-
$20.00
International Wound Ballistics Association
WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
Editorial: The ''Rhino" Bullet: Beware of Dragons and Dunces
- Alexander Jason
Survey and Evaluation of Variables in the Preparation of
Ballistic Gelatin
- Sherrie M. Post & Torrey D. Johnson
Falling Bullets: Terminal Velocites and Penetration Studies
- Lucien C. Haag
The JFK Assassination: The F rangible or Plastic Bullet Theory
Disproved
- John K. Lattimer, MD, Angus Laidlaw, Val Forgett, Eric
Haubner
The Makarov Mixup: .380 Auto in the 9x18 Makarov
- Lucien C. Haag
Literature Review: Errors in The Journal of Trauma
-Martin L. Fackler, MD
VOLUME 2 1995 NUMBER 1
-
WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND
BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
VOLUME 2 1995 NUMBER !
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Instructions to Authors . . . ... ... . ... . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .... . ..... . . .. . . . . . . 3
Association News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 4
IWBA Correspondence . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . .
. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .
.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 5
Editorial
The "Rhino" Bullet: Beware of Dragons and Dunces .. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .
. . . . . 7
- Alexander Jason
Articles
Survey and Evaluation of Variables in the Preparation of
Ballistic Gelatin.............. 9
- Sherrie M. Post & Torrey D. Johnson
Falling Bullets: Terminal Velocites and Penetration Studies . .
. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .
21
- Lucien C. Haag
The JFK Assassination: The Frangible or Plastic Bullet Theory
Disproved........... 27
- John K. Lattimer, MD, Angus Laidlaw, Val Forgett, Eric
Haubner, RT
The Makarov Mixup: .380 Auto in the 9x18mm Makarov . . . . . ..
. .. . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 33
- Lucien C. Haag
Literature Review
Errors in The Journal of Trauma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .. . .... . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 40
-Martin L. Fackler, MD
1 Vol 2, No. 1
-
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
Test Results
........................................................................................................................
48
Book Review
"Bullet
Penetration"......................................................................................
52
Martin L. Fackler, MD Surgeon & Consultant Gainesville,
FL
Torrey D. Johnson Criminalist
Las Vegas, NV
Duncan MacPherson Consulting Engineer
El Segundo, CA
Board o f Directors
Lucien C. Haag Criminalist/Firearms Examiner
Carefree, AZ
Peter H. Kokalis Firearms Consultant
Phoenix, AZ
Eugene Wolberg Forensic Firearms Scientist
San Diego, CA
Alexander Jason Ballistics Consultant
Pinole, CA
Douglas Lindsey, MD, DrPH Professor of Surgery Emeritus
Tucson, AZ
The IWBA is an IRS 501 (c) (3) nonprofit scientific,
educational, and public benefit California corporation.
Contributions are tax-deductible; Tax ID# 94-3136817. The IWBA is
comprised of
scientists, physicians, criminalists, law enforcement members,
engineers, researchers, and others engaged or interested in the
study of wound ballistics.
Editor-in -Chief: Martin L. Fackler
Managing Editor: Alexander Jason
Journal Design & Production: A. Jason
Subscription Information
U.S. individual and institutional subscriptions: $40 per year
(or four issues). Canadian Subscriptions: $48 per year. Air mail
foreign subscriptions: $58 per year.
Single copy sales: $20 plus $4 postage and handling for U.S. and
$6 for foreign orders.
The WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW' The Journal of the International
Wound Ballistics Association (ISSN 1055-0305) is published by the
IWBA, PO Box 70 1 , El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone (310) 640-6065, ©Copyright 1 995, IWBA. All Rights
Reserved.
Vol 2, No. 1 2
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS
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 either appear with the
paper when published or will be made available upon request.
Articles are accepted only for exclusive publication in IWBA,
and when published, the articles and illustrations become
the property ofiWBA. When an article is selected for
publication, the author(s) will be required to sign a copyright
transmittal
which also attests to the originality of the material
submitted.
The experiment described in any paper must represent good
scientific method. Complete methodology must be presented
so that the reader can duplicate the experiment exactly.
Work must be based on basic solid understanding of
projectile-tissue interaction. Results must be reported completely
to
permit meaningful comparison. In experimental animal wounds, for
example, a clear and thorough quantitative description of the
observed damage must be included; i.e., was the bone fractured?
Were major vessels disrupted? How big was the entrance? The
exit? What is the appearance of the projectile path (penetration
depth, size and morphology of damage to organs, etc.)? This
information is mandatory to allow meaningful correlation of the
wound reported to military as well as civilian wounds.
The entire paper must be expressed in language understandable to
the layman.
SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS
1. 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); IWBA will notify the editor of
the
source, pending correction, inviting a rebuttal to be published
with the review if one is submitted.
2. In submitting original work, the manuscript and one copy are
requested ; one set of glossy illustrations is required; black
& white is preferred. Author's name must be clearly
identified on the title page with address and telephone number.
Manuscript must be double-spaced with ample margins (at least one
inch on all sides) on standard (8 112" x 11") paper. NOTE: THE
PRE
FERRED MANUSCRIPT FORM IS THE 3 112" (1.44 Meg or 720K) or 5
114" (1.2 Meg ) PC FLOPPY DISK WITH A PAPER
COPY. Most major PC word processors are acceptable but
WordPerfect 5.0 or 5.1 is preferred. (Do not send data in Samna
or
Ami Pro format: please convert to WordPerfect or ASCII format.)
