WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW€¦ · Wound Ballistics Research of the Past 20 Years: A Giant Step...

$20.00

http://www.iwba.com

International Wound Ballistics Association

WOUND BALLISTICS

REVIEW JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION

Citizen Injuries from Law Enforcement Impact Mu11itions: Evidence from the Field -David Klingt:r -Ken Hubbs

Comments on Impact Munitio11s -Duncan MacPherson

12 Gauge Beanbag Fatality Risk Investigation -Duncan MacPherson -Doreen Hudson -Richard Maruoka

Editorial note on the "Less than Lethal" Concept -Marlin L. Fackler

Preliminary Evaluation of.357 Sig JHP Bullets Intended for Law Enforcement Duty -Gary Roberts

Wound Ballistics Research of the Past 20 Years: A Giant Step Backwards -Martin L. Fackler

VOLUME 4 FALL 2000 NUMBER 4

I I

I N F O R M AT I O N F O R A UT H O R S

The Wound Ballistics Review welcomes manuscripts, articles, short notes and letters to the editor that contribute to the science of wound ballistics. Publication preference will lean strongly toward pertinent papers with clear practical applications. We invite cogent reviews of articles, books, news items, etc. Our goal is to commend good documentation as well as to point out the errors in the wound ballistics literature. The Wound Ballistics Review especially requests our readers' help in submitting short reviews which correct errors noted in the literature.

The review of all manuscripts reporting original work will be open; the names of reviewers will be given to authors of rejected papers and will be made available upon request to anyone.

Articles are accepted only for exclusive publication in IWBA, and when published, the articles and illustrations become the property of IWBA.

If submitting a letter or review which refutes or points out errors in another work, please provide the address of the source (please include a copy of the article reviewed-these will be returned if requested) .

In submitting original work, the manuscript and one copy are required; one set of high quality illustrations is required; black and white is preferred. Author's name must be clearly identified on the title page with addresses and telephone number. Manuscript must be double-spaced with ample margins (at least one inch on all sides) on standard (8 112" x 1 1 ") paper. NOTE: THE PREFERRED MANUSCRIPT FORM IS THE 3 112" ( 1.44 Meg or 720K) PC FLOPPY DISK WITH THE TEXT FILE AND A HARD COPY. Most major PC word processing files are acceptable but WordPerfect or Microsoft Word are preferred. (Please convert files to WordPerfect 5.1 or 6.0, or to Word for Windows 3.0--2000.) PLEASE DO NOT PROVIDE COMPUTER TEXT WITH SPECIAL FONTS OR LAYOUTS: PLAIN: SIMPLE TEXT WITHOUT GRAPHICS OR MERGE FIELDS. Any graphs, tables, charts, etc. should be supplied as separate files and/or with a clean, high quality paper copy. Legends for all illustrations should be listed in order, double-spaced. An abstract of 150 words or less should precede the text.

References are to be numbered sequentially within the text and appear in the order cited at the conclusion of the article. Page numbers must be given in books, cited as references.

EXAMPLES: 1. Book: Broad W, Wade N, Betrayers of the Truth. New York,

Simon & Schuster, 1 982, p 192

2. Article in periodical: Fackler ML, Surinchak JS, Malinowski JA, et a!. Bullet fragmentation: A major cause of tissue disruption. J Trauma 1 984;24:263-266.

Articles submitted for publication consideration should be sent directly to the Editor-in-Chief: Dr. Martin L. Fackler, 211 Star Lake Drive, Hawthorne, FL 32640

WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION

VOLUME 4 FALL 2000 NUMBER 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Editorial ... ...... . .. . . . . . ...... . . .... . . . . . ... . ..... . .. . .. . . ... .... . .. . ... . .... . .. ... . . ... . ................ . . ... ....... . . .... · .. . . . · · . . · · · · .. · 3

Questions and Comments . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . . .. . .. . .. .. . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . . .. . . . .. . .. .. . 4

Citizen Injuries from Law Enforcement Impact Munitions:

Evidence from the Field........................................................................................................... 9 - D avid Klinger -Ken Hubbs

Comments on Impact Munitions . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . ..... . .. . .. . . ... . . . ... . ... . . .. ........... . . . . ......... .... .. . .. .. 14 -Duncan MacPherson

12 Gauge Beanbag Fatality Risk Investigation . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... .. .... . . . ... . .... . . . .... . . ... . .... .. ........... 16 - Duncan M acPherson -Doreen Hudson -Richard Maruoka

Editorial note on the "Less than Lethal" Concept . . . ......... . . . . .. . . ..... . . .... ............. . .... ... . . . ........... 31 -Martin L. Fackler

Preliminary Evaluation of.357 Sig JHP Bullets Intended for Law Enforcement Duty . . . ... . . 32 -Gary Roberts

Wound Ballistics Research of the Past 20 Years: A Giant Step Backwards . . ........ . . . .... . .. . . . ... 34 -Martin L. Fackler

Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Available Materials . . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . ... ..... . . ... . ... .. .... . . ... ....... ... ......... . ... . ... ... ... . 46

Volume 4, Issue 4 Fall 2000 1

I

2

.JOl!RNAL OF THE INTER�ATIONAL \VOliND HALLISTICS ASSOCIATION

IWBA ORGANIZATION The International Wound Ballistics Association (IWBA) is an IRS 501(c)(3) nonprofit

scientific, educational, and public benefit California corporation with Federal ID#943136817. The IWBA is devoted to the medical and techrical study of wound ballistics, including

evaluation of literature in the field as well as encouraging and promoting new work. The WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW is the Journal of the IWBA.

Board of Directors

Martin L. Fackler, MD Alexander Jason Torrey D. Johnson Wound Ballistics Consultant Ballistics Consultant Criminalist

Gainseville, FL Pinole, CA Las Vegas NV

Peter G. Kokalis Duncan MacPherson Richard Mason, MD Firearms Consultant Engineering Consultant Chief Medical Examiner

Phoenix, AZ El Segundo, CA Santa Cruz, CA

WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW Journal of the International Wound Ballistics Association

ISSN 1055-0305 ©Copyright 1995, IWBA. All Rights Reserved

Design & Production -Townsend Document & Design

The WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEWis issued twice a year. Subscriptions are included with membership, but are available without membership. Dues are $40 for 4 issues of the IWBA

Journal for both members and subscribers. Four issue mailing cost surcharges of$8. for Canadian and Mexican addresses and $18. for other foreign addresses are required with the dues.

All matters related to membership should be directed to: ---.M.� IWBA, PO Box 701, El Segundo, CA 90245-0701; Telephone (310) 640-6065. -or for information about the IWBA visit us on the web at

http://www.iwba.com

Fa/12000 Volume 4, Issue 4

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW E d i to ri a l

JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION

EDITORIAL Dr. Martin L. Fackler

IN MEMORIAM

EUGENE WOLBERG

1 947- 2000

On 26 May 2000, the IWBA suffered a great loss . Eugene Walberg died in his �leep of an apparent heart attack. Gene, a criminalist and deputy Sheriff from San Diego, has served as a member of our Board of Directors since the IWBA's inception. Gene's friends, those on his e-mail list, and those who own and use firearms will sorely miss his energetic struggle against the gun prohibitionists for the right to own and use firearms.

Gene left this world quietly, in his sleep, without suffering, and without cause to ruin any of his extraordinarily productive days worrying about an impending demise. Those of us whose profession exposes us to the sadness of prolonged illness and suffering, or those of us who have had family members victimized by gradual deterioration of their mental capacity readily appreciate this as a blessing.

When I think of my dear friend Gene W olberg, I recall him as always happy and upbeat. He could always cheer me up, always looked on the bright side; and was as intelligent, capable, honest, honorable, and full of integrity as anybody I know. He did have his sense of outrage - at those who defraud and mislead. He helped the IWBA expose deceit and mendacity in the field of wound ballistics and contributed mightily to society in the right to bear arms debate.

Gene lived his life to the fullest and left it at his peak, his mind bright and whole, without suffering. What more could one hope for?

EDITORIAL About this issue:

The two articles on "Less than Lethal" weapons are important to law enforcement. The first one reports the first comprehensive collection of data on the use of these weapons of which we are aware. The second is an experimental analysis vital to any law enforcement that uses these weapons. There is an editorial note accompanying these landmark articles so I will not dwell on them further here.

is having its desired effect. Wound Ballistics is gradually developing from being a field in which nobody was watching; in which the most ridiculous of nonsense would go unchallenged to a science in which if you publish nonsense your incompetence will be exposed in print - maybe not in the journal in which your nonsense was published, but somewhere. I believe this has had a chilling effect on the ignorant and the indolent -- who now must seek greener pastures elsewhere.

