View Full Version : Wound Channel Seperation
Are there any good resources concerning the amount of separation at which wound channels become redundant?
Are there any good resources concerning the amount of separation at which wound channels become redundant?
Wound channels become redundant as long as new tissue is destroyed, assuming no large vessels or CNS or vascular organs are hit, in which case that is the holy grail.
There is of course a law of diminishing returns, such as if you sever the same vessel fully twice. Such as hitting the ascending aorta with a 12ga slug full-on twice. Probably won't drop someone any faster than just doing it once.
Wound channels become redundant as long as new tissue is destroyed, assuming no large vessels or CNS or vascular organs are hit, in which case that is the holy grail.
There is of course a law of diminishing returns, such as if you sever the same vessel fully twice. Such as hitting the ascending aorta with a 12ga slug full-on twice. Probably won't drop someone any faster than just doing it once.
Are we using the same definition of "redundant"? As in needlessly repeated?
The only time wound channels might become "redundant" by that definition is after the guy is dead.
Are we using the same definition of "redundant"? As in needlessly repeated?
The only time wound channels might become "redundant" by that definition is after the guy is dead.
Thats pretty darn funny, and I completely agree.
Are we using the same definition of "redundant"? As in needlessly repeated?
The only time wound channels might become "redundant" by that definition is after the guy is dead.
I meant physiologically. Psychologically, they may still be of value, but if you nearly cut the ascending aorta in half twice, what's the second time matter?
I meant physiologically. Psychologically, they may still be of value, but if you nearly cut the ascending aorta in half twice, what's the second time matter?
Well, generally the second projectile has created a separate wound channel, damaging other tissue, and opening up more blood flow. Whether or not it has damaged an already damaged structure is irrelevant, more damage overall is better.
I could put five shots center of the kill zone and hit the heart every time. That doesn't make it redundant, it simply adds more trauma, and increases the likelihood of a quick end to the fight.
As I said, the only time wound channels become redundant is after the guy is dead.
Well, generally the second projectile has created a separate wound channel, damaging other tissue, and opening up more blood flow. Whether or not it has damaged an already damaged structure is irrelevant, more damage overall is better.
I could put five shots center of the kill zone and hit the heart every time. That doesn't make it redundant, it simply adds more trauma, and increases the likelihood of a quick end to the fight.
As I said, the only time wound channels become redundant is after the guy is dead.
*replying for the sake of debate*
I am not saying you should shoot once, by any means. I am just saying that if you damage the aorta in such a way that blood-pressure to the brain is 0, shooting again is pointless if you hit the same structure, in which case, the wound-channels would be redundant.
Technically, any tissue destroyed is more tissue destroyed, though.
*replying for the sake of debate*
I am not saying you should shoot once, by any means. I am just saying that if you damage the aorta in such a way that blood-pressure to the brain is 0, shooting again is pointless if you hit the same structure, in which case, the wound-channels would be redundant.
Technically, any tissue destroyed is more tissue destroyed, though.
Well, not really. You're talking about a single point of damage to a single structure. You aren't factoring in variations in wound channel paths, and any other structures that were hit before or after the two channels intersected.
I think it's a contrived argument at best to suggest some wound channels are redundant, just because there are far too many variables, factors, and points of intersection for you to argue that just because of one factor out of many, the nth channel is redundant. You don't know that for sure, and it would be a long leap of logic to get there.
Two wound channels intersect at the aorta, which was destroyed by the first shot. However, the second channel goes on to strike the spine. Blood pressure to the brian is Zero, but enough oxygen remains that the threat continues for another 30 seconds to a minute after the first shot, but with the second, the spine is shattered and the threat is immediately ended due to physical incapacitation.
Is that second channel redundant? Or the third, that pierces a lung on the way through and hits the aorta?
Some channels may seem redundant, but in truth, they aren't, and cannot be considered to be such because they may do damage to structures equally vital, but also transect structures already damaged.
Only when the threat is incapacitated entirely are further wounds redundant because there is no further need to induce more damage.
Are there any good resources concerning the amount of separation at which wound channels become redundant?
If you are shooting one hole groups during a gunfight someone is doing something very wrong. That said there are cases where shotgun pellets at close range will follow a wound track created by another pellet. This results in less individual wound tracks.
Even a projectile that enters at the begining of an existing wound track may deviate from that track at a later time.
In the real world I doubt this is much of an issue since the dynamics of a gunfight rarely if ever allow for hitting the EXACT same spot twice without any changes in the angle of the subject.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.