Macintosh floppies are also acceptable with text in ASCII
format. PLEASE DO NOT PROVIDE COMPUTER TEXT WITH SPECIAL FONTS
OR LAYOUTS: PLAIN, SIMPLE TEXT
WITHOUT INDENTS, TABS, LINES OR GRAPHICS. Any graphs, tables,
charts, etc should be supplied as separate files and/
or with a clean, high-quality paper copy.
3. References are to be numbered sequentially within the text
and appear in the order cited at the conclusion of the article.
Examples:
Book : Black KE, Jederberg WW. Athymic nude mice and human skin
grafting. Maibach HI, Lowe JN, eds. Models in Dermatology: vol l .
Basel: S Karger, 1984;226-239.
Article in periodical: Fackler ML, Surinchak JS, Malinowski JA,
et al. Bullet fragmentation: A major cause of tissue disruption. J
Trauma 1984;24:263-266.
4. Legends for all illustrations should be listed in order,
double-spaced.
5. An abstract of 150 words or less should preceed the text.
Vol 2, No. 1 3
-
WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
Association News Membership Reorganization
The IWBA has been reorganized. It will be governed by a Board of
Directors. I will remain as president and editor of the journal,
but the organization will be run by a board of directors. They are
: Lucien Haag, Alexander Jason, Torrey Johnson, Duncan MacPherson,
Peter Kokalis, Douglas Lindsey, Eugene Walberg, and Martin
Fackler.
The original IWBA membership structure was designed to give some
recognition to those who have contributed to the body of knowledge
in wound ballistics -- either by adding to the scholarship, or by
disseminating that body of knowledge. Some felt that this "elitist"
membership structure hampered our growth. We have, five years after
our beginning, less than 500 members.
The purpose of the IWBA is advancing the scholarship of wound
ballistics. As firearm illiteracy increases, I see an ever
increasing need for this. Evaluation of the literature, separating
the good from the bad, and getting this published in the IWBA
journal twice a year on a predictable basis should be, in my view,
our top priority (see the IWBA's statement of purpose).
We had a successful meeting in Sacramento in March, 1994. Some
think we should have a meeting once a year. Looking at our present
capacity to get things done I feel that one meeting every second
year might be more attainable. In my view, we should have meetings
only if we can accomplish them without sacrificing our first
priority -- publishing a quality journal twice a year.
Those who felt that our membership structure hampered our growth
suggested that we should have only one membership category. I
solicited comments from our membership on this question: 25 letters
of reply indicated a clear preference -- 22 for the single
membership and only three for the original membership
4 1995
categories. I got nearly as many letters which indicated no
clear preference but expressed unanimous strong support for the
publication of a quality journal on a regular and predictable
basis, a minimum of twice a year, being the first priority of the
IWBA. Many expressed the opinion that "the IWBA should be known to
a much wider audience than it is now" and some suggested
advertising as a means of helping to increase our membership. That
is another suggestion that we intend to adopt: it is clear that a
concerted effort to increase our membership (at least tenfold for
starters) is necessary of we are to accomplish our objective of
increasing the knowledge of firearm effects in the scientific
community as well as among the general populace.
The board of directors has voted to follow the wishes of the
members : the new membership qualifications can be found on the
last page of this issue.
Martin L. Fackler, IWBA President
IWBA Fellows Program A recent meeting of the IWBA Board of
Directors
has voted to establish an IWBA Fellowship. This program will
provide a certification process for IWBA members who meet certain
criteria. Successful participants in the program will earn the
title of "Fellow of theiWBA."
A Fellowship Committee has been established to determine the
requirements and protocol for the program. Proposed criteria may
include some or all of the following: publication of papers in the
IWBA Journal, significant contribution to the science of wound
ballisitcs, recommendation by colleagues, and a written examination
on wound ballistic fundamentals. Please direct any comments on this
program to Alexander Jason, Chairman of the Fellowship Committee at
P.O. Box 375, Pinole, CA 94564
Vol 2, No. 1
WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW Association News
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
IWBA Correspondence Editor:
The article by Gary Roberts, D.D.S. entitled "Comparison of the
Terminal Performance of 9mm, .40 S&W, & .45 ACP JHP's"1 was
generally quite good, but contained a few inconsistencies. On page
36, Dr. Roberts writes, "The Hornady 147gr #9028 "XTP" and the
Corbon +P 147gr load which utilizes the Hornady 14 7 gr "XTP"
bullet both had excessive penetration due to insufficient
expansion." According to Table One on page 35, the average
penetration in 10% gelatin exhibited by the test lots of these two
loads was 15.2 inches (38 .6 em) and 1 5.7 inches (39.9 em)
respectively. Since 1 8 inches (45.7 em) is currently considered
the top end of desirable soft tissue penetration in humans and is
indeed stated as such on page 33, the penetration results with the
two test loads appear to be quite satisfactory. Curiously, the
Hornady .45 ACP 230 gr. #9096 "XTP" load tested by the author
exhibited an average penetration depth of 1 5.6 inches (39.5 em),
but was listed by him on page 34 (and correctly so) as among the
satisfactory performers in that caliber.