The literature review reveals yet another disappointing failure to obey the rigors of scientific method. Noted and pointed out to us by an alert IWBA member, Dr. Todd Moldower, who joined me as coauthor of a letter to the editor -- which he declined to publish. This is the first letter we have had to write in a long time. I believe the Wound Ballistics Review's policy of printing letters correcting errors when the editor refuses to do so

In addition to the letter from Dr. Stolinski (p. XX), your editor received more positive feedback after the last issue than after any previous ones. All mentioned being impressed by the Clegg article. Your editor was also pleased to note that all of these letters, notes, and comments came from persons with well established expertise in firearms technology or wound ballistics. I thank the readers for this feedback - it will help us to evaluate and improve the Wound Ballistics Review.

Volume 4, Issue 4 Fal/ 2000 3

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW Questions a n d Com m ents


QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS Letter to the Editor Dear Dr. Fackler:

The Spring 2000 issue of Wound Ballistics Review contained much useful technical information, but it was instructive in other areas as well. "Wound Profile of the 5.7 x 28 mm FN Cartridge (SS 190) fired from the FN P90 Submachine Gun" by Dahlstrom, Powley, and Gordon explains that a clearly inadequate round is being pushed to law enforcement, apparently for financial reasons. This taught me that some believe money is more important than human lives, even the lives of one's customers. "Terminal Performance of.38 Special and .380 ACP Hollow Point Bullets" by Roberts demonstrates that 147 and 158 grain bullets are more effective than lighter, faster bullets when fired from 2 or 3 inch .38 Special revolvers, thus contradicting "experts" in gun magazines who repeatedly advise the use of lighter bullets in these weapons. This taught me that although "experts" claim to be giving us information straight from the horse's mouth, often it is the product of the other end of the horse. "The Lee Clegg Case: A Study in Self Deception" by yourself describes how a private in the British Parachute Regiment was convicted of murder for allegedly shooting the occupant of a car that crashed a roadblock he was manning in Northern Ireland. The clearly inadequate autopsy and illogical forensic testimony eventually won Clegg an acquittal at a second trial. This taught me that erroneous "expert" testimony can be used to convict soldiers or police when a conviction is needed to appease public anger. Worse, it taught me that Americans are not the only people who send young men and women to dangerous places, then unfairly blame them when something inevitably goes wrong. These are important lessons, but I'm sorry to have to learn them.

David C. Stolinsky, MD

Letter to the Editor Dr. Fackler is right -- Sierra is inert, and does

n't care that the 168 gr. Matchking .308 usually doesn't expand. The SW ATers are complacent, and so vain in their marksmanship that they value good groups above good sounds.

Should Sierra re-tool to make a bullet police snipers aren't sure they want? Anybody with a #54 drill and a tap wrench can convert the Matchking into a reliable expanding bullet.

I don't accept the idea that us citizens would be better off if the Matchking slug had worked right at the Ruby Ridge. Suppose the bullet had hit heart, brain, or

spine? Then its expansion wouldn't have mattered. Randy Weaver would have died, and we would never have learned that that the BA TF entrapped him on a weapons charge so the feds could compel him to be an informant on his right-wing buddies.

I know what Dr. Fackler is trying to do when he analyzes a gunfight and says, "This shot made all the difference!" He knows policemen, and soldiers too, may suffer to no purpose if they ignore what bullets do in the human body. So he will never neglect to point out bad bullet performance.

I always think the decisive bullets are the ones that missed--- cops do miss about two out of three times. If we could find the weapons and training that made for just one miss of three, it would do more for police and public safety than any slug design we can imagine. Remember that from before the Civil war to about 1966, cops, crooks, cowboys, and soldiers all managed their mayhem with solid slugs. Even handgun hunters, like the legendary Keith, saw nothing of interest in hollow-points. These were people with common opportunity to kill large numbers of livestock and game, and they all noticed that it was better to punch through something vital than to bounce flesh just under the hide. It won't surprise anybody that loads designed to stop half-ton horses and steers worked well on us runty humans, too.

But science was about to intrude. The Medical Corps published a book, Wound Ballistics. It said that wounding was proportional to the energy loss of the bullet. Before long, everybody was testing loads in clay, or putty, or wet phonebooks, wax, or soap, and all kinds of Jello from stiff to soupy. It was plain that high-velocity hollow points-- "Super-Vel", in those days -- gave exactly what science said shooters should want. And pretty soon, people were getting fat government grants to test bullets in 6" slabs of gelatin. These mere pre-Fackler days, and there was nobody to point out that a pistol slug has to get pretty deep before it has even a chance of doing a good job.

The cops decided that if bad guys could buy dum-dums, they deserved them too. The ACLU didn't like this much, so the argument was advanced that the public would be safer if police bullets usually stopped in the bad guy. By this time, all the big ammo companies were coming up with their own Super-Vel types, and co-incidentally they quit selling cases to SuperVel, and the company couldn't fill orders and had to

4 Fal/2000 Volume 4, Issue 4

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW Questions a n d Com ments


fold. Pretty soon the Glaser slugs appeared, and the somewhat more conservative Mag-Safes, and Cor-Bon picked up the Super-Vel tradition.

Where are we now? The current sort of heavy hollow-points usually give enough penetration -- but only usually, for we find that some work well against summer-clad, but fail on winter clothes. Some expand fine from a 4" barrel, but too much from a 6" and not at all from a snub-nose. Often we find that one lot looks good, but the next quarter's production is very different.

What does this mean? We are expecting too much from ammo industry quality control and ammo executive attention span. The older forms of slugs -wadcutters, round-noses, semi-wad cutters, and FMJs- will show consistency over a wide range of velocity a_nq rifling twist. But as we get hollow-points, little tftitigs make a big difference in expansion. The American Rifleman once tested reversed hollow-base wadcutters in Colt and S& W snub-nose revolvers. The same loads always expanded more in the Colts. Colts have a faster twist, and that little bit of extra centrifugal force changed things.

WBR is a science journal, not a political magazine. So it's to Dr. Fackler's credit that he reserves his indignation for the scientific failures of the criminal justice system. But when I hear that a buck private in the British Army has been tried for murder and put through eight years of bullshit on the narrow issue of whether he shot through the side of the car or the back of the car, I get annoyed. The law seems to be that he must slaughter everyone in a vehicle running his checkpoint if he can do it while the car approaches, or is roughly abreast. But if he forgets himself for a moment or two and shoots into the back of the car, that is murder. This is an unreasonable idiocy that only lawyers could erect.

And we saw exactly the same thing in the Diallo case. I'm glad they were aquitted, but it was a justice screw up when they were held over for trial in the first place. The prosecutors will bend by any political wind that is blowing.

Leon Day

Editorial Comment Leon Day mentions the impropriety of the Bu

reau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) at Ruby Ridge. Recently the news media highlighted the results of the investigation into Waco. These incidents shared a common cause -- the incompetence of the BATF. They got into situations they couldn't handle and had to call upon the FBI to bail them out. Then the

FBI got blamed for the less than ideal outcomes. The evidence that the Davidians at Waco im

molated themselves has been clear from the beginning. But those opportunistic parasites, the-conspiracy purveyors, found, as always, a sensation-addicted press eager to pander to the eternally gullible and mostly intellectually-deprived public. Thus, many millions of dollars in taxpayer funds were spent, in years of investigation, to prove the obvious. But, just as with Ruby Ridge, the media furor and investigations acted to direct attention away from the cause of the incident - the incompetence of the BATF.

Four BATF agents were killed and more than a dozen wounded in the ill-conceived assault that started the Waco incident. I think the Waco incident set a record in infamy: four law 'enforcement officers hit by hostile gunfire in a single incident. But that ill-fated assault has been conveniently forgotten. Remember the uproar when two FBI agents were killed and five wounded in the "Miami shootout" of 1986? Where is the uproar over the far worse law enforcement losses at Waco? It is about time those in the upper-echelons of the BATF, or in the Treasury Department, are held responsible for the disastrous loss of life and suffering among the BATF agents in the Waco incident.

Some years ago, BATF declared illegal the 7.62 x 39 mm military ball round that had been used against us in Viet Nam. Somebody had produced a prototype handgun chambered for that cartridge and the BATF decided that the standard ball round therefore fell under the ill-conceived "Cop Killer" Bullet Law. Under that law, handgun bullets are prohibited if they contain significant amounts of some harder-than-lead metals: the 7.62 x 39 mm ball round contains a large steel core. As a combat surgeon ·in DaNang in 1968, I operated on many US Marines who had been hit by that bullet. As Director of the Department of Defense's Wound Ballistics Research Program from 1981 to 199 1, I studied that bullet, shot it into ordnance gelatin, and published a wound profile of it (Emergency War Surgery - NATO Handbook, GPO, Washington, DC, 1988, p 24). Many US Marines owe their lives to the fact that the 7.62 x 39 mm bullet used by the enemy in Viet Nam produces such minimal tissue disruption. The steel-core 7.62 x 39 mm bullet is very stable in tissue and ordinarily travels a foot or more pointforward before it yaws. Most perforating shots through the abdomen produce a bullet path that can not be differentiated from one made by a 32 ACP FMJ handgun bullet. To conform to the dictates of the BA TF, bullet companies had to modify the bullet by replacing the mostly-steel core with one of lead, and replacing the

Volume 4, Issue 4 Fa/12000 5

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW Questions a n d Co m ments


steel jacket with one of copper. The new "legal" bullet is far less stable in the human body: it remains pointforward for only about three inches before it starts to yaw significantly. When it yaws, the bullet can flatten, sometimes fragments, and it almost always produces a large temporary cavity in the body with its attendant increased tissue disruption. This "legal" bullet is far more disruptive in the human body than its predecessor. Thus, that ill-conceived decision by the BATF has increased the danger on our streets to law enforcement offices and civilians alike.

