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

The idea of a handgun is so you can deal with a threat from a distance. If you are getting that close you might as well have a club or a knife etc. Getting that close is a bad idea as you are giving them the opportunity to take the firearm of you, plus as already posted it can cause semi / auto handguns to malfunction, so its a bad idea for all sorts of reasons, I would see it as irrelevant if it does more damage or not.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, getting attacked is a bad idea. Wait. We don't usually choose to get attacked. As such, we usually don't choose to get that close to the attacker. That is the attacker's choice.

So whether or not you think it is a bad because the gun isn't being used in an ideal concept manner (distance) isn't relevant to most defensive situations. People are beaten, stabbed, raped, tackled, and usually mugged at contact distances.
 
If you are getting that close ...
Click to expand...

I'd like to be clear on this, I read "if you are getting that close", as meaning you are the one moving to close on them.

A lot of people might consider that an attack. Your previous legal status (justified self defense) could be changed instantly to an illegal aggressive act.

In that context, I fully agree that closing with your attacker is a BAD IDEA. Not only does it increase your physical risk, it increases your legal risk, and may be the determining factor is whether or not the authorities determine if it was a good shoot, a questionable one, or a criminal act!

The opposite situation is what we are talking about, when they have closed to contact with you, despite anything you did, or could do. And what happens if you shoot then. Two much different things, the only common thing being shooting at contact distance.
 
Ballistic gel is not a great model of human flesh.
Click to expand...


Actually, it is an excellent model of human flesh and correlates strongly with real bullet wounds.

"The IWBA published some of Gene Wolberg’s material from his study of San Diego PD officer involved
shootings that compared bullet performance in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin with the autopsy
results using the same ammunition. When I last spoke with Mr. Wolberg in May of 2000, he had
collected data on nearly 150 OIS incidents which showed the majority of the 9mm 147 gr bullets
fired by officers had penetrated 13 to 15 inches and expanded between 0.60 to 0.62 inches in both
human tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin. Several other agencies with strong, scientifically based
ammunition terminal performance testing programs have conducted similar reviews of their shooting
incidents with much the same results--there is an extremely strong correlation between properly
conducted and interpreted 10% ordnance gelatin laboratory studies and the physiological effects of
projectiles in actual shooting incidents." - Dr. Roberts



"The test of the wound profiles validity is how accurately they portray the projectile-tissue
interaction observed in shots that penetrate the human body. Since most shots in the human body
traverse various tissues, we would expect the wound profiles to vary somewhat, depending on the
tissues traversed. However, the only radical departure has been found to occur when the
projectile strikes bone: this predictably deforms the bullet more than soft tissue, reducing its
overall penetration depth, and sometimes altering the angle of the projectile's course. Shots
traversing only soft tissues in humans have shown damage patterns of remarkably close
approximation to the wound profiles.

The bullet penetration depth comparison, as well as the similarity in bullet deformation and yaw
patterns, between human soft tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin have proven to be consistent and
reliable. Every time there appeared to be an inconsistency a good reason was found and when the
exact circumstances were matched, the results matched. The cases reported here comprise but a
small fraction of the documented comparisons which have established 10% ordnance gelatin as a
valid tissue simulant." - Dr. Fackler
Click to expand...



It is likely NOT a good facsimile in this instance, though. Real flesh is composed of layers of different types of tissue and the gasses could expand out along these boundary layers, separating them. Real flesh (with the exception of brain and liver tissue) is also far more elastic than gelatin so if anything, the gelatin might show exaggerated wounding from stretching. There are far too many variables to control for informal testing such as mine and you're right in the sense that this demonstration can do no more than give a very rough approximation of what those gasses might do in tissue.


If there is enough interest, I might try again with a .44 mag, .223 rifle, or other firearm.
 
Actually, it is an excellent model of human flesh and correlates strongly with real bullet wounds.
Click to expand...

While I appreciate your quote, it is NOT an excellent model of human flesh, unless you just mean raw fat. It is used as a simulant and works well for basic ballistic pattern dynamics much like water, but visibly retains the bullet track and displacement, unlike water.

However, it is NOT an excellent model of human flesh, unless you are talking about fat. I can push my finger through ballistics gel, but not human flesh such as muscle, skin, spleen, liver, kidneys, heart, etc. I can break a block of ballistics gel in half, but not human flesh. Gel is uniform (if done correctly). Human flesh is not.

It is not a model of human flesh and is only used to model ballistic performance through human flesh. There is a difference.
 