Even if one were to set the ceiling of acceptable missile
penetration on the ideal maximum of 1 5 inches (38 .1 em), test
results exceeding that figure by only .2 or .7 inches ( .5 or 1 .8
em) would still be acceptable, as they could just as likely be the
result of slight batch-tobatch variations in penetration resistance
inherent in the test medium as they could be the result of
characteristics of the ammunition itself. Properly prepared
ordnance gelatin is a test medium of proven accuracy, but its
accuracy is certainly not of micrometer grade precision.
On page 36, Dr. Roberts writes that the approximate minimum
level of acceptable expansion is .60 inches for the 9mm, .65 inches
for the .40 S&W, and
Vol 2, No. 1 1995
.70 inches for the .45 ACP. On the contrary, given respective
bullet weights of 14 7, 1 80, and 230 gr., impact velocities of 850
to 1000 fps, relatively flat frontal profiles on the mushroomed
bullets, and virtual I 00% weight retention in all instances, these
figures come closer to representing the maximum diameters that one
could expect to obtain while still meeting the 12 inch (30.5 em)
minimum tissue penetration standard. A good case in point is the
Winchester 14 7 grain 9mm Subsonic JHP load which has proven itself
in both the laboratory and in the field to be a most satisfactory
performer for use against human adversaries. In a study of 27
actual human shootings with this load conducted by Eugene J.
Wolberg, Senior Firearms Criminalist for the San Diego Police Crime
Laboratory, the average penetration depth was 1 3 inches with no
projectile expanding to a diameter of more than .584 inches.2
In order to penetrate at least 12 inches of soft tissue, a
bullet weighing 14 7 grains with an expanded diameter significantly
greater than .60 inches would have to possess either a more
aerodynamic frontal profile than a blunt mushroom shape, or a
stellate pattern that would decrease the cross sectional area of
the mushroom head via spaces between the extended radial
projections. In the former case the bullet's ability to crush
tissue relative to its diameter would be compromised, while in the
latter case the concomitant decrease in cross sectional area would
permit the bullet to penetrate as deeply as a non-stellate expanded
bullet of smaller diameter, but with a higher likelihood of
disrupting blood vessels and other anatomical structures that the
smaller diameter bullet may miss.
Sincerely, Gus Cotey, Jr. Voorhees, NJ
REFERENCES:
1 . Roberts GK, Comparison of the terminal performance of 9mm,
.40
S&W, & .45 ACP JHP's. Wound Ballistics Review, Vol. I,
No. 4: 32-37
2. Wolberg EJ, Performance of the Winchester 9mm 147 grain
subsonic
jacketed hollow point bullet in human tissue and tissue
simulant. Wound
Ballistics Review, Vol. I, No.I: 10-13
5
-
r
Correspondence WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
Comment:
I wish to thank Gus Cotey for his perceptive comments.
It is my job as editor to pick up the inconsistencies that
he
pointed out -- but I missed them.
Honest scientists are grateful to those who point out
their mistakes and oversights. They can then make the nec
essary corrections and the body of knowledge improves -that is
the way science is meant to work. Our readership is
the most knowledgeable in the world regarding the subject
of wound ballistics and we invite and value their comments
pointing out any oversights that we publish. Letters
pointing
out errors have our highest priority for publication.
The last paragraph in Gus's letter reveals his excellent
understanding of what is going on as a bullet penetrates tis
sue. His comment "Properly prepared ordnance gelatin is a
test medium of proven accuracy, but its accuracy is cer
tainly not of micrometer grade precision" also needs to be
stressed. I tabulated the penetration depths of the last 200
BB calibration shots we did in 10% ordnance gelatin (shot
at 4 degrees C) at the wound ballistics laboratory at the
Let
terman Army Institute of Research: the average came out to
be 8.6 ± 0.4 em. This demonstrated that the penetration
depths we measured in our gelatin were generally accurate
only within about± 5%. This verifies Gus's comment and
points out the problem with scientific validity one runs
into
when using any sharp cutoff penetration depth to evaluate
bullets: it implies more precision than we can obtain from
ordnance gelatin -- or any other tissue simulant. Duncan
MacPherson discusses this problem in his book Bullet Pen
etration - Modeling the Dynamics and Incapacitation
Resulting from Wound Trauma which is reviewed in this
issue.
--MLF
Editor: Thanks for the wisdom from the 1 893 Scientific
American, (see the Fragments" section of issue No.4 of the WBJ-
Ed.) I had to read this puzzler a few times to get the writer's
point. He must have been a mathematician, because his method is
true without being useful, It's true that time of flight determines
total drop, So, if you measure the drop to a given range, you can
tell the average velocity over that distance. This leaves you
somewhat in the dark about muzzle velocity, but before cheap
chronographs, shooters would settle for a good deal less
6
precision. And so would the government- most of the firing
tables for .45-70 were determined by graphic and surveying methods,
not by downrange chronographs,
The hope of the writer that this can be done with only two shots
is pretty utopian- he seems to rely on some wonderfully precise
machine rest that permits the gun being inverted without sighting
problems, and on perfect ammunition, We are still waiting for this
gear a hundred years later.
