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

[45 Dragoon]

I learned in crim. justice class (and saw pics) that the skin layer generally rips with a star pattern from the gas.

Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com

[James K]

The "star pattern" is from the rifling, and yes, such burn marks are sometimes seen in contact wounds.

There is an old story that to protect yourself against an opponent armed with a "45 ottomatik" you just push on the muzzle and the gun won't fire. I am seeking information from those who used this system and thereby saved their lives.

Jim

[Doc TH]

The injuries from the expanding gas in a contact gunshot wound are not trivial. The projectile, of course, causes greater injury via greater penetration, but cadaver tests have shown that contact shots to the thigh with pistol cartridge BLANKS (.38 and .45 cal.) will result in cavities in the underlying muscle measuring about 3 1/2 to 4 inches in diameter. When the contact is with the chest or abdomen, blanks will cause perforations of underlying organs such as lung, liver, bowel, etc. These types of injuries are additive to the effect of a projectile with gunshot contact wounds, and cause very significant difficulties in attempts at surgical treatment. We're not talking about greater skin injuries here. If you doubt, check it out in any textbook of forensic pathology.

[WC145]

If your self defense plan is to close with your attacker for a contact shot ..... that a bad plan, on so many levels, Legal being just one of them.

"Yes, Yer Honer, he pulled a knife and said he was going to kill me ....."

" ....... so you pulled your gun and charged him, is that right?"

So many of the personal defense classes teach "Create Distance", "Get Off the X", "Be a Moving Target" ......

Hoping, or even speculating, that a contact wound would be more hurtfull to an attacker is so far down the list of legitimate self defense priorities as to be laughable ...... there are far more important things to worry about.

Nobody has said that contact shots should pursued as your "go to" self defense plan, but you're being ignorant if you don't think that a situation could ever arise where a contact shot may be the only viable option.

I retired from LE last year and one of the things we'd trained on for the last few years was contact shots with our duty weapons - holding the slide in battery while pressing the gun into the target, firing, then racking the slide as we pulled away and following up with a double tap.

Nobody wants to be in a position where they are being overwhelmed in a physical assault but it happens. Your only option may be to shove your gun into an attacker and shoot to get them off you. Nothing wrong with a discussion about the hows and whys of a contact shot or training for the possibility.

[44 AMP]

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.

It seems we have two slightly different things being talked about here, under the term "tactic".

If you are talking about closing with an attacker, in order to obtain muzzle contact, that I would consider a particularly stupid idea.

What I was talking about was when the attacker has already closed with you, is in physical contact with you, and doing mayhem. AT THAT POINT, pushing the muzzle against them would seem advisable to me. NO martial artist, no matter what belt would be able to dodge that bullet. or at least so I believe at this time.


The powder gasses from a contact wound DO increase the amount of damage. How much varies, and whether or not it actually adds anything to stopping power is not quantifiable as far as I know.

[Mike Irwin]

"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."

What, black belts don't bleed?

[KyJim]

What, black belts don't bleed?

Chuck Norris, of course. He's so tough that bullets bleed when they hit him.

[Snyper]

He's so tough that bullets bleed when they hit him.

Superman will let bullets bounce off his chest, but ducks when you throw a gun at him.

Maybe we should just start throwing guns?

Evidently that does more damage

[jdscholer]

I think that many people have a preconceived notion of what a fight will be like.

Andrew, you nailed it with this statement. It's pretty obvious that most folks have learned most of their self defense skills from watching their favorite TV hero. These skills go out the window pretty quick in an actual tussle.

Fights happen -- FAST!! It is indeed a fortunate person who has the time, instinct, and skills to successfully defend themselves from a premeditated or spontaneous attack. jd

[tangolima]

Contact shots may be risky for the shoot with autos. The slide goes back only slightly to disable the pistol.

-TL

[hdaackda]

nice video..

though I have a question.. I have a feeling if you fired from a little distance (2-3 inches), the bullet would have exited the ballisted gel and made it into the first jug.. I dont know if the science ads up.. will certainly try...

[Andrew Wiggin]

Possible. There's not likely to be much difference, though. These results are consistent with my earlier, more conventional testing of the same load.

[johnwilliamson062]

Ballistic gel is not a great model of human flesh. It is consistent and as such is used as a standard. What happens in ballistic gel is not what happens in your body.
I think this is one case where a hog would prove a better test subject.


Have you ever seen an injury resulting from a 135 PSI shop compressor being applied to an open wound? Its ugly. My understanding is it is also EXTREMELY painful.
Even a 38 special would be more pressure, although a low volume.

[Theohazard]

Retracted; I misunderstood the intent of the post I was responding to.

[manta49]

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.

[Double Naught Spy]

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.

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.

[44 AMP]

If you are getting that close ...

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.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Ballistic gel is not a great model of human flesh.

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

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.

[Double Naught Spy]

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

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.

[Andrew Wiggin]

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.

[Snyper]

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.

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

[SSA]

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.

[manta49]

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.

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.

[Andrew Wiggin]

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

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.

[R.Ph. 380]

Have you never heard a gun referred to as a "Belly Gun"