the king of Canada or the lord of chiropractors - get thee to a library, use Google scholar, medline, safetylit or similar resources.

Or strap on an IWB on one side, a SOB, an OWB on the other and Thunderwear and then fall down the stairs. :D

BTW, I have fallen down a flight of stairs - not that pleasant.
 
Info on back injurys:



http://www.sci-info-pages.com/facts.html

More:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/spinal-cord-injury/DS00460/DSECTION=causes

This one states:

"Common causes of spinal cord injury
The most common causes of spinal cord injury in the United States are:

Motor vehicle accidents. Auto and motorcycle accidents are the leading cause of spinal cord injuries, accounting for almost 50 percent of new spinal cord injuries each year.
Acts of violence. About 15 percent of spinal cord injuries result from violent encounters, often involving gunshot and knife wounds.
Falls. Spinal cord injury after age 65 is most often caused by a fall. Overall, falls make up approximately 22 percent of spinal cord injuries.
Sports and recreation injuries. Athletic activities such as impact sports and diving in shallow water cause about 8 percent of spinal cord injuries.
Diseases. Cancer, infections, arthritis and inflammation of the spinal cord also cause spinal cord injuries each year."



It is not much of a jump to go to these factors being amplified by putting something hard on the spine be it hand cuffs, gun or buck knife.

I know it is not the exact info but makes it easy to make the leap.

My guess would be that it does not matter where you carry it is likely to cause you harm.

SOB = possible injury to spine
On hip = possible injury to hip
IWB front no holser = Ask Plaxico Burress
Carry kidney = Possible kidney damage if hit right
Left @ home in safe = need it and do not have it.

We are all adults here, we understand the risks and accept the consiquenses of those risks.

In defence of the OP he just wanted to know if any one had any proof/evidence they could cite. No different than in a court of law. If you can provide this proof it makes you case more powerful. At no time did I see the OP state that SOB was a good idea and he even states that he does not carry in this position if he carrys at all.

When an Anti wants to make the case it is on emotion rather than statistics or proof. If the truth is on your side argue the truth, if the facts are on your side argue the facts. If neither is on you side create confusion.
 
Ive been a critical care nurse for about 10 years so my own opinion is not based on reading but rather practical experience in the ED and ICU.

While I would concede that a large metal object at the base of the spine could indeed cause a paralytic event to occur, it would take a rather unusual force both in size and direction to to cause such an injury.

The spinal cord proper end at around L1-L2 and from there it becomes a segmented structure called the cauda equina or "horses tail". An injury there could cause definite damage but probably not paralysis on a scale that you would see in a lumbar or cervical injury. Of course SOB carry is different for everyone since the height of the weapon in the sitting position would be different for every person so its pretty hard to extrapolate out to the general population to any accurate degree.

I'm not saying it can't happen. What I am saying is that if there is enough force to cause such an injury then there is likely enough force to kill you in about a dozen other, more likely, ways such as head injury, true SCI, blunt force trauma, bleeding etc etc.

Of course there is a natural and simple way to avoid it if you are worried about it. Use another method of carry. Just my thoughts. :)
 
The OP asked for "documented evidence." Most of us do not have ready access to that sort of information. However, I did find one article from a professional journal which stated in part:
Officers should avoid placing hard objects (typically handcuffs) on the lumbar spine. In case of a fall, the spine could be injured severely by the handcuffs or similar objects. They also could create back pain from constant pressure on the lower back while sitting in a car. It is recommended that a soft pouch (eg, containing latex gloves) be placed over the lumbar spine.
Click to expand...
Fabrice Czarnecki and Ira Janowitz, "Ergonomics and Safety in Law Enforcement," Clinics In Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 3, Issue 3, Pages 399-417 (August 2003), excerpted and retrieved from http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Czarnecki/ergonomics_and_safety_in_law_enforcement.htm


Now, the publicly available excerpt does not list any case studies or other "documented evidence." However, I would hope that someone writing for a professional medical journal would have some data to back up those conclusions and recommendations.

I do not know what the OP's definition of "documented evidence" is, but it seems that this thread revealed several instances which might fit the bill.