In practice, graphic determination of trajectory needed lots of
experimental firing. Even so, some pretty smart folks made some
pretty serious mistakes. The extreme range of .30- '06 ammo was
thought to be 4700 yards until WWI, when somebody discovered by
longrange machine gun shooting that the slug never got past 3400
yards. This bothered the experts more than somewhat. Things are
more scientific now.
First, you have to shoot really significant groups
mathematically- twenty or twenty-five rounds. When you have
determined your group center geometrically, you sandbag the rifle
so the sights are pointed at your aiming point. The bore- line will
point somewhat above the group center. You look through the bore
directly, if you have a bolt-action or a falling block, or with a
reflector bore-scope, if you're working with something that has an
obstruction at the rear of the receiver. You send an assistant down
to the target with a marking disc and direct him until you can see
his disc through the bore. He then marks the target through the
hole in the disc's center. If you want to eliminate some human
error, you can peer through the bore with a surveyor's transit, If
not, you can just let your helper repeat the process until you have
a number of marks, then find their geometric center.
The difference in height between bore-sight center and group
center is the drop over that range, giving you the time of flight
and the average velocity to that distance. If you repeat the
process at many ranges, it takes only patience and a little math to
figure out what your load will do out to 1 1 00 yards or so. The
published tables for the ,45-70-405 US Govt load end just here,
because the groups got so big that wind and iron-sight error made
the true drop something of a mystery.
Yeah, it works, But not like a mathematician wants it to.
1995
Leon Day, Oakland, CA
Vol 2 , No. 1
WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW Editorial
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
The ''Rhino Bullet:''
Beware of Dragons &· Dunces Alexander Jason
In December of 1994, a small article appeared in Newsweek
magazine titled "Killer Bullet:" which featured the new
"Rhino-Ammo." This article quoted the manufacturer's claim that,
"Upon contact with human flesh, the polymer ablation rate is
exceeded, which
while we carry out our mission." Politicians at the federal and
state levels were quick to move on this new threat. A U.S. Senator,
and a Congressman announced that they would propos� legislation to
ban such ammunition. California Assemblyman John Burton
causes violent fracturing of the projectile into thousands of
sharp, razor like fragments. Each of these fragments become lethal
shrapnel and are hurled into vital organs, lungs,
circulatory-system components, the heart and other tissue. The
wound channel is catastrophic."
This Newsweek article initiated several weeks of hysterical
reporting by the print and television news media which warned that
a "deadly new form" of "flesh-tearing" bullets would soon be on the
market. The "inventor" of the Rhino-Ammo was featured on many news
broadcasts and national newspapers making such comments as, "The
beauty of it is it makes an incredible wound. There is no way to
stop the bleeding. I don't care where it hits. They're going down
for good." He also announced his intention to market an "armor
piercing" bullet (the "Black-Rhino") which he said would go through
any vest.
Several law enforcement officials declared their opposition to
the deadly new ammo. The Chief of the Wash-
C:UNS
Killer Bullet
UPON CONTACT WITH HUMAN flesh, the polymer ablation rate is
exceeded, which causes violent fracturing of the projectile into
thousands of sharp, razorlike fragments. Each of these fragments
become lethal shrapnel and are hurled into vital organs, lungs,
circulatory-system components, the heart and other tissues. The
wound channel is catastrophic." Or so says the packaging of
Rhino-Ammo, a new brand of bullet that's about to hit Amer� ica's
streets, along with $4 per round Black Rhi-nos, which penetrate
bulletproof vests. Worse, says a federal narcotics agent, "they'll
be used against the good guys." Similar "cop killer" bullets were
banned in 1986-Will Rhinos be next?
introduced legislation to outlaw the manufacture, possession, or
sale of Rhino bullets. "It boggles the mind," he said, "that some
company would try to figure out another way to kill people." Even
the American Medical Association joined in by warning that "a
surgeon removing Rhino-Ammo from a victim is in danger from its
razor-like fragments."'
The most interesting fact is that no one had ever been shot by a
Rhino bullet; nor had the news media any data whatever concerning
how the Rhino bullet would actually perform. The truth is that
these bullets had not yet been manufactured or marketed. The news
media, the politicians, and the law enforcement officials were only
reacting to the absurd marketing claims of the Rhino bullet
"inventor."
During these few weeks of intense interest in this new threat to
civilization, I was contacted by several members of the news media
who, as usual, didn't really want to learn anything but instead
wanted to quote me saying something that would fit
ington, DC police department stated, "Congress needs to quickly
act to ban these rounds." The director of the National Association
of Police Organizations agreed fearing, " . . . a bullet like that
to be used against us
nicely into their story about this "horrible" ammunition. By
this time I had learned enough about the RhinoAmmo to know that it
was just another high-speed, frangible bullet filled with small
lead shot in an carbon
Vol 2 , N o . 1 1995 7
-
WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
polymer matrix. When I explained to the reporters that there was
nothing really new about the Rhino-Ammo, that it would likely
produce only shallow injuries (this was confirmed later in actual
tests) and that it would certainly not cause "instantaneous death
no matter where it hit." I received rather hostile reactions. One
reporter who had previously interviewed the RhinoBullet inventor,
indignantly asked me "How can you say that? Have you ever seen
someone shot with a Rhino bullet?" I replied, "No, but have you?