The enforcement of the highly restrictive laws against full-automatic small arms falls to the BATF, although they cannot be blamed for passing these laws (as well as the "Cop Killer" bullet law): misinformed lawmakers, swayed by the emotionally-based irrationalities of the gun-prohibitionists, must accept that responsibility. Aside from the unwarranted expense needed to enforce the anti-full-automatic laws, their effect is to promulgate public misinformation regarding wounding effects. The typical firearm-illiterate citizen assumes that full automatic rifles are far more dangerous than semi-automatic ones - because they are so stringently regulated. Yet those widely experienced with firearms are well aware that, in a gunfight, it is the hits that count- and hits are far easier to obtain using semi-automatic rather than full automatic firing mode. This has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt by controlled experiments in which the same shooters tried to hit targets, at varying distances, in a specified time period. First they fired the course firing full automatic, then repeated the identical experiment using semi-automatic fire. The number of hits while firing semi-automatic was far greater than those obtained firing full automatic (shown Ol'). the videotape "Deadly Weapons" ANITE Productions, Pinole, CA, about 1980).

In addition to the BATF, the US Treasury Department has another branch that has made fools of themselves regarding wound ballistics. I speak of the Secret Service. For many years the Secret Service have chosen bullets for their agents based on the "one-shot stop" pseudo-data which was proven so clearly fraudulent last year (Volume 4 issue 2 of this journal), that even the least analysis-inclined cannot fail to recognize it as such. In the 1980s, I was contacted by two extremely firearm-literate Secret Service agents who sought aid in trying to educate those in the US Treasury Department, or in the higher levels of the Secret Service, whose ignorance of bullet effects was forcing Secret Service agents to be handicapped (and have their lives unnecessarily endangered) by using the inef-

ficient too-light and too-fast bullets. These agents indicated that the Secret Service had been using the falsified "one-shot-stop" statistics as the basis for their choice of handgun bullets. Fortunately, the Secret Service is practically alone among major law enforcement groups in ignoring the findings of the FBI wound ballistics conferences where the importance of bullet penetration depth adequate to reach and disrupt major blood vessels was strongly emphasized. As any experienced hunter knows, in addition to good bullet placement, adequate bullet penetration is needed to have any chance of causing rapid and reliable incapacitation. The Secret Service agents who contacted me were stymied in their attempts to point out that the ill-chosen handgun bullets they were forced to use are a threat to the lives of Secret Service agents as well as those of the elected officials they are assigned to protect.

Martin L. Fackler

Comment POLICE SHOULDER WEAPON SELECTION AND THE DENIAL OF BIOLOGY Imagine that you are a big game hunter who is now face-to-face with a leopard that is poised to pounce on you from a nearby tree. You coolly take careful aim with your caliber .223 Remington rifle and start your trigger squeeze, which in the next instant will send a 55-grain soft-point crashing into the animal's vitals. In the midst of this drama, your professional hunter is set to back you up with his own mighty .223, his loaded with 69 grain hollow-points.

If the armament selection above seems less than ideal to an inane extent, consider that a determined human adversary is inherently no easier to put out of action than a leopard, wild boar, cougar, or similar sized dangerous game animal. What's more, unlike his four-legged contemporaries, the human assailant, when armed with a gun, need not even touch his intended victim to do him harm. Yet many technical planners from various law enforcement agencies expect shoulder weapons thoroughly unsuited for hunting large game to swiftly terminate the hostile advances of armed 200-pound sociopaths bent on wreaking havoc regardless of consequences.

It seems that when the dangerous target is human, the concept of basic biology goes out the window with respect to armament/ammunition selection. Whether these misconceptions stem from traditional beliefs in mankind being apart from nature or from a deep seated unwillingness to do one's fellow human beings harm, regardless of circumstances, the inability

6 Fal/2000 Volume 4, Issue 4

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW Questions a n d Com ments


to think biologically when selecting small arms and ammunition for police use can have dire consequences.

Police ammunition selection with respect to handguns has generally greatly improved over the last decade. These improvements have occurred primarily due to several well-publicized tragic ammunition failures leading to the losses of innocent lives (The private sector continues to be victimized by ballistic junk science regarding handgun ammo selection for personal defense.). However, many agencies that have selected the best pistol ammunition available choose varmint caliber rifles with low penetrating ammunition best suited to doing battle with gophers and the like. Then there are those .308 match bullets used by police sharpshooters that don't consistently expand and would be considered by knowledgeable hunters as poor choices for employment in the woods.

Those charged with educating others about weapon/ammo selection for use against violent criminals and terrorists should be well aware of the fact that humans are no less difficult to penetrate and incapacitate than game animals of the same weight category. They should also be aware that convincing others that this is the case is sometimes rather difficult. It is surprising just how many otherwise sophisticated people are astonished to discover that human tissues are just as resilient to penetration as the analogous tissues of other similar sized mammals, or that humans don't always quit their actions even when hit by "real stoppers", despite what appears on TV.

The inane choices made today regarding police shoulder weapons and ammunition are largely a function of biological ignorance regarding human assailants. This coupled with the fact that shoulder weapons are less frequently employed than pistols in most civil scenarios means that those in the know have their work cut out for them in endeavoring to convince official decision makers as to the biological realities of employing such weapons against human antagonists.

Gus Coley Jr.

directed towards me. I stated that I assumed that a torso hit with a breaching round would inflict serious damage, but that I had never seen any ballistic tests conducted on these rounds and had no first hand experience in using them against a human target.

Just how lethal are these breaching rounds when used in an antipersonnel role? Our team's breachers carry a shotgun that is loaded with breaching rounds. In the event that our breacher had to fire at a suspect or an animal (dog), what could we expect as far as the terminal ballistics? Is one brand or type of breaching round better for use on humans than others? We feel that there would be minimal chance of over penetration through the suspect's body and that in the event of a miss, the round would have limited penetration on the interior walls of a typical house.

Lewis Moore, REMTP

Answer I have checked with Dr. Fackler, and neither of

us know of any testing that has been done to assess the terminal ballistic performance of breaching rounds. The following comments summarize the information available from projectile penetration modeling and associated testing experience.

The most critical factor is whether or not the projectile breaks up on contact with soft tissue. It would appear that at least some of these projectiles that seem to have no binder (Lockbuster, Dustbuster) or potentially soft binders (T.E.A.R., Hatton, Demolition, T.E.S.C.R.) would break up in soft tissue, while the compressed metal projectiles may not (especially in the lower velocity loads).

If the projectile breaks up more or less completely, the penetration would likely be similar to birdshot fired at very close range. This overall penetration is substantially greater than for a single shot pellet because the leading shot open up a channel that the following shot follow with minimal resistance during initial penetration. The maximum depth depends on par-ticle size and other factors, but a range of 5-8 inches is

Question a reasonable estimate for birdshot or smaller size parti-Dear Sirs, cles. This will certainly cause an ugly wound, and

I am requesting information regarding the bal- could easily be fatal if vital body structures are hit. listie performance of "Tactical Breaching Rounds". The risk of serious trauma to a second person after the These 12 Ga. Shotgun rounds are frequently carried by projectile breaks up during penetration of the first per-SWAT Entry Teams and are designed to shoot the lock son is quite low. and/or hinges off of doors to facilitate a crisis entry. If the projectile does not fragment in soft tis-

During the course of training on these rounds sue, soft tissue penetration would be of the order of 20 the questions has come up "How effective are they inches more or less depending on the projectile shape, against people or animals (dogs)?" Since I am one of mass, and velocity. This penetration is obviously large the assigned medics on our team, this question was enough to present serious risks to secondary targets for

Volume 4, Issue 4 Fal/ 2000 7

Questions a n d Com ments WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW


all the projectile types that do not break up in soft tissue. These average mass and velocity of these breaching projectiles is similar to shotgun slugs, so penetration of unfractured projectiles will tend to be larger because there will be no deformation during penetration.

Misses that impact typical housing walls are quite likely to penetrate because that is what the breaching load design really does; the potential for causing injury is obviously reduced by the penetration, but not by as much as might be supposed, and the potential for serious or even fatal trauma is significant if only a single wall is penetrated. The risk is greatly reduced behind a second wall because the projectile will usually fracture in the first wall (independent of what it does in soft tissue) and spread somewhat in the room sized space between walls; the separated small fragments will usually then be stopped by the second wall.

