Poll: Wound ballistics scenario with a .22

I've been thinking about this some more and there is one thing that might make a difference.

If the bullet went through the eye and then through the skull at the back of the eye socket, that could result in a larger hole due to the geometry of the back of the eye socket.
The reason I am vague is I honestly do not want to bias anyone by speaking to the specific historical case this involves.
Click to expand...
Honestly, you've already dropped enough hints (all of which were completely irrelevant to determining an answer your specific question) to give a good idea of which case you're looking at.

You would have been far better off providing all the details necessary to get a good answer and dispensing with the extraneous hints and mystery/drama.
  • Where EXACTLY did the bullet impact the skull? (e.g. Temple, back of the eye socket, through one of the sinuses, forehead, behind the ear)
  • At what approximate angle did the bullet impact the skull? (e.g. Almost straight in, At a shallow angle, at about a 45 degree angle, at a slight upward angle.)
  • Did the bullet go through any other objects before it impacted the skull? (e.g. Yes--a piece of drywall, Yes--automobile glass, no)
  • Did the bullet ricochet off another surface before impacting the skull? (e.g. Yes, water, Yes, a piece of tile, no)
  • What type of .22LR ammo was used? (e.g. standard velocity, lead solid, lead hollowpoint, high velocity, Minimag hollowpoint.)
  • What was the approximate age and physical condition of the victim? (e.g. 80 years old and ill, late teens, early 40s and healthy)
  • Was the victim alive/freshly dead at the time of the shooting, or could the shot to the skull have occurred many days or months after death? (e.g. Dead and skeletonized at the time of the shooting, alive at the time of the shooting)
  • Was the wound examined for the autopsy exactly as it was after the shooting, or did the victim receive medical care which could have resulted in the condition of the wound being altered in the course of treatment? (e.g. Victim died at the scene--the wound was untouched, victim died in the ambulance--wound was untouched, victim survived for about a day--wound was potentially enlarged by surgeons cleaning out bullet and bone fragments.
 
Od things happen. I did notice a larger than expected hole in a paper target when I was shooting a 22 derringer. The base of the bullet flared some and upped bullet diameter to .280 or so. Isn't 2 centimeters an inch and a half?
 
Last edited:
2 cm is approximately .800", slightly larger than 3/4" (.750").
Click to expand...
Ok, I will say up front that in this post I will be exhibiting bad manners and be something of a jerk, but I'm also going go ahead with it. My apologies to Scorch in advance. :o

It would be completely correct to write that:

2 cm is approximately .8", slightly larger than 3/4" (.750").

However, stating the number to three decimal places as in the original quote implies that the number is accurate to three decimal places. If the desire is to provide an answer to three decimal places, a better way to do it would be to calculate the actual value and then round so that it is correct to three decimal places. That would look like this:

2 cm is approximately .787", slightly larger than 3/4" (.750").
 
Ok, I will say up front that in this post I will be exhibiting bad manners and be something of a jerk, but I'm also going go ahead with it. My apologies to Scorch in advance.
Click to expand...
You are right, it is pedantic. No apology needed.:)
stating the number to three decimal places as in the original quote implies that the number is accurate to three decimal places
Click to expand...
I agree. But it was written without doing calculations, about .040" to a millimeter, times 20, you get the picture. And to tell me that it is inaccurate is accurate, but it is much closer to .800" than to .750". By a factor of 3:1.

Enough nitpicking. I was just trying to contribute to the conversation.
 
Micro distances are usually considered inconsequential considerations in all but the most pedantic of wound size considerations. For those most afflicted, it is a pedantasy come true, particularly given the lack of uniformity of would shapes.
 
In 2004 I was shot with a 22 LR pistol, from about 6 feet away , the bullet entered right side head , 1" below temple and bullet transversed from right to left .
Entrance wound was not 2 cm (3/4") not even close ... 22 cal diameter hole maybe a little larger like .225" but not much larger at all . The bullet was a hollow point , it fragmented and I stll carry bullet fragments in my head , jaw and mouth area . One large fragment , the bullt base , was removed from under my tongue . But No exit wounds at all .
One long term affect ... before the shooting I could whistle real good ... now I can't whistle any more ... isn't that weird ?
Gary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top