Has anyone?" She, quite disgusted asked, "Well, are you a doctor?"
"No," I said, "but neither is the guy who's trying to sell his
Rhino bullets." I thought it strange that she seemed far more
skeptical towards my comments than those of the Rhino bullet
"inventor" and marketer.
On a computer journalism forum, I posted the following
8
In spite of the wild claims made, there is
nothing significantly new or ominous about
the "Rhino" brand ammunition. There are
several other nearly identical bullets which
have been marketed for many years. We have
tested many such frangible projectiles in tis
sue simulant and we have data from
numerous actual shooting incidents and the
truth is that the "deadly" Rhino bullet con
figuration is actually less effective in human
wounding and incapacitation than the stan
dard solid or deforming (hollow-point) bullets
available for the past twenty five years.
In the sub-world of ammunition and gun
collectors, manufacturers, marketers, and in
ventors, there are dozens of new products
launched each year all of which feature fan
tastic (and usually inaccurate) claims of
superior performance. The most enthusiastic
and fanciful of all are the numerous crackpot
bullet inventors who appear frequently with a
"totally new," "super-deadly, killer-diller,"
"magic" bullet design. These people are a
running joke within the law-enforcement and
mainstream ammunition manufacturing com
munities.
What is most interesting is the profound
1995
ignorance and gullibility of the news media in
this matter. Should the marketing claims of a
single person for a product which is not even
in production or available for sale or even in
dependently tested be considered news?
The first replies I received were complaints from people who
accused me of trying to "justify" the manufacture and sale of Rhino
ammo and who said that they were going to demand that a law would
be enacted to ban this terrible ammunition! I sent this
response:
I am not trying to "justify" this nonsense. I
do not care whether or not the Rhino ammu
nition is banned or not banned. The point I
was trying to make was a technical one: that
the product does not represent some new
high-tech threat to humanity. This proposed
product is actually less effective than the am
munition used by cowboys and Indians over
100 years ago.
But I suppose someday when someone
sends out a press release threatening to mar
ket giant fire-breathing dragons, the news
media will accept it as scientific fact, sound
the worldwide media alarm, and there will be
people who will immediately write to congress
demanding a law banning the sale or posses
sion of giant, fire-breathing dragons.
Isn't it interesting that among the thousands of press releases
distributed each day to the news media to promote a new product,
service, or cause; it was only the Rhino bullet which the news
media found both newsworthy and completely credible? It has been
yet another experience which reminds me that there is something
about the field of wound ballistics that often makes even simple
truths difficult to convey.
1. Report of Deadly New Bullets Raise Outcry; Washington Post;28
Dec 1994;A06
Update: Due to a trademark conflict, "Rhino Ammo"
has changed its brand name to "Razor Ammo" and is
now being marketed through retail stores for $24 per
six rounds.
Vol 2 , No. 1
WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
A SURVEY AND EVA.LUATION OF
VARIABLES IN THE PREPARTION
OF BALLISTIC GELATIN Sherrie M. Post & Torrey D. Johnson
A survey of a number of individuals and agencies
who are using ballistic gelatin as a tissue simulant
was conducted to determine what variations in for
mulae and/or techniques of preparation exist. The
variables reported are isolated and the penetration
of the individual blocks compared to standard
gelatin blocks using the BB method of calibration.
Ballistic or ordnance gelatin, first used by Theodor Kocher in 1
895 1 is being widely used by professionals today as the standard
ballistic test medium. Ballistic gelatin is a powdered protein
mixture derived from the bones, skins, and other tis-
porary cavities can be measured, and the gelatin closely matches
the density and elastic properties of animal tissue.3 Also, since
gelatin is transparent, the wounding process can be captured by
high-speed film and observed in detail.
There is no medium yet available that can duplicate the many
variables involved with real tissue and real bodies. However, of
all the present test media, ballistic gelatin used as a tissue
"simulant" can most accurately and consistently reproduce the
projectile penetration depth, deformation, and fragmentation
observed in living animal tissue.2•3.4 Ballistic gelatin has
provided a means of evaluating bullet performance, predicting
wound types, and teaching sue of livestock. The powder is mixed
by weight with water and allowed to gel forming a tough, rubbery,
transparent substance. When properly formulated, ballistic gelatin
closely mimics the behavior of animal muscle tissue when struck by
small arms projectiles.2
Ballistic gelatin can most
accurately and consistently
reproduce the projectile
penetration depth,
deformation, and
fragmentation observed in
living animal tissue.
medical personnel how to treat projectile wounds. Ballistic
gelatin is also being used in crime laboratories to reconstruct
shooting evidence in order to assist in the determination of bullet
type and distance of shooting.
