Recent Ballistics Studies etc.? Evidenced Based Studies

[Sox]

To the powers that be:

Are there any studies that are currently being undertaken with respect to wounding, large evidenced based studies etc.

What is the usual source of this information? Is it retrospective case studies with redaction and inferences made?

The reason I ask, is like most of us I am interested in the topics for the obvious reasons. However, it seems like most of what we hash out is dated material (no offense meant).

For that past number of years all we have had were literally a hand full of studies or so it seems.

The recent "study" by Greg Ellifritz appears full of errors, though noble in attempt.

Are any Big Agencies/Organizations looking at this with a fine toothed comb? For example, a newer FBI analysis or such?

Thanks for the insight.

Dave

[Todd.K]

What is wrong with the FBI method? http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm

Studies cannot account for the exact shot placement, mindset of the person being shot to separate psychological from physiological "stops", and even combine HP and Ball ammo together like in the study you mention.

Even the definition of "stop" is all over the place. How can "Owww, don't shoot me again" be the same one shot stop as a CNS hit?



I find studies, charts, percentages, an interesting insight into our human nature. Our desire to create order blinds us to the complexity of gunshot wounds in relation to how they stop an attacker, so we continue to try to simplify it into a chart based on caliber.

[200RNL]

We will probably never see a conclusive report on the great incapacitation debate. Maybe we can clean up some of the inconsistancies but you're never going to be able to read 'the' study that ends all studies.

[KhanRad]

I think that the current methods in use by the FBI are going to be the best available for a long time to come. I've read over a lot of other studies done by people like Michael Courtney and others, and there isn't much there to link theory to observable and repeatable demonstration.

Also, the FBI method has revolutionized ammunition evolution, and there isn't really anything there to show that the FBI method is wrong. If it ain't broke.......

[Sox]

If one reads the Thompson Lagarde Study from the early 1900's we basically have reaffirmed those results today haven't we?

Simply saying the FBI study is dated. Ammo has changed, as has the body habitus of the population as a whole (bigger people these days).

I was just wondering if anyone with authority or knowledge knew of such a more current undertaking.

Thanks,

Dave

[DocGKR]

Sounds like some folks don't know what they don't know.

Our Nation has been through a decade of major ground combat...there is extensive wound ballistic information available synthesizing data from both lab studies and field forensic evidence.

The comments about the FBI study being "dated" is absurd--the FBI BRF is not static and frozen in time; they have done more than just about any organization in the U.S. with their ongoing, up to the minute analyses of projectile terminal performance and body armor effects for both LE agencies and military organizations.

Likewise, the military has conducted quite a few studies over the past decade including the AMU/USASOC SPC work in 2002-2003, the JSWB-IPT in 2003-2006, the USMC-FBI multi-caliber ammunition study in 2005-2006, the NSWC Crane work on SOST and other small arms ammunition innovations, the USSOCOM/ARDEC report on LeMas ammo, the ongoing USMC analysis of current 5.56 mm ammunition options, the CTTSO/TSWG special ammunition procurements and intermediate caliber assessment to name just a few. What data is available publicly from these programs has often been discussed here at M4C, at LF, and a few other places, for example: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=32989 & http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf. Just because data is not public information does not mean significant information has not been collected, reviewed, and made available to the appropriate end-users.

[Odd Job]

I think what Sox is getting at, is studies that have meaning in terms of actual gunshot wounds.
Problem is, the meaning is dependant on variables that are difficult to collect retrospectively. So you either need a large collection of something like OISs with adequate recording of various data at the time of the shooting, or you need prospective shooting of animals.

Even so, I reckon in both cases you would need a HUGE sample before you got anywhere near a point where you could make some strong comments about ammunition differences (in the same class) either way. Even with targets of similar habitus you are going to get many variables and in my opinion it is no easy task to get around that.

Now if there is a secret research sample out there, with cases similar to what I have, but with the pre-hospital or pre-morgue variables documented in the same level of detail then I would dearly like to get my paws on those

[Sox]

Doc,

Thanks for the info. Those links were insightful. While I appreciate discretion in the release of some info, I think it can add a level of bias if it is simply disseminated in part without being able to look at the whole. Just like you would scrutinize a medical journal article before taking what a rep has to say at face value.

I am curious, as from what I have gathered from available sources that most cite FBI criteria from the studies they conducted in the mid to late 80's. Are there more recent studies authored by them? If not, could one be reasonable in thinking that 26 years is somewhat dated? Again, I am not questioning the method.

I do confess to being a bit lazy and not doing a current literature search. Please drop me PM if you would be so kind, as I would like to discuss some of this on a professional level.

Thanks,
Dave

[Failure2Stop]

It has been pretty well proven that the bigger the hole you put in the major blood-delivery system the faster the target will be unable to continue hostile acts.

The issue comes with practicality.
I would love to have a round that would vaporize a torso on impact, but getting that kind of performance out of a shoulder-fired (or hand-held) weapon at a per round cost that would permit frequent practice is not possible with our current technology and manufacturing.

So it comes down to compromise.
Get one big hole (think 12ga 00 at 10 meters), or get many smaller holes (think .22 LR) faster, each at opposite ends of the spectrum, and range dependent. Add in factors like overpenetration and barrier penetration and things get muddier. State of the art 5.56 sits pretty well in the middle of the compromise. State of the art 7.62 pushes closer to the "big hole" side, but at the expense of weight, learning curve, recoil, ammo capacity, and training expense.
*This is not an argument against 7.62 guns, just a realistic view of the obstacles to be overcome to achieve the superior ballistics.
The same can be said for the 9 vs .40 vs .45, but with much less difference in wound profile. I know quite a few cops that carry a .45 over other choices, not because they believe it to be a vastly superior round against psychos, but because they are around cars 99% of the time while on duty and therefore have a high probability of having to shoot through a car with their pistol to effect a lethal threat. In their case, a 10% improvement in barrier penetration is more than semantic. It isn't my choice, but I work in a different environment and almost always have a carbine.

When it comes to actually fighting, terminal ballistics are but a part of the picture. Most people would be better served using the time they argue about terminal ballistics on practicing their draw-stroke. 5 Wally-world 9mm FMJs delivered betwixt the nipples will do a hell of a lot more than the 230gr JHP +P+ bear-grenade .44 mag that is still in the gun while somebody is busy sawing your head off with a rusty machette.

[Wayne Dobbs]

When it comes to actually fighting, terminal ballistics are but a part of the picture. Most people would be better served using the time they argue about terminal ballistics on practicing their draw-stroke. 5 Wally-world 9mm FMJs delivered betwixt the nipples will do a hell of a lot more than the 230gr JHP +P+ bear-grenade .44 mag that is still in the gun while somebody is busy sawing your head off with a rusty machette.

Beautifully stated. I was involved in a conversation with two firearms trainers from my old agency the other day in which they were questioning the effectiveness of about four very acceptable 9mm factory loads. This devolved into which ONE of them was the best and why. I finally stopped and said that ammo selection was probably, at best, about five percent of the whole issue of armed encounter management. The big problems were tactics and getting the typically mediocre police handgun operator to get good hits in a fight.

I illustrated it by saying it was almost like obsessing over whether to buy gasoline at Chevron, Valero, QT or Race Trak for your next road trip in a decent vehicle. It just doesn't matter too much as long as the load (or gas) is a quality performer.