The only important uncertain factor is whether or not a particular projectile will break up in soft tissue, and the only way to determine this with confidence is by test. The best test would be to fire rounds of interest into ballistic gelatin, which would also have the advantage of more precisely determining the projectile penetration characteristics. The IWBA has a video that describes all aspects of ballistic gelatin testing for law enforcement (see WBR Volume 3 #3, page 28). Projectile breakup can also be determined by firing the loads into water, although this will not give any information about penetration. The projectile breakup of these projectiles will be the same in soft tissue and water because the breakup forces are totally inertial for practical purposes, and are even less a function of secondary dynamic effects than JHP expansion is. A frame that adequately supports several feet of water in trash bags will do the job nicely, although the water must be backed up by something that will stop the projectiles exiting at up to 300 ft/sec.

Sorry that we don't have more definitive information, but I hope the above is of use to you. If you do implement testing in any form, we would be interested in publishing the results for the benefit of our readers.

Duncan MacPherson

Question Has anyone ever tried filling the hollow point

cavity with ballistic gelatin? Though not practical for defensive purposes, it might keep the static preasure on the cavity high enough to cause reliable expansion after penetrating winter clothes.

8 Fa/12000

Careful tuning might allow a .357 or .44 Magnum slug to still reliably expand after piercing a more substantial barrier (assuming the bullet retains the necessary velocity) . If this works, some soft solid could be designed that would have the necessary properties for a new level of hollow point performance.

Does this idea have merit? Jeffrey L. Vaughn, PhD

Answer Dear Mr. Vaughn:

Sticking various things in hollow points to augment expansion has a long (dating back almost a century) and unsuccessful history. I have never made any attempts to use a material having properties similar to ballistic gelatin in hollow points, and I don't know of any experimentation done with this concept by anyone else. That doesn't necessarily mean that no one has tried and failed, because many people don't publish their ideas that don't work. There are two scenarios:

I. The first scenario is heavy clothing or other soft material. The key here is the hollow point design. Sophisticated state of the art JHP designs are robust in expanding after contact with these soft materials, other JHP designs are not. I don't believe that a gelatin like hollow point filler will be of much help in enhancing the performance of either of these design types, because the basic problem is not really within the hollow point, but in the pressure attenuation through the layers of soft material. The real solution here is to just use a good hollow point design, and forget the filler.

2. The second scenario is initial contact with a hard barrier of some kind. The performance here depends to a large extent on the barrier characteristics. Many JHP designs perform reasonably well after contacts with many kinds of hard barriers, but very hard barriers (e.g., heavy glass) create problems even though they are easily broken through. The problem here is the damage to the hollow point from barrier contact that prevents the expansion from proceeding normally. It isn't obvious that any soft filler would make much difference in this scenario.

The bottom line is that I am personally not optimistic about this concept for the reasons outlined above. I would be interested to learn of any good experimentation along these lines, but this would require significant facilities and expertise to implement.

Duncan MacPhers on

Volume 4, Issue 4

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW

JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION Impact M u n itions Fata l ities

CITIZEN INJURIES FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT IM

p ACT MUNITIONS: EVIDENCE FROM THE FIELD David Klinger, Associate Professor of Criminology and �riminal Justice, University of Missouri-St. Louis Ken Hubbs, President Pro Tac International and California Association of Tactical Officers (CATO)

Abstract In recent years, many law enforcement agen

cies in North America have added to their weapons inventories firearm-delivered impact munitions such as plastic batons, wooden dowels, and beanbags for use against combative and similarly uncooperative citizens whose actions justify the use of non-lethal physical force. While the popularity of impact munitions has increased considerably, very little systematic information exists about the physical consequences for humans that are struck by such projectiles. In an attempt to shed some empirical light on this important matter, data was collected and analyzed from 3 71 separate incidents in which officers fired a total of 967 impact projectiles at citizens. This article describes the data collection procedures, reports what the analysis disclosed about the injuries sustained by citizens, and discusses the implications of these findings for contemporary law enforcement.

Background The term "impact munitions" refers to a group

of firearm-delivered projectiles that are designed to have a low probability of causing death when they strike human targets. Such munitions were developed to allow police officers to apply force from a safe distance against combative and otherwise resistant citizens whose actions do not warrant the use of deadly force. Indeed, they are commonly called "less-lethal" or "less-than-lethal" projectiles in law enforcement circles. In contrast with the standard firearms ammunition that officers carry, which is designed to penetrate the skin and underlying tissues, impact munitions are designed to remain outside the body of the subject they strike and thus reduce substantially the likelihood that the projectile will cause fatal injuries. Among the most popular of the various sorts of impact munitions available to law enforcement agencies are 12 gauge "beanbag" rounds, which consist of 2" square cloth pillows filled with approximately 40 grams of lead shot that are rolled-up and placed into shells to be fired

from shotguns, and plastic baton rounds (PBRs), which are fired from 3 7 and 40 millimeter gas launchers.

Originally created as tools to help officers to deal with hostile crowds, impact munitions are currently used in a wide variety of law enforcement situations where deadly force is not justified, such as those involving barricaded subjects who do not pose an imminent threat to the lives of officers or innocent citizens, fleeing suspects who have not committed violent felonies, and suicidal citizens armed with deadly weapons.1 While police agencies are deploying impact munitions in a wider variety of situations, the extant literature contains essentially no systematic information about the effects they have when they strike human beings. This knowledge gap is especially crucial because researchers who have conducted tests of 12 gauge bean bag rounds with animal tissue and gelatin blocks have asserted that these projectiles should be classified as lethal munitions, to be used only when deadly force is justified.2 Given the paucity of data about the real-world consequences of impact munitions strikes, the laboratory research-based argument that 12 gauge bean bag projectiles should not be used in the sorts of circumstances they were designed for (i.e., those where deadly force is not justified), and the fact that police agencies often use impact munitions in cases where deadly force is not appropriate, information about the actual effects of impact munitions on human beings is clearly needed. The research described below was undertaken in an attempt to meet this need.

Methods Data was collected from I 06 North American

police agencies whose officers have used impact munitions against citizens during law enforcement operations. This was accomplished through a multi-step process that began with the development of a research instrument that officers could complete and send in following incidents where members of their agency fired impact munitions. After designing the instrument, we contacted the five largest impact munitions

Volume 4, Issue 4 Fa/12000 9

-1�-------------------------------------------------------------

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW Impact M u n itio ns Fata l ities


manufacturers (all impact mumbons used by North American law enforcement agencies are produced by private firms) and asked for their client lists. Four of these companies complied with our request, which yielded a list of 685 different police and corrections agencies that had purchased impact munitions from at least one company. During the Summer of 1 998, we then sent each of these agencies a packet that included copies of the data collection instrument and a letter of introduction that described the study and requested their participation in it. We also sent a follow-up mailing reminding each of these agencies about the project approximately three months later. We wanted to develop information from agencies that did not appear on the manufacturers ' client lists, but that might nonetheless be using impact munitions. To achieve this, we submitted to several law enforcement journals and newsletters an article describing the study and seeking participation from any interested agencies that might not have received our mailings. Finally, we posted information about the project and how interested agencies could participate on the web site of the California Association of Tactical Officers. In the end, these efforts yielded a total of 373 separate reports from the aforementioned 1 06 law enforcement agencies of incidents where their officers fired impact munitions at citizens.

The data collection instrument sought numerous points of information about the incidents where officers employed impact munitions, such as the name of the agency submitting the report, date and time of the incident, socio-demographic characteristics of the involved citizens, number of munitions fired, type(s) of munitions fired, distance between the officer(s) who fired and the citizen, body area where each projectile impacted, and injuries sustained from munitions strikes.

The purpose of this study was to address the physical consequences of impact projectile strikes; the following discussion of findings summarizes the injuries sustained by citizens when struck by these munitions.

Findings The first step in data analysis was to count the

number of munitions used in each of the 373 reports submitted. This exercise disclosed that a total of 969 projectiles were fired across the 373 cases. A case-bycase review of the data revealed two incidents in which

1 0 Fal/ 2000

the only munitions fired were single lethal projectiles that officers had mistakenly loaded into 1 2 gauge shotguns (in one case the projectile was a barricadepenetrating chemical agent round, in the other case a door breaching round) . The involved citizens died in both cases. Because no impact munitions were used in either of these cases, both were excluded from consideration for this article, which left 967 munitions fired in 3 7 1 incidents for the analysis presented below.

Analysis of the data provide two separate data sets. The first data set is an incident-based analysis that treated each of the 3 7 1 incidents during which officers fired impact munitions as a separate case. The second data set is a munitions-based analysis that treated each of the 967 projectiles fired during these 3 7 1 incidents as a separate case. This analytical strategy allowed us to explore not only what occurs in incidents where officers employ impact munitions, but to also examine the effects of each projectile fired.