When a bullet strikes the soft tissue of a living body a
permanent cavity is created consisting of the tissue crushed or
destroyed by the bullet's passage. A few milliseconds later a
temporary cavity is formed by the stretch of tissue flung from the
path of the bullet. This cavity subsequently collapses but tissue
and organs in its path can be damaged. Ballistic gelatin is the
only medium reported from which both permanent and tern-
Vol 2, No. 1 1995
ISSUES IN BALLISTIC GELATIN PREPARATION AND USE
Although ballistic gelatin was increasingly being used as a test
medium, problems arose due to ambiguity or a lack of information in
the literature with regard to gelatin formulation, size and
temperature of the gelatin blocks, and testing conditions. Due to
the considerable variation that existed it was difficult to compare
the re-
9
-
WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
Figure 1 BB penetration in 10% gelatin at 4 degrees C
14
12 P=.022VI-1.36
10 ...... E � 8 . c: .Q � Q; 6 c: &
4
2
0 ,
0 100 200 300 400 velocity (f/s)
suits of one experimenter to another's . One also lacked a
method of assessing performance between individual gelatin
batches.
Traditionally it was common practice to use a gelatin
concentration of 20% (w/w), and to dissolve the gelatin granules in
hot water.3•5 More recently the researchers at the Letterman Army
Institute of Research (LAIR) have settled on a 10% (w/w) gelatin
formulation at 4 degrees C which is made without heating the
mixture above 40 degrees C (1 04 degrees F). Prolonged excess heat
has harmful effects on gelatin strength and viscosity and the
manufacturer's instructions recommend adding the powdered gelatin
to cold water.4•6•7 The LAIR group argues that the 1 0%
formulation, stored and shot at 4 degrees C reproduces the
projectile penetration, deformation, and fragmentation depth
measured in living animal tissue. The LAIR group used adult
human-sized swine (approximately 200 lbs) to establish the
equivalence between the tissue simulant and living animal tissue.
3•4 Dr. Martin L.Fackler, the former Director of the LAIR Wound
Ballistics Laboratory has also compared the gelatin performance to
observations made during his work as a surgeon in Vietnam, and he
continues to compare the gelatin results to autopsy results with
others in the field. 5•8•9
In order to ensure consistency between batches of
10 1995
P=.020VI·1. 77
• Post-dotted
o Haag-solid ( 1 0)
• Morris-dashed (as In 10)
500 600 700
gelatin and as a means of comparing performance, Dr. Fackler
began calibrating all of his blocks before conducting any ballistic
testing. Dr. Fackler uses an airgun to shoot a BB at a specified
velocity into the gelatin block. The depth of penetration of the BB
becomes a reproducible measure of the physical properties of that
particular gelatin block. Steel spheres are ideal for this purpose
because they have a uniform shape, will not yaw, expand, deform, or
fragment in the gelatin, and a plot of their penetration versus
velocity will produce a simple straight line (Figure 1 ). This BB
calibration method is now in widespread use as it allows
correlation of data from different experiment- ters. 6•10 The BB
calibration penetration depth of 8.5 em (at 590 f/s) corresponds to
the same penetration depth in muscle tissue. 7•8•9
Sherrie Post was a student intern from the University
of California, Davis during the project and is now at
tending graduate school at the University of
California at Berkeley. Torrey Johnson is a Criminal
ist with the Las Vegas, NV Metropolitan Police
Department Crime Lab.
Vol 2, No. 1
WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
INVESTIGATION OF BALLISTIC GELATIN
PREPARATION VARIABLES
While most researchers in the field have now adopted the
procedure described by Fackler and Malinowski 8•6
as a standard in gelatin preparation (appendix A), some
variation does still exist. We surveyed a number of individuals and
agencies who are using ballistic gelatin as a test medium on the
details of their gelatin formulation, preparation, and use
(appendix B). We then prepared gelatin blocks, incorporating these
variations, and compared them against gelatin blocks prepared by
the Fackler and Malinowski procedure. Using the BB method of
calibration we were able to study how the physical properties of
the gelatin may be changed by these variations in formulation and
procedure. Some of the variations reported by respondents to the
survey and evaluated include: the addition of a preservative or
anti-foam agent, the temperature of the water added to the gelatin
powder, the maximum heating temperature, the use of hydration and
length of time, the storage time, and the use of remelted
gelatin.
The calibration penetration in gelatin has always varied among
users; the purpose of this study is to investigate the extent to
which this variation is a result of poor control of preparation
variables. This study did not show any one clear factor which would
account for this variation. In fact, the average penetration
obtained in this study was 11.3 em even when good practice was
followed in preparation, and the variations in this study are shown
relative to this average value. The study results show that any
consistent average penetration can easily be adjusted to the
baseline 8.5 em by a slight change in the gelatin
concentration.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Kind and Knox Type 250 A ordnance gelatin mixed with water, and
heated, was poured into half-gallon milk cartons, 9.5cm x 9.5cm x 1
9.5cm (3.7" x'3.7" x 7.7") to form blocks of 10% concentration,
stored and shot at 4 degrees C, using the methods described by
Fackler and Malinowski as standards. A number of other gelatin
blocks were prepared with various formulation changes that are
known to be used in the field. These blocks were assigned batch
labels which corre-
Vol 2, No. 1 1995
lated to the formula variations. At the time of shooting,
starting and end times were
recorded, as well as the temperature of the block at start and
finish. Temperature was measured using a digital thermometer placed
in the center of the block, the end of which was about 5 em from
the surface (approx. 2 inches). The blocks of gelatin were
calibrated using a Crossman "Pumpmaster 760" air rifle to fire a
series of .177" BB's (0.34 grams) into each block. Velocities were
measured using an Oehler Chronotach (Model 31 ), and an Oehler
skyscreen chronograph (Model 51) with screens placed exactly 5 feet
apart, beginning 5 feet from the muzzle. Penetration depth was
measured in centimeters from the point of entry to the front
surface of the BB along the projectile path. At a velocity of 600
+/- 15 f/s standard penetration was 11.3 +/- 0.5 em. Each trial run
corresponds to approximately six shots fired from which the average
velocities and penetrations were reported.
