What happens when you press a gun into an attacker's body?

A

Andrew Wiggin

New member
I've heard people say that when a handgun is fired against a person's body, that the expanding gases seriously complicate the wound. I tested the theory with a S&W 638.


Link to video of test







Spoiler:










BB: 586.5 fps, 3.2"

Impact velocity: approximately 900 fps
Penetration: 14.1"
Retained weight: 134.5gr
Max expansion: 0.554"
Min expansion: 0.426"


It definitely tore up the clothing pretty well and added a lot of powder particles to the wound, but it doesn't look like the wound is any worse than normal.

Would the results be different with a magnum? What about a rifle or shotgun? Were there just not enough gasses from the .38 spl to be a factor?
 
The entry point of a contact/near contact gunshot wound (without intervening clothing) appears differently than those further away. And a shot touching and through clothing effects how the entry wound to the body itself looks. This is often important forensic information when investigating deaths by gunshot.
 
A very interesting test, for sure.
The force of the bullet would expected to be about the same as if the gun was the usual self defense distance of say 3 to 5 yards.
But additional damage from the muzzle blast, flame and powder burns could be expected to add to the misery.
And the bigger the blast, probably the worse it would be.
Just guesstimating, of course.
 
What happens when you press a gun into an attacker's body?
Click to expand...

A: It depends on the gun. Some semiautos can be held out of battery when muzzle is pressed against someone/thing.

I tested the theory with a S&W 638.
Click to expand...

Not a theory. Observed results for centuries is not a theory.

And a shot touching and through clothing effects how the entry wound to the body itself looks. This is often important forensic information when investigating deaths by gunshot.
Click to expand...

Entirely true, and something that hopefully all modern ME's know, but even in this day and age, incorrect conclusions are still made, and do get into the official reports.
 
gwhillikers is right. The expanding gasses at contact distance will increase tissue damage significantly. Just look at some autopsy photo's.
 
There are a great many variables when dealing with wounds from a contact shot, things such as point of the contact shot, bare skin, clothing and how heavy, soft tissue or hard (like the skull), angle of muzzle ect.. Characteristically a contact shot will carry (for want of a better phrase)most of the stuff other than just the bullet into the wound usually leaving a soot mark from the powder burn and residue, and on bare skin there is often an imprint of the muzzle left. Contact wound often do not look as bad on the surface as do near standoff wounds do due to lack of clear area for the gasses and residue to spread over a wider external area.
(If you need pictures I'm sure you can find them online somewhere. I still have some of my old textbooks with them but have no desire to post them.)
 
The "observed results" appear to have been exaggerated, based on the test results. While out is fairly well known that contact gunshot wounds can result in complications due to the gases, that effect seems to be dependent on the amount of gases (obviously). Claims that a .38 snubby will inflate a guy's belly appear to be absolutely incorrect.


As for YouTube revenue, there seems to be a perception out there that posting a video makes the bucks roll in. I spend about 8 hours on each test, when everything is said and done and I have spent a fair amount of money on the gelatin, fuel, ammo, and I even bought a camera just for the purpose. For all that, I earned about a hundred dollars over the course of a year. That means that doing this COSTS me money. I do it because I enjoy it and because I think it is useful and entertaining. If you don't like it or you suspect my motives, I recommend that you refrain from bumping my threads.
 
For all that, I earned about a hundred dollars over the course of a year. That means that doing this COSTS me money.
Click to expand...
The videos will keep bringing in money as long as they stay on the site attracting viewers

If you don't like it or you suspect my motives, I recommend that you refrain from bumping my threads.
Click to expand...
I don't care one way or the other
It's simply a statement of fact that Youtube generates revenue, which is why many like to share them
 
I really hope, for your sake, that the
BG never gets that close! That's a
Bad storm rising.
Click to expand...
I agree...it begs the question: Why would anyone attempt to employ that tactic? It seems like an ingenious solution to a none existent problem.
 
it begs the question: Why would anyone attempt to employ that tactic?
Click to expand...

Why? desperation comes to mind as a reason.

And in such a desperate situation, it may not be the worst tactic to use. It may even be the only one available.

Pressing the muzzle against your attacker's body, assuming you have a gun that will fire when you do this, is the ONE method that ensures you will not miss.

It does NOT guarantee you will hit something vital, but the odds are good, and face it, if you are in that situation, you really cannot wait for a better shot.

The most likely situation where one would shove the gun against an attacker is when you are down, and they are on top of you, trying to blend your head into the pavement, or some other life threatening violence.

I'm sure there are other scenarios, but this one comes to mind first. And, they do happen. The Zimmerman case is one recently well publicized example (for political reasons) but there have been numerous other somewhat similar sitations over the years, and there will be some in the future, count on that.

A couple years before the Zimmerman case, opposite end of the country (Seattle) a CPL holder was drinking his coffee at an outdoor café table, when he was (blindsided) attacked knocked to the ground and was being beaten until he was able to draw and fire. The attacker (who was killed) turned out to be a homeless man, and no reason for the attack was ever determined.

Now, I have no idea if the muzzle was pressed against the attacker in these situations, but these are the kind of situations where I would do that, if it were me. I am 100% confident that my Colt snubnose .38 would fire with the muzzle pushed against an attackers body. In that exact situation, my 1911 might not.
 
44 AMP, Nevertheless, the issue central to this thread is not that it is a viable tactic or not, the O.P. was concerned as to the possible increased wounding effect which implies some merit as a tactic.

Also, if employed as a tactic, I can but wonder about its use against a person with a black belt in one of the martial arts.

Further, if the discussion here establishes that it increases stopping power significantly, would it encourage some to attempt such? A purely academic discussion can result in encouraging someone to attempt a dubious action.
 
I think that many people have a preconceived notion of what a fight will be like.


One should try to avoid trouble if at all possible. You should be aware of your surroundings and take actions to avoid a confrontation before it starts. If you're doing a good job at this, it is likely that if you ever actually do need your gun, it will be because you were attacked without warning. By the time you clear leather, you have already been punched, stabbed, or hit with a brick and there is a sweaty pile of bad guy on top of you.
 
44 AMP, Nevertheless, the issue central to this thread is not that it is a viable tactic or not, the O.P. was concerned as to the possible increased wounding effect which implies some merit as a tactic.
Click to expand...
I didn't see any"implications" at all

I just saw discussion about what happens when a gun is discharged while in contact with flesh.

No one even remotely suggested it should be tried intentionally
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top