Respondents reported the number of rounds that struck their intended target in 3 1 1 of the incidents. As indicated in Table 1 , the number of hits per case among those for which data was provided ranged from none (in one case) to 1 3 (in one other) . The modal number of projectiles striking citizens per incident is one (N=l 33), with the vast majority (99 .5%) of the subjects struck by 1 0 or fewer projectiles (and over 90% struck by four or fewer).

Table 1 Number ofMunitions Striking Subjects in 311 Cases

# of Hits Frequency Percent Cum Percent 0 1 . 3 . 3 1 1 33 42.8 43 . I 2 69 22.2 65.3 3 52 I 6.7 82.0 4 26 8 .4 90.4 5 1 4 4 .5 94 .9 6 7 2 .2 97 . I 7 I .3 97.4 8 0 -- --9 4 1 .3 98 .7

10 2 .6 99.4 1 1 0 --- ---1 2 1 .3 99.7 1 3 1 .3 I OO.O

Total 311 100.0

Volume 4, Issue 4


JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION Impact M u n itions Fata l ities

Respondents identified the type of munitions used in 960 of the 967 discharges reported in the study. This information indicates that officers used 2 1 different specific types of munitions. I 2-gauge beanbag rounds were by far the most commonly used projectiles among the 960 rounds identified, accounting for 623 (65%) of the identified projectiles fired. 37mm PBRs make up the second most prevalent class of impact munitions used (N = 267). The remaining 69 munitions that respondents identified included a variety of other 1 2-gauge, 37mm, and 40mm projectiles.

Table 2 Injury Sustained by Subjects from 780 Projectile

Impacts

Inj ury Sustain ed Fr eq uency

Bruise 398 Abrasion 239 Laceration 43 Fracture 27 Penetration 1 4 Death 8 None 5 1 Total 780

Percent 5 1 .0 30.6

5 . 5 3 .5 1 .8 1 .0 6 .5

99.9

Table 3

Respondents reported on the injuries caused by 782 of the munitions that impacted subjects . As indicated by the figures presented in Table 2, bruises were by far the most common injury subjects sustained, occurring in 5 1 % of the munitions strikes. Another 3 1 % of the munitions caused abrasions, 6% lacerated subjects ' skin, 4% led to fractured bones, 2% penetrated subjects ' skin, less than 1 % led to the death of the subject (see qiscussion below), while 6% of the munitions that struck subjects caused no physical injury.

One crucial issue regarding the use of impact munitions concerns the relationship between the area of the body they strike and the injury they produce. Manufacturers ' literature and impact munitions training programs typically advise officers to direct their aim towards certain areas (e.g., extremities and larger muscle areas) and away from others (e.g., head, neck, spine, liver and kidney areas) based on the assumption that more serious injuries are more likely to occur when subjects are struck in the later areas. 3.4 To shed some empirical light on this matter, we examined the injuries that citizens sustained when struck in specific areas of their bodies by cross-classifying the body area struck and injury type for the 768 munitions impacts for which respondents provided data on both area struck and injury sustained. Table 3 displays the results of this exercise.

Cross-Classification of Area Struck and Injury Sustained for 768 Munitions Impacts Inj ury Sustai ned

Area Hil Brui e Abrasion Laceration Fracture Penetration Death None Total Abdomen 1 58 62 8 9 2 1 4 253 Chest 69 49 3 6 6 5 7 145 Back 46 29 2 6 84 Groin 4 2 6 Leg 56 33 1 1 3 1 0 113 Arm 42 48 I l 6 7 115 Buttocks 1 5 1 1 1 27 Head 3 2 7 5 2 1 9 Neck I 3 I 6 Total 394 23 7 43 2 7 1 4 6 4 7 768

Volume 4, Issue 4 Fal/ 2000 1 1

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW Im pact M u nitions Fata l ities


Three points stand out in Table 3 . The first is that impacts to the head tend to produce a greater proportion of serious injuries than impacts to any other area of the body, with 1 4 of 1 9 head impacts causing a laceration, a fracture, or a penetrating wound. The second point is that five of the six fatalities for which we have clear information on the body area impacted were due to projectiles that struck subjects in the chest. The third is that the other fatality was due to one of just five projectiles that struck citizens on the neck which makes for a 1 6.7% fatality rate among neck i�pacts. The subjects were hit by multiple rounds in different body areas in the other two impact fatalities mentioned above. Since it was not possible to conclusively attribute either of these deaths to a projectile strike on a specific body area, neither of these cases was included in Table 3 .

The following synopses provide additional information about all eight of the deaths that have been attributed to impact munitions. The first six constitute the six fatalities included in Table 3, the last two the pair that were excluded from Table 3 .

1 2

I . A 42-year-old male who stood approximately 5' 1 0" and weighed approximately 1 65 lbs engaged in an altercation with several officers. After the officers had used an electronic "T ASER" 22 times with no effect, they fired several 37mm foam rubber and 37mm beanbag rounds at the subject (a total of 1 3 combined). One beanbag struck the subject in the throat. He died weeks later as a result of the impact to the throat.

2. A 60 year-old male (5' 4", 1 60 lb.) was struck three times with 37mm plastic baton rounds from approximately 1 0 feet; once in his left arm, and twice in his chest. One of rounds impacting the subject' s chest fractured a rib, a portion of which penetrated his heart and one of his lungs.

3 . A 6 1 year-old female (5' 4", 1 1 0 lbs.) was struck once in the. chest with a plastic baton round from approximately 9 feet. The impact fractured a

Fal/ 2000

rib, which penetrated her heart and one of her lungs.

4. A 34-year-old male (height and weight unknown) was struck twice in the chest with 1 2 gauge beanbags from approximately 2 1 feet. One of the beanbags broke two ribs, penetrated his chest cavity, and lodged in his heart.

5 . A 29-year-old male (height and weight unknown) was struck with five (5) 1 2 gauge bean bags from 2 1 - 30 feet. The last round, fired from approximately 26 feet, penetrated his chest and punctured one of his lungs.

6. A 22-year-old male who stood approximately six feet tall and weighed approximately 200 lbs was struck one time in the chest with a 1 2 gauge bean bag round from a distance of 2 1 feet. While the official cause of death was still pending at time of this report, the case is included for the sake of thoroughness .

7. A 68 year-old male who weighed some 270 lbs was struck by a total of more than 1 00 plastic baton, foam rubber, wood, and bean bag munitions from a distance less than 20 feet. He succumbed to the injuries 1 8 months later.

8. A 30-year-old male (approximately 5 ' 9", 257 lbs.) died after being struck several times in the head, neck, and chest with plastic baton rounds. While the autopsy report identified the cause of death as blood clots due to blunt trauma to the head, coupled with respiratory distress from chemical agent (CS) exposure, it did not specify that the impact munitions strikes were the source of the blood clots.

Volume 4, Issue 4

""""'

_W

_O_U_N_D_B_A_L_L_IS_T_I_C_RE_V_I_E_W _______ ___,_,.

JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS A SSOCIATION --------

Discussion and Conclusions The foregoing analysis indicates that impact

munitions strikes produced fatal wounds in just over 2% (8/3 7 1 ) of the incidents in the current sample. This one-in-fifty fatality ratio must be placed in proper context lest the reader conclude that impact projectiles lead to death in 2% of the cases in which they are used against citizens. The first point to consider in this connection is that the eight fatalities identified above constitute all of the known deaths that have been attributed to impact munitions as of May 30t\ 2000. The second is that the current study by no means includes all incidents where North American law enforcement officers employed impact munitions against citizens. Just 1 06 of the hundreds of law enforcement agencies that stock impact munitions participated in the research. While we have no way of knowing how many of the nonparticipating agencies have actually used them in the field, we know through informal channels (e.g., associates who work for such agencies and press accounts) that many of them have used impact munitions numerous times, in some cases in hundreds of situations over the last few years. Consequently, while we have the numerator for calculating the fraction of incidents where impact munitions are used that lead to death, our data vastly under-estimate the denominator, which means that the actual likelihood of death from impact munitions is far lower than the 1 in 50 reported above . Readers are advised to keep this crucial point in mind when considering the lethality of impact munitions.

In a similar vein, Table 3 suggests that the likelihood of fatal injury from impact munitions is substantially higher when they strike people in the chest and neck as compared to other parts of the body. This is true because these are the most vulnerable areas, but the fatal injury rate of such impacts is almost certainly lower than the assembled data indicates . The current data include all of the deaths, but only a fraction of the cases where officers have employed impact munitions. Because we cannot know how accurately the incident sample represents the total impacts, it is possible that there have been disproportionately more unreported neck and chest strikes in situations where impact munitions have been used. Such a situation would mean that the information in the current sample could substantially over-estimate the likelihood of fatal injury from neck and chest impacts.