Our standard blocks of 10% concentration were made with cold tap
water (23°C), allowed to hydrate in the refrigerator for one hour,
were heated to a maximum temperature of 40°C and were shot at 48
hours after preparation. The addition of propionic acid to our
standards was optional. The average penetration depths from the
standards were then compared against the gelatin blocks prepared
with various formulation changes, and/or shot under different test
conditions than the standards.
SURVEY AND
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
BEGINNING WATER TEMPERATURE
Dr. M. Fackler: Cold tap water, temperature not measured.
Experimenters 3,8: Cold water, temperature not reported.
Experimenters 1,6,9: Cold water, approximately 45-600F
(7-16°C).
Experimenters 2,5,9: Cold tap water, approximately 75-77°F
(23-25°C).
1 1
-
Gelatin Evaluation WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
Figure 4 BB penetration vs beginning water temperature
12
1 1.6 0
11.6
1 1.4 0 1 trial
e (.) 11.2 ..... 1 trial • low c
7 trials-standard
0 1 1 � � 10.6
o avg
• high
10.6
10.4
10.2
10
0 10 20 30 temperature (degrees C)
40 50 60
Experimenters 4,7: Hot tap water, approximately 130-1500F
(54-66°C).
The directions furnished by the Kind and Knox Division of Knox
Gelatine recommend starting with cold water 45-50°F (7-10°C).96 Our
cold tap water is approximately 23°C
(73°F). We tested gelatin blocks made with water directly from
the tap, blocks made from water chilled to 10°C (50°F), and one
made with hot water, 60°C (140°F). See Figure 4.
Results: We found that at all three beginning water temperatures
tested, our data fell within+/- 0.5 em of the 11.3 em average
penetration in this study.
HYDRATION OF GELATIN PARTICLES
Dr. M. Fackler: Gelatin powder+ water mixture left to sit in
refrigerator for 2 hours before heating.
Experimenters 3,6: Mixture is hydrated in refrigerator for 2
hours.
Experimenter 1: Hydration time of at least 2 hours (covered to
prevent moisture loss) in a cool room approximately 60-65°F.
12 1995
Experimenter 9: Hydration time of 1 hour at room
temperature.
Experimenters 2,4,7,8: Hydration time of 2-4 hours at room
temperature.
Experimenter 5: Hydration time of 15 minutes (mildly stirred at
room temperature) .
Although the Fackler and Malinowski procedure recommends
refrigerating the gelatin mixture for 2 hours to hydrate all of the
particles 6• we refrigerated our mixture (enough for 1 milk carton)
for about 1 hour since we were making much smaller blocks (Dr.
Fackler's blocks are 25x25x50 cm) . 10•3 We tested a block which
hydrated in the refrigerator for two hours, one which hydrated at
room temperature, and one which was allowed no hydration time
before heating. See Figure 5 .
Results: We found that the difference between hydrating our
mixture for one or two hours was minimal, and that the temperature
at which the gelatin is allowed to hydrate was not critical. Even a
batch which was allowed no hydration time passed our calibration
criteria, although penetration may be slightly higher than
those
Vol 2, No. 1
WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
Figure 5 BB penetration vs hydration variables
12
1 1.6
1 1.6
0 1 1.4 0
e 1 1.2 ,g 0
1 trial 1 trial
c .2 11 2 Gi � 10.6 •
7 trials-standard
1 trial • low
o average
10.6 • high
10.4
10.2
10 refrlg. 1 hour refrig. 2 hours
hydration of gelatin particles
room temp. 1 hour none
which did hydrate. With larger batches this penetration
difference can be even more exaggerated. One experimenter reported
having consistently higher BB penetrations when the mixture was not
allowed to hydrate, and therefore was less dense. 11
HEATING GELATIN MIXTURE
Dr. M. Fackler: The gelatin mixture is heated slowly in a double
boiler and stirred gently until all of the gelatin is in solution.
NEVER HEATED OVER 104°F (40°C).
Experimenters 1,2,3,5,6,8,9: Gelatin mixture is heated slowly to
a maximum temperature of 1 04°F.
Experimenters 4,7: No heating time is necessary, start with hot
water.
As standards we tested blocks heated to a maximum temperature of
40°C (1 04°F), and compared them to blocks heated to 50°C (122°F),
60°C (140°F), and 75°C (167°F). See Figure 6.
Results: The disruption of gelatin molecules by heat is a
function of the degree of heat applied and the length of time the
heat is applied11•6 Our blocks were kept at temperature a maximum
of ten minutes. We
Vol 2, No. 1 1995
found that if we exceeded 40°C for a short period of time our
blocks still passed our calibration test (up to 60°C). At 75°C we
just exceeded the upper limits of our calibration criteria. Dr.