  1. From luvsasmith, "I know a former Fairfield,OH Police Officer who was put on disability because he fell backwards onto his handcuff case. It caused nerve damage around his spine and he could no longer function as a Police Officer."
  2. From PBP, "Our next door neighbor is an LEO on disability because he fell and his leg fold up behind him and he landed spine first on the heel of his own shoe."
  3. From Fastbolt, "I've known the occasional cop who complained of pain after falling down with something similarly carried on a gun belt against the lower back."
  4. From Socrates, "Our local gunshop owner is still on crutches, lucky to be walking. He flipped his car, carrying a Glock center of back, and, his spinal cord was partially severed."
  5. From BikerRN (in another thread cited), "My Brother had a partner that carried his Handcuffs SOB. The day came when a felon picked him up and threw him down a flight of stairs. Twenty years later he is lucky to be able to walk with the aide of a Walker.
  6. From Rantingredneck, "When I had my accident my hunting pack was across my lower back. 18 ft fall onto it and I burst fractured L1."
Now, this is anecdotal evidence but anecdotal evidence is called something else in medicine -- case studies. What is lacking is a full epidemiological study, but that doesn't mean the incidents mentioned in this thread are worthless. When you consider these and similar incidents and use a little bit of common sense, the most logical conclusion is that carrying in the small of back increases the risk of lower back injury in a fall involving that area of the body.

Now, this doesn't mean someone carrying SOB will be injured every time they fall. I have quite literally cheated death at least four times. In one, I was flung out the passenger window of a car that flipped and landed on top of me. I did not have a single broken bone. Yet, statistically and by common sense, I was more likely to be injured because I was not wearing a seat belt.
 
I'm with PBP here. (Post #2) as well as JohnKSA in later posts.

A more productive post would be for you to find it and let us know. As a doctor, you will have a better idea of where to find this information that we will.

The one example I saw was an internet story, may or may not be true, of a Russian motorcyclist who crashed with a backpack on. He had a can of coke in the backpack, which broke his back and made him a parapalegic when he landed on it.

That is enough for me not to carry things against my back while riding. Smart motorcyclists know they're at higher risk of being hurt or maimed without, so they eliminate as many possibilities as they can.

Good luck, and I hope we don't read a sad story about you in the future. :(
 
Last edited:
KyJim, thanks for that.

I searched pub med, and googled, and I couldn't find any decent examples. Yet, people often talk about the risks being "well documented." I thought that there must be something that I was missing.

I am not trying to dismiss completely examples of someone personally known, I was just hoping that there was better evidence than that. Like I said, SOB might slightly increase the risk of spinal cord injury, I was just wondering what that increase would be.

The only problem with case studies (which is why they are considered one of the lower levels of evidence) is that they are one example with no type of control. Many of the examples given seem to implicate whatever was carried SOB, but it is also mentioned, almost offhand, that the person fell 18 feet, or was thrown down stairs, or fell with their leg bent enough that they landed on the heel of a shoe (which is probably at least twice as thick as most guns). I personally don't know of any way of telling whether the injury in those examples would have been less severe if there wouldn't have been something SOB.

I can imagine examples of falling where having something SOB would increase the risk of spinal cord injury, I just think the likelihood of that type of a fall happening are small enough so as to not influence my decision one way or the other. We all take risks knowingly (or unknowingly) all the time without thinking twice about it (like getting in a car, or a plane, etc). I think that maybe, at least for me, the risk of spinal cord injury from SOB carry isn't enough to factor into the decision. There are more important things to worry about. That said, I don't carry SOB, but it isn't for fear of spinal cord injury.
 
That link to another thread on SOB carry was interesting. A good example, thanks for that. As a side note, the person who was trying to impress everyone with his "medical knowledge" (who is an MD, by the way) is completely wrong with what he said in that thread. That he was wrong is documented, and can easily be referenced, but hey, he is an MD, so it must be correct
Click to expand...

I think this might be me :). I really wasn't trying to impress anyone, I was merely describing a worst case scenario. And while probably rare, the outcomes may be serious and significant enough (from spinal fracture to vertebral slippage, and possible cauda equina syndrome; and I forgot to add possible lumbosacral dislocation, again with possible nerve involvement, including paraplegia etc), that they make SOB carry not worth that risk in my opinion.

Hyperextension in the lower lumbar spine is a commonly understood mechanism behind both spinal fracture (e.g., lumbar spondylolysis) as well as lumbosacral dislocation.
Having a hard object overlying your lower lumbar spine will certainly increase the hyperextension moment in the lower back and clearly only serve to exacerbate the mechanism of injury. Therefore injury from being hit from behind onto the back by a hard tackle, a kick, or falling onto a curb can certainly be worsened by a hard object, such as a gun, overlying the spine. Additional nerve root or cauda involvement is not a predetermined outcome, but depending on the severity of the injury it can, and does, occur.