Whatever the case might be about the distribution of impact locations among the multitude of cases

for which we have no data, we can draw some important conclusions about the lethality of impact munitions from the current data because our sample does include all know fatalities. First, as of May 30th 2000, there is no evi dence that any citizens have been killed by impact munitions strikes to the abdomen, back, groin, leg, arm, or buttocks. Second, in the current s ample, fatal injuries are far more likely when projectiles strike the neck and chest as compared to other areas; 1 6.7% of the projectiles striking citizens in the neck and 3 .4.% of those striking the chest produced fatal wounds, while 0% of those striking other areas did. Third, citizens died from impact munitions strikes in very few of the cases examined; just over 2%. Fourth, because the current sample includes but a small portion of the cases where law enforcement officers have shot citizens with impact munitions, the 2% fatality rate overestimates substantially the actual likelihood of death from impact munitions.

Taken together, these points clearly indicate that impact munitions are quite unlikely to produce fatal injuries, particularly when they strike areas other than the neck and chest. Consequently, we believe that the current law enforcement doctrine that holds that these projectiles are suitable for use in situations that would not justify the use of deadly force is appropriate.

References I . Ijames, Steve, Concepts and Considerations in the De-escalation

Phi losophy, The Tactical Edge, Summer, 1 995: 5 1 -5 5 . 2. Dahlstrom, D.B. , Powley, K.D., and Penk, D.V.R. , 1 2 Gauge

Bean Bag Ammunition Penetration, Wound Ball istics Review, Volume 3, Number 3, 1 99 8 : 3 8-4 1 .

3 . Defense Technologies Corporation o f America, Product Data Sheet, 1 999.

4. Cal i fornia Association of Tactical Officers, Training Manual, 1 998

This research was supported the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice Grant Number 98-LB- VX-K006. Points of view or opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Volume 4, Issue 4 Fal/ 2000 1 3

I I

Co m m e n t s o n Fata l i t i es WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW


COMMENTS ON IMPACT MUNITIONS

Duncan MacPherson

Introduction The Klinger and Hubbs paper is the first report

of an extensive effort to gather field data on the "less lethal" munitions being ever more widely used, and as such provides law enforcement agencies data on actual shootings. This is an important contribution, and making the best use of this work requires thinking through and understanding the issues implicit in these results.

Thoughtful consideration of the Klinger and Hubbs data supports the differences in fatality concerns with the 37 or 40 mm plastic baton rounds (PBRs) and the 12 gauge beanbag rounds that would be expected from consideration of the projectile characteristics. This data also strongly suggests that some agencies are increasing fatality risk by using faulty aim point tactics and/or are using these "less lethal" munitions inappropriately. The following comments are offered on these issues raised by the Klinger and Hubbs data.

a street encounter. This diffi(;u]l problem merits very serious consideration by all senior firearms trainers .

Inappropriate "Less Lethal" Munitions Use

The Klinger and Hubbs report shows that "less lethal" munitions are being used inappropriately in some cases. The clearest example is death #7 already referred to, with over I 00 impacts in unspecified areas. The officers involved in this case either lost their heads or had no idea of the issues involved with these "less lethal" munitions. All users of these munitions should recognize that there is almost never a physiological response to these "less lethal" munitions that incapacitates the target or forces the target to stop whatever undesired activity the target is engaged in. The only reason for behavior modification of the target is a decision by the target the behavior is not worth the "less lethal" consequences. If the target does not make this

Aim Point Tactics choice after one or two impacts, more impacts are Deaths can occur from blunt trauma in the unlikely to change his mind. It is possible to ki ll the

neck and head, and very modest penetrations (less than target with 1 00 blunt trauma impacts, but it is easier all 2 inches) can lead to death from chest impacts that around to just use wel l placed buckshot or handgun fire produce heart trauma or groin impacts that sever the once non-lethality is abandoned. The Klinger and major arteries leading to the legs. Therefore, officers Hubbs data shows 5 or more impacts in about I 0% of trying to avoid fatalities when using impact munitions incidents where "less lethal" munitions were used. should not contact these areas. Seven of the eight fa- This seems to be a clear overuse of these "less lethal" talities listed by Klinger and Hubbs had reported im- munitions in incidents where the target does not choose pacts in the head, neck, and heart areas, and the other to comply. (#7) had over 1 00 impacts in unspecified areas (but Winston Churchill once claimed "nothing is almost certainly including impacts in hazardous areas). more exhilarating than being fired upon without ef-Deployment of impact munitions should require a feet" . Law enforcement officers should not encourage "belly button" aim point and a frontal quarter impact exhilaration in their targets, and accurate shot place-(to avoid spine impacts); the LAPD use of force policy ment with "less lethal" munitions is no less important includes these requirements, but it is not obvious that than with lethal projections. Targets should be encour-all departments do this. Impacts within six inches of aged to comply with one or two well placed "less le-the navel will not lead to fatalities from either blunt thai" projectiles, not a barrage of hasty, poorly placed trauma or penetration except in very atypical physio- impacts. logical conditions. The incidents where use of "less lethal" muni-

This problem is not just a use of force issue, tions are tried should be thoughtfully selected. An but also a training issue. The primary problem is that ideal scenario is crowd control , as in the recent De-officers are trained to use a "center mass" aim point for mocratic National Convention in Los Angeles . The all small arms except (presumably) the "less lethal" targets here were primarily troublemakers, not hard-munitions. This deeply ingrained training makes it ened criminals or others quite willing to die for an ob-very easy for officers to use the "center mass" aim jective. These groups were dispersed very effectively point for the " less lethal" munitions under the stress of by "less lethal" munitions, and the leaders were forced

1 4 Fa/1 2000 Volume 4, Issue 4

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW Co m m e n t s o n F a t a l i t i es

JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCI ATION

to fall back on complaints to sympathetic media that their civil rights had been violated because they had been prevented from starting a riot.

Use of "less lethal" munitions in situations where the target has firearms, is engaged in behavior potentially lethal to others, or shows any state of mind that indicates an indifference to consequences has a low probability of success and a significant probability of a bad result. There have been incidents where officers have been killed as a result of inappropriate reliance on "less lethal" munition effectiveness.

The bottom l ine is that "less lethal" munitions are not magic bullets that force target compliance or incapacitation. After all, even lethal small arms projectiles require skilled use to reliably achieve these objectives. "Less lethal " munitions have a place in law enforcement, but must be used wisely.

PBR Fatalities The PBR rounds are generally quite accurate,

which should minimize the number of unintended impacts in unintended body locations. While occasional unintended impacts are inevitable due to target movement and/or shooter error (especially at longer ranges), the relatively large number of chest impacts suggests that the use of force aim point policy was inappropriate in many of the shootings. The impacts in the head and neck (which everyone knows to avoid) are relatively small, and are probably mostly unintended impacts with a chest aim point. With a "belly button" aim point with PBR rounds, the number of chest impacts should be small (i .e . , similar to the data head and neck impacts) and the head and neck impacts should be very small. Klinger and Hubbs fatality #8 seems to have obviously incorporated an improper aim point ("struck several times in the head, neck, and chest with plastic baton rounds").

While the PBR rounds are generally quite accurate, the projectile does not always maintain the soft nose forward during flight. When the PBR projectile yaws in flight, the hard plastic base contacts the target, and often breaks the plastic if the target is resistant. Training round projectiles are usually reloadable until they are lost from this kind of damage. This hard plastic impact can produce much more trauma than impacts of the much softer projectile nose. In particular, fatalities resulting from rib fractures from PBR projectile chest impacts (two of the PBR fatalities reported by Klinger and Hubbs) are more likely when the PBR pro-

jectile yaws to produce hard plastic contact at impact.

12 Gauge Beanbag Fatalities The three fatalities from 1 2 gauge beanbag

impacts in the Klinger and Hubbs report were all due to chest penetration. The risks associated with 1 2 gauge beanbag impacts have been investigated very thoroughly by the LAPD, and are now understood in great detail . This detailed understanding of the projectile dynamics and wound ballistics issues makes it clear that chest penetration is the primary risk with this "less lethal" munition. These results are reported in pages 16-30 of this Journal .

Stopping the Heart,� The potential for fatalities from chest impacts

resulting in stopping the heartbeat has been a topic of great interest in some quarters . The munitions manufacturers are forced to take this seriously due to potential liability, and attempts to model this fatality are under way. The attempt to model this effect is desirable, but it is important to have such modeling compatible with what has actually been experienced. The concern is that while such a heartbeat termination effect is possible, the Klinger and Hubbs data shows that no such event has occurred in the 145 reported chest impacts. Furthermore, thousands of recorded torso impacts of small arms bullets on soft body armor clad officers have been recorded with no such event occurring (or any other form of blunt trauma fatality, for that matter) . Many, perhaps most, of these body armor impacts have more severe blunt trauma than beanbag impacts (note that while the bullet kinetic energy is much higher, complex impact dynamic effects attenuate some of this effect).