I hope you'll pardon me for valuing the opinions and findings of doctors Fackler and Roberts over yours. It's not personal, of course.
Click to expand...
It may be similar to a single type of flesh, but it's nothing at all like shooting a human body with bones and clothing

It's only good for comparison of penetration in soft tissue, and hasn't revealed much new data since Fackler did it decades ago
 
I was glad to see this test. Not quite the gaping entrance wound I've read about. I hope you repeat it with a 357 magnum and a 44 magnum.
 
Well, yes, getting attacked is a bad idea. Wait. We don't usually choose to get attacked. As such, we usually don't choose to get that close to the attacker. That is the attacker's choice.

So whether or not you think it is a bad because the gun isn't being used in an ideal concept manner (distance) isn't relevant to most defensive situations. People are beaten, stabbed, raped, tackled, and usually mugged at contact distances.
Click to expand...
I am sure there are few situations where you can not get the firearm at least an inch or so from the attacker, if you can't then you have no choice to shoot with the firearm in contact with the attacker. But that would be because you had no other choice, I can't think of anything other reason to do it intentionally.
 
It may be similar to a single type of flesh, but it's nothing at all like shooting a human body with bones and clothing

It's only good for comparison of penetration in soft tissue, and hasn't revealed much new data since Fackler did it decades ago
Click to expand...

Did you even read the quote? Wound tracks don't actually differ much even when different types of soft tissue are involved. It is true that gelatin does not simulate bone, but because bones are round and vary in thickness, there really can't be a standardized medium to simulate bone.

As for "new data", you're only reinforcing my point. Nothing has substantively changed since Dr. Fackler's comprehensive work.



That said, I do agree that gelatin is at the very least less than ideal for measuring the "performance" of gasses in tissue and may bear very little correlation to real tissue. Some of the folks on other forums whose opinions I value a great deal have speculated that it might provide a very rough approximation at best.
 
As for "new data", you're only reinforcing my point. Nothing has substantively changed since Dr. Fackler's comprehensive work.
Click to expand...
Exactly

Gelatin is still gelatin, and the recent tests show nothing we don't already know
 
I will admit to not reading every post in thread, but I am surprised about all the negative feedback to such a test, or to be discussed as a tactic. anyone could be surprised and end up with someone on top of them. it could be me, my wife or anyone, I wouldn't WANT to deploy this as a "tactic", but I see situations where it may be the only option. think zimmerman type situation.
 
"It may be similar to a single type of flesh, but it's nothing at all like shooting a human body with bones and clothing"

And yet, it is, by a WIDE margin, the single best material there is for predicting how bullets will behave in human flesh, and in fact shows rather dramatic fidelity for actual bullet performance, so much so that it's now the international testing standard.

So, it really doesn't matter if a 100% carbon copy of hair, fat, muscle, bone, and denim.

What matters is that it makes bullets do very much the same thing as if they were hitting hair, fat, muscle, bone, and denim.
 
"Gelatin is still gelatin, and the recent tests show nothing we don't already know?"

What?

I'm sorry, but that's rather incomprehensible.

The fidelity of gelatin testing vs actual shootings has been proven time and time again over the last 20 years.

What more do you want out of such testing?

The phone number from your 8th grade crush?

Whether life exists on other planets?
 
Penetration, expansion, yaw, etc.

Neither of which are what a contact shot is supposed to increase. The velocity difference from three feet to 3mm is going to be insignificant. What is interesting is whether that pressure from behind the bullet is doing anything.

Remember the guy who jokingly shot himself in the head with a blank?
Not too long ago I think I read about someone stepped in front of an old field cannon being fired ceremoniously and was seriously injured/killed. There is a lot of force even without any lead.
 
The fidelity of gelatin testing vs actual shootings has been proven time and time again over the last 20 years.

What more do you want out of such testing?
Click to expand...
You just repeated my point.

All the Youtubes of gelatin tests aren't showing us anything we didn't already know.
 
I didn't know the 180 grain Remington SJHP would get close to 1200 fps and perfect expansion when fired from a 4" 357 revolver, until I saw it on youtube.
 
So, once again...

What more do you want out of such (gelatin) testing given that you seem to be incredibly dismissive of it.

What do you THINK it should be telling us that it's not?
 
So, once again...

What more do you want out of such (gelatin) testing given that you seem to be incredibly dismissive of it.

What do you THINK it should be telling us that it's not?
Click to expand...
There's nothing it can tell us that hasn't been done before

This really shouldn't be that hard to understand

I'm sorry it seems to be confusing you
 
All the Youtubes of gelatin tests aren't showing us anything we didn't already know.
Click to expand...
Sort of, but not really. There is lot of bullet technology that wasn't on the market 20 years ago.
Gelatin tests are great, but I am just not sure they measure the effect of introducing high pressure gas into the wound very well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top