Best case scenario you get a bruise and a sprain/strain of your lumbar spine, but again, since there are safer alternatives to SOB carry, why risk the potential worst case scenarios that may be associated with SOB carry. And by the way even “just” a spinal fracture without nerve involvement is still in my opinion an obviously unacceptable risk to SOB carry (pain, possible spinal instability, increased future degenerative changes in the spine, future nerve involvement, possible need for spinal fusion etc). I wouldn’t even accept “just” a simple spinous process fracture, offered by the OP as some sort of inconsequential outcome associated with SOB carry. I think it is just simpler to keep the gun in a less risky position, personally. If you are some secret agent man and have to carry SOB, well you might decide to risk it, and that’s fine. I for one, having the perspective of having done Spinal Cord Injury as part of my training, have decided that it is probably not worth it for most, even though the possible risk might be small, again due to the fact that the range of possible injuries can extend into the very serious range, as far as I’m concerned.

As far as documentation goes: just because no cases have been documented doesn’t mean that no cases exist; they simply might not have been documented yet. Usually traumatic spine fractures, and spinal cord injuries associated therewith are simply reported as “SCI secondary to traumatic spinal fracture”, or something similar. To find out the exact mechanism of the injury one would have to do a chart review.

I think the reason why no researcher has looked at this is because the potential theoretical risk is so high, and the solution so simple (to simply not carry SOB), that it would be considered a waste of resources to study this issue. Perhaps some cadaveric studies would be useful, where one can put a gun onto the lumbar spine and deliver blows of various strengths to the lumbar spine, and compare the injuries produced to blows sans gun/object. But again, I don’t think you’ll have anyone funding this type of research since it is simply easier to not carry anything overlying the small of the back.

I am not a surgeon and it would be interesting to hear from a spine surgeon on this topic, however in my opinion as a rehabilitation, sports, musculoskeletal and interventional spine physician the cost/benefit analysis as applied to most people does not favor SOB carry, even though the potential catastrophic sequelae associated with SOB carry are admittedly rare. But on the other hand it is also rare to be kicked in the back or to fall onto a curb, but if it does happen, I think that you would be glad not to have your gun carried SOB.

But it’s your back, and you can treat it accordingly.
 
Just to further confuse the issue, back in the 1970s when I was on the street many, if not most, patrol officers wore their cuffs SOB, often two pair in separate cases. The reason? It gave better lumbar support while you were driving around, thus reducing back injury and it provided some protection for your lower back during fights. How times change!
 
Just to further confuse the issue...
Click to expand...
I'm curious... What would be the point of that?
I've also known an officer who carried OWB and ruptured his gut when he got slammed against a loading dock on the pistol side. Yet we don't hear about how dangerous carrying OWB is.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's because people don't permanently lose the use (or partial use) of their lower extremities when they suffer an intestinal injury. Or maybe it's just that the gun community is heavily biased against SOB carry and has made up and propagated the rumor that it's dangerous purely for that reason.
How times change!
Click to expand...
In 3 decades? I would hope so...

30 years ago officers were still reloading their guns with loose rounds from dump pouches and it wasn't unusual for police departments to forbid the use of autopistols or even speedloaders for revolvers.

Oh for the good old days... :rolleyes:
 
I'm curious... What would be the point of that?
Click to expand...
The point is at least 2-fold. One, lots of cops used to carry things SOB and it didn't seem to be much of a problem. Two, fads come and go. Right now the fad is "SOB bad, don't do it", back then the fad was "SOB good, do it."
Maybe it's because people don't permanently lose the use (or partial use) of their lower extremities when they suffer an intestinal injury.
Click to expand...
Of course not. They suffer other rather nasty and long term injuries. Of course most people who fall when carrying SOB also don't permanently lose the use (or partial use) of their lower extremities either, so it is sort of a moot point.
Or maybe it's just that the gun community is heavily biased against SOB carry and has made up and propagated the rumor that it's dangerous purely for that reason.
Click to expand...
I've never seen this "heavily biased" perspective. It is a perspective, and one with many supporters. The other perspective (SOB carry is not much different from other modes and the worry is over-rated) also has many supporters. The gun community is also known to have expreessed rather heavy biases over many things that later turn out to be of little or no consequence, BTW.
30 years ago officers were still reloading their guns with loose rounds from dump pouches and it wasn't unusual for police departments to forbid the use of autopistols or even speedloaders for revolvers.
Click to expand...
And they managed to get the job done without much difference than we see today, and if LE went back to revolvers it wouldn't change the qualityh of ability of LE much, if any.
 
I think it's one of those things that people in the industry have had enough cases, or maybe it's just Mas Ayoob trying to create another 'cause'. Don't know.

What I do know is one of my friends is a 1/4" from being in a wheel chair, due to center of back carry, and a little water and ice. I suspect that center of back, and driving accidents don't go well together.

30 years ago cocaine was a recreational drug, and, everyone was doing it, as well as pot, etc. Things change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top