All of this data from impacts in the field without effect seems to suggest that the concern about heartbeat stoppage from impacts of "less than lethal" projectiles is very overblown relative to the true risk. Reducing "less lethal" projectile velocity to satisfy phantom heartbeat stoppage criteria would probably increase fatalities (because reduced " less lethal" munitions effectiveness would increase the probability of resort to deadly force). In any case, it seems obvious that the best way to reduce the fatality risk from "less lethal" projectiles is to work on factors that are causing the fatalities, not the factors that aren't.

Volume 4, Issue 4 Fa/1 2000 1 5

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW Bea n b a g F ata l ity R i s k


1 2 GAUGE BEANBAG FATALITY RISK INVESTIGATION Duncan MacPherson, Technical Reserve, Los A ngeles Police Department

Doreen Hudson, Supervising Criminalist, Firearms Analysis Unit, Los Angeles Police Department

Richard Maruoka, Criminalist, Firearms A nalysis Unit, Los Angeles Police Department

Abstract most (probably all) users. Low velocity projectiles are manufactured and The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)

sold in a variety of forms and are widely distributed to and other law enforcement agencies use 12 gauge law enforcement personnel as "less lethal ammunition" beanbag ammunition to avoid lethal confrontations or "less than lethal ammunition" . The most common when possible. LAPD uses a color-coded system for forms of this ammunition are beanbags (different de- weapons identification. Only shotguns identified with sign types of fabric bags filled with lead shot) loaded a large area of green tape on the stock are used for into a 1 2 gauge shotshell and using a 1 2 gauge shotgun beanbag deployment to avoid the accidental confusion as the delivery system. The increased use of this law of beanbag ammunition and lethal ammunition types enforcement tool has given rise to an increased number described in Reference 1 . LAPD beanbag use has in-of lethal consequences. This study determined the dy- creased over the last several years to about 400 namics of beanbag projectiles and quantified the fac- rounds/year at present. A fatality eventwilly occurred tors contributing to fatality risk. Information devel- (case 5 of reference 1 ), which initiated the investiga-oped during this study proves that decreasing fatality tion of the risk factors in 1 2 gauge beanbag deploy-risk requires the use of rifled barrels independent of ment described in this paper. beanbag ammunition type and all other factors, and Beanbag ammunition has been part of the public shows that modelable fatality risk can be reduced by a safety alternate arsenal for the past thirty years.2 How-factor of at least 1 00 . ever, i t has been noted3 that manufacturers do not always

expend the resources to implement scientifically valid

Introduction The beanbags referred to herein employ a fab

ric bag loaded with 40 grams (about 620 grains) of lead shot fired through a 1 2 gauge shotgun at low (-300 ft/sec) velocities. It is designed to deter the undesired behavior of subjects by delivering an impact conceptually similar to that of a thrown baseball, but with a somewhat smaller mass at a somewhat higher velocity. This system has grown in popularity due to its ease of implementation, reduction of officer injury risk, and its potential for neutralizing aggressive behavior with a greatly reduced risk of lethal consequences. However, as the frequency of beanbag usage increases, so does the statistical accumulation of penetrating injuries resulting in fatality.1

By concept and design, beanbag ammunition is intended to be a non-penetrating projectile. However, in application, the beanbag has proven to be capable of penetrating human skin and tissue and creating varying degrees of wound trauma. While at least some possibility of lethality appears inevitable with this ammunition type, any decision to accept this risk is inevitably a function of the risk presented. In retrospect, the factors related to this risk have not been well understood by

testing to enable full understanding of the risks in operational use. The fatality that occurred was at a deployment range and scenario approved by the beanbag manufacturer, which clearly indicated that LAPD needed to learn more about beanbag wound ballistics. It was recognized from the outset that the risk of creating serious trauma or even fatalities as a result of the use of beanbags or other armament intended to reduce serious injury can never be eliminated due to the possibility of unintended impacts and unknown physiological anomalies. However, it was also recognized that some kinds of hazards can be minimized through detailed understanding of the armament dynamics and the associated wound ballistics issues. This understanding was the objective of the LAPD investiga-tion of beanbag ammunition performance. A detailed evaluation of beanbag design types and the shotgun delivery system options eventually led to a heretofore un-precedented level of testing and analysis related to this issue. This paper describes the results of this study of the different beanbag designs and the use of smoothbore and rifled shotgun barrels. .

A combination of sophisticated testing and dynamic modeling provides reliable performance information relatively easily for most small arms ammunition. Evaluation of beanbag ammunition is much more com-

1 6 Fall 1000 Volume 4, Issue 4


JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION Bea n b a g Fata l ity R i s k

plex; the flexible projectile causes significant configurational uncertainty at impact (especially for the common folded beanbag designs) and skin effects at low projectile velocity can be significant and are hard to model accurately. The combination of these two effects further exacerbates modeling problems, and configurational variations can introduce substantial variation in test results. As a result, very conservative performance model assumptions and interpretations were used to provide margin to cover these uncertainties in operational use.

The various dynamic and wound ballistics considerations are discussed individually and supporting test results described; then a reasonable assessment of the combined totality of effects gives an assessment of relative risks under various conditions. This approach is based on an understanding of the issues, and provides a totally technically justifiable position; no single test or demonstration has this attribute.

Beanbag Ammunition Design Types Beanbag shotshells are typically loaded with a

powder charge, followed by an overpowder wad, a beanbag and an overbag wad. The shells are usually closed by a rolled crimp or a star crimp. The beanbags have two basic design types; flat bags (of several detailed designs) that are folded in the shotshell and flexible fabric bulbs (of several detailed designs) having nominal axial symmetry in the shotshell. The folded bags have overstitched seams at the beanbag edge, and are loaded into 1 2 gauge shotshells by folding them into an approximately cylindrical shape and inserting them into the open hul l . The flexible fabric bulbs (sometimes called a sock) are seamless balloonshaped vessels that are tied at one end, forming a tail of leftover fabric.

The folded beanbag designs are intended to reorient after leaving the barrel to present a flat surface perpendicular to the velocity. The dynamics of this reorientation are complex, but the aerodynamic forces in flight in combination with beanbag dynamics tend to produce this reorientation. In the early phases of this reorientation, the very small impact area of the relatively sharp edges of the overstitched seams of the flat beanbag can cause impact laceration and wound trauma risk through penetration. It takes some time for this beanbag reorientation, and a manufacturer's 30 feet minimum range specification is typical to provide time for this reorientation to be satisfactorily near completion before impact. This dynamic process is substan-

tially different for beanbags fired in smoothbore and rifled barrels, and was a major element in the study for each barrel type.

The flexible fabric bulb beanbag designs available through most of this investigation were intended for use in smoothbore shotguns, and usually have a significant fabric tail to provide orientation stability during flight. If this tail is loaded towards the rear, there is no reorientation in flight. If this tail is loaded towards the front, the bag reorients 1 80° in flight (when fired in an smoothbore shotgun), but this reorientation does not have significant wound ballistic consequences. This beanbag design does not have any relatively sharp edges in any orientation, but when fired from smoothbore -shotguns, the impact area is always about that of the shotgun bore (i .e . , about the same diameter as the unopened folded bag designs).

These two types of beanbag ammunition are discussed separately because the risk issues are quite different. These risk issues are basically a function of the design types, not the beanbag manufacturer. This point does not argue that all the manufacturers have very equivalent products in all the issues of importance (they do not), but merely recognizes that fatality risks are dominated by issues related to the beanbag design type, rather than by the design detail . As a result, manufacturers of tested ammunition are not identified herein to help avoid misunderstand�ngs of study results.

Shotguns

Five different barrels mounted and two different 12 gauge shotguns were used in this study of beanbag performance. The shotguns were an Ithaca Model 3 7 and a Remington Model 870. The Ithaca was fitted with two different barrels, a smoothbore with an improved modified choke barrel and a fully rifled ( l /34 · twist) barrel. The Remington was equipped with an interchangeable smoothbore cylinder, a paradox (two inch rifled insert at the muzzle), and a fully rifled (1135 twist) barrel. The smoothbore barrel chokes were determined by measuring actual bore diameter; the rifled barrels had no choke by design (verified by groove diameter measurement). Some smoothbore barrels purported to be "cylinder bore" have been found to be modified choke or even smaller diameter. Therefore, choke should always be determined by measurement of bore diameter and not presumed or interpreted from product markings.

The paradox barrel was tested to determine if the standard smoothbore barrel could be retrofitted with a

Volume 4, Issue 4 Fa/1 1000 1 7

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW Bea n b a g Fa t a l i ty R i s k


rifled barrel insert. Preliminary tests performed with the paradox barrel were unsatisfactory and this option was abandoned without extensive testing. One manufacturer warned that any attempt to fully rifle a smoothbore barrel would remove too much material from the barrel and could result in catastrophic failure of the barrel if used with conventional ammunition. While such an application was not planned, this option is unsound based on fundamental safety principles.

Beanbag Ammunition Velocity Shotguns barrels foul more rapidly with beanbag

ammunition than other ammunition types as a result of the relatively soft plastic overpowder wads required by the low pressure loads. These soft wads scrape, melt and skip down the barrel, leaving ample residue behind. The manufacturers all state that their current beanbag ammunition is not sensitive to this fouling up to at least 50 rounds, and that they typically perform relatively extended testing without cleaning. The barrels used in this study were cleaned after every 20 shot interval with a conventional stainless steel bore brush to minimize the potential effects of accumulated bore residues.

The velocity of beanbag ammunition is somewhat dependent on bore fouling and temperature. The first shot fired after barrel cleaning or with a cold fouled barrel is usually noticeably lower than average; this result was confirmed by the manufacturers, who have all observed this effect. The cause of this phenomenon is not certain, but appears to be a barrel lubrication effect from trace residues at elevated temperature. This lubricating effect is not present when the barrel and the residues cool to ambient temperature (or when the residues have been removed). This first shot effect on velocity falls within maximum shot-toshot velocity variation, and so does not present a significant concern.

Beanbag ammunition has a much larger velocity variation in percentage than typical ammunition because the velocity is much lower than typical shotgun ammunition. This effect is not a result of beanbags per se, but merely a result of the fact that the dynamics of this low velocity greatly increases the sensitivity of the beanbag barrel exit velocity to typical perturbations. The physics is too detailed for this discussion, but the typical perturbing effects are gas blow by, all forms of barrel friction, and variations in all aspects of powder charge and ignition. Similarly, choke in smoothbore barrels significantly decreases beanbag muzzle velocities, even to the point of occasionally lodging beanbag ammunition components in the barrel. As a result, beanbag ammunition must be tested 1 8 Fall 2000

in the barrel type used operationally; the manufacturer's rated muzzle velocities of beanbag ammunition are often not valid in different barrel types. In principle, the beanbag ammunition powder charge can be adjusted to give whatever average velocity is desired in any shotgun barrel. In practice, the effort made by any of the manufacturers to fme tune a special load will be related to the size of the purchase order for that load.

Shot-to-shot velocity variation can be expected to depend somewhat on the shotgun and load. Data compiled during the course of this study on shot-to-shot velocity variation gives an indication of what might be expected from unchoked barrels. The data in Table I is from a single manufacturer's lot of folded beanbag ammunition, and was accumulated from shots fired in rifled barrels over several testing sessions. The chronograph used to measure these velocities was checked for consistency with three shots using a . 1 77 caliber laboratory BB gun, which measured 190, 192, and 194 ft/sec.

Table 1 Beanbag Velocity Data from Rifled Barrels

Velocity Ithaca Remington Condition 120 shots 40 shots

High 367 ftlsee 379 ftlsee Low 267 ftlsee 325 ftlsee

Average 336 fUsee 353 fUsee Standard Deviation 1 8 ftlsee 1 3 ftlsee

The extreme spread of velocities in the Ithaca is large, but a significant part of this variation is due to a few low velocity shots. The absence of anomalously low velocity shots in the Remington barrel is a statistical artifact of happenstance and a small sample size. A selected run of 40 Ithaca rifled barrel shots (# 53-92) has 362, 305, 338, and 1 4 ft/sec for high, low, average, and standard deviation respectively (with no anomalously low shots in this smaller sample). The anomalously low velocity shots are too uncommon to materially affect the average or standard deviation estimates of any relatively large sample.

The factors that are most likely to produce anomalous velocities will cause these velocities to be low. The only plausible cause of an anomalously high velocity is a double powder charge, which manufacturing quality control should essentially preclude. This characteristic of the anomalous velocities is fortuitous, because it means that while occasional rounds may have

Volume 4, Issue 4


JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS A SSOCIATION Bea n b a g F a t a l i t y R i s k

lower effectiveness, the possibility of excessive trauma from over velocity is very low.

The ammunition used in this study was not special order to match the rifled barrels. The reason for the 5% difference in measured average velocity between the two barrels is unknown, but probably represents a real difference, not a data sample artifact.

Experimental Designs Statistically significant quantities of beanbag

projectiles were fired into various media at a spectrum of ranges; velocities of all the test shots were measured by chronograph. Several techniques were used to assess bag configuration at impact during this study. Simple cardboard witness panels were used in the earliest preliminary assessment to verify that there was a concern; this concern was validated using Kodak highspeed video (EKT APRO Graphic for color, HG2000 for black and white) and high-speed photography (Hadland System image capture). The insights gained by experience led to the use of corrugated cardboard panels (typical target sheets) backed with a steel plate; this provides a very simple, reliable, and permanent record of impact areas. This test setup is illustrated in Figure 1 . Additional testing included shots into ballistic gelatin, both bare and covered with cloth and pigskin to simulate and assess the effects of human skin and clothing.

Figure 1

Chronograph

s o hotgon

Experimental Design ' ' ' Witne panel

led back d ardboard

Note that all measurements of beanbag impact area (a parameter of considerable significance) depend somewhat on assumptions and technique. The values used in this study consistently represent the areas in the steel backed cardboard that show individual shot im-

pressions. Measurements of impacts in clay (often used by manufacturers) or on other materials are somewhat different. The steel backed cardboard areas are not necessarily "right", but are objective and practical to preserve for later review.

Impact Configurations of Folded Beanbag Designs There are only two basic bag impact configura

tions; the bag folded (in the cylindrical form as loaded), and the bag open. The intermediate partly opened configuration is too rare to be a factor, and does not present any special problems. The bag impact can be in any orientation relative to the impact surface; this orientation is a very significant risk factor, and in effect, bag orientation at impact is a configuration subset., Qualitative descriptions of the important beanbag configurations follow; descriptions of wound trauma considerations are discussed subsequently.

When the bag is unopened at impact (i.e., still folded into a cylindrical shape as loaded in the shell), the orientation of the bag axis relative to the impacted surface is critical. Beanbag impacts with the bag axis nearly perpendicular to the surface have a small projected total impact area exacerbated by the relatively sharp bag edges making initial contact, which causes significant penetration. The initial cylinder shape of an unopened bag perpendicularly impacting deforms (variably) during penetration, which reduces penetration depth below that of a solid cylinder of the same dimensions. In random orientation, about 25% of cylinders would be nearly perpendicular, but tests show a greater percentage, so muzzle disturbances and aerodynamic effects during flight appear to be too small to create a random distribution of the unopened beanbag axis. The primary muzzle disturbances are a result of asymmetrical gas flow past the over powder wad on the asymmetrical beanbag immediately following barrel exit. Unopened beanbag impacts with the bag axis nearly parallel to the surface impacted have slightly less than 1 square inch of projected area (and no sharp edge impact); this increased area produces a corresponding reduction in penetration depth. Unopened beanbag impacts with the bag axis at a modest angle to the surface have intermediate penetration.

When the bag is open and impacts the target with the plane of the bag nearly perpendicular to the target surface, the bag edge tends to cut into the surface, and the penetration sometimes approaches that in the lease desirable unopened bag configuration and orientation. Open beanbag impacts with the plane of the bag parallel to the surface or inclined to the surface with an impact area greater than about 1 .3 square

Volume 4, Issue 4 Fall 2000 1 9

WOUND BALLISTIC REVIEW B ea n b a g Fatal i ty R i s k


inches do not penetrate bare gelatin (and so will not penetrate soft tissue).

The probability of each of the various configurations occurring on any shot is generally a function of range. Since the dynamics of beanbag opening and orientation are complex and analytically intractable, the statistics associated with beanbag configurations must be determined empirically. The complexity of outcomes requires a large number of test firings to be statistically significant; this has been implemented for both smoothbore and rifled barrels.

Only a relatively limited number of rounds (52) were required to conclusively demonstrate the serious problems with smoothbore barrels. No additional rounds were fired to improve the statistics. The statistics derived f!om this limited data set are perfectly satisfactory because even large errors ( � 50%) would not significantly affect conclusions, and the modeling errors are not nearly this large. All of these rounds impacted the target at 30 feet or more (many were at 40 feet); statistics would be worse at shorter ranges. The smoothbore barrel statistics for impact bag configuration are given in Table 2; the case fractions have been rounded to a .05 quantum to avoid the appearance of unrealistic accuracy from the limited sample size.

Table 2 Smoothbore Barrel Statistics at ;:,>: 30 Feet Range

configuration

unopened bag impact near perpendicular intermediate near parallel

open bag imf)act area < 1 in2

area > 1 in2

fraction of cases

.35

. 1 0

.25

. 1 5

. 1 5

This test data shows that these folded beanbags have an impact area greater than 1 square inch only 1 5% of the time (all of the

WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW€¦ · Wound Ballistics Research of the Past 20 Years: A Giant Step...

Documents

Transcript of WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW€¦ · Wound Ballistics Research of the Past 20 Years: A Giant Step...