Fackler uses 40°C as his maximum temperature in order to have a
measure of security and margin of error.6
STORAGE TIME
Dr. M. Fackler: After removal from molds the gelatin is stored
in refrigerator 39°F (4°C) for at least 36 hours from the time the
gelatin was poured. Storage time is usually 48 hours.
Experimenter 6: Storage time of 24-48 hours at 4°C.
Experimenters 2,3: Storage time of at least 36 hours
at 4°C. Experimenters 5,8: Storage time of at least 48 hours
at 4°C. Experimenters 4, 7,9: Stored at 4°C for up to 7-10
days. Our standard blocks were stored in their milk car
ton molds for 48 hours at 4°C. One block was shot at 24 hours,
then again at 48 hours storage time. Others were shot at 48 hours,
stored, then shot again at 1
13
-
Gelatin Evaluation WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks, up to 3 months from the time the block
was made (with preservative). See Figure 7.
Results: We found that when our blocks were shot at 48 hours,
stored, and shot again in 1 -3 months the resistance to penetration
had increased. Perhaps the gelatin blocks became denser with time
due to water loss. We found that if we shot our blocks at I
weeks
time they may pass our standard range at the very lower limits,
but by 2-3 weeks time the penetrations had dropped below our
acceptable range. In the instance where a block was shot at 24
hours after preparation, and then again at 48 hours after
preparation, the penetration decreased 0.77 em.
Figure 6 BB penetration vs heating temperature
1 2 1 1 .8 . a
• 1 1 .6 1 1 .4 D
e g 1 1 .2 • low 8 1 1 a avg 1 • • c 10.8 • high � 7
trials-standard 1 trial 2 trials 1 trial 1 0.6 -
10.4 10.2 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
temperature (degrees C)
Figure 7 BB penetraHon vs storage time
12 � • 1 1 1 .5 •
D 2 remelted block � X 1 1 • • 3
� 1 0.5 • �-i!l 0 4 • 24 hrs c • 0 b. 0 • 5 � 10 ll. 6 "& 48
hrs X c 9.5 1 3 • � 2 • 7 1 .5 2 D
9 weeks • 0 6 2.5 X 9 6.5 3 months lK 10 8 0 0.5 1 1 .5 2 2.5 3
3.5
time (log (hours))
14 1995 Vol 2 , N o . 1
WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
Figure 8 BB penetration vs additives
1 2 4 trials 1 1 .8 • 3 trials 1 1 .6 1 1 .4 J
e 2 trials g 1 1 .2 • low c 0 1 1 a avg � Propionic acid 1
10.6
None • high
1 0.6 10.4 Cinnamon Oil 10.2 10
additives
ADDITIVES
Dr. M. Fackler: Adds 5 ml of propionic acid per liter to retard
mold. This is usually added when gelatin is heated to put it
entirely into solution.
Experimenters 2,5,7: 5 ml propionic acid/ L. Experimenter 1:
Several drops of benzalkonium chlo
ride concentrate, an antibacterial agent, per 3.5 L.
Experimenters 4,7,9: Approximately 2 drops of cinna
mon /2 gallons to retard foaming. Experimenters 3,6,8: None
added.
Our standard blocks were made with an optional addition of
propionic acid preservative, as per Fackler. We also tested blocks
made with cinnamon oil, and blocks made without additives. See
Figure 8. Without preservative our blocks lasted only a few weeks
in the refrigerator before becoming soft, growing mold, and
eventually turning black.
Results : We found that whether additives were used, or not,
there was no significant difference in the results attained. Our
block tested with cinnamon oil yielded a lower penetration, but of
course more blocks need to be tested in order to determine a
range.
Other variables tested included:
Vol 2, No. 1 1995
SHOOTING TEMPERATURE:
When measured with thermocouples our size gelatin block was
found to increase an average of 1 degree F every 1 0 minutes at an
ambient temperature of 73°F (23°C) (Figure 3.) Because of this
fairly rapid temperature increase we took our blocks out of the
refrigerator slightly colder than 4°C, and used the average of our
starting and end temperatures . Of course, the bigger the block,
the slower the rate of temperature change. We did no experiments
with insulating the gelatin in order to slow the rate of
temperature change. We tested gelatin behavior shot at 1 6°C ( 6 1
°F), and 2 1 ac (70°F), and compared it to the standard 4°C. See
Figure 9.
Results: We found that as our gelatin block temperature came to
equilibrium with ambient temperature, there was an approximate 7o
difference between the surface of the gelatin, and the center.
Since penetration increases with gelatin temperature, one should
take several temperature readings while shooting, and shoot the
gelatin block as quickly as possible once it has been removed from
the refrigerator.
Gelatin concentration: We shot blocks of 12% (w/ w), 1 5% (w/w),
and 20% (w/w), and compared their penetrations to the standard 1 0%
(w/w). See Figure 1 0.
15
-
16
Figure 3
55
50
WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
Temperature increase measured with thermocouples
1 /4 • from surface ---
1' from end -o--
2' from end and side -•-
3 · from end. 2' from side �
30
+---r--+----r---+----r--_,----�--4----+---4----+---4----+----r-�
E'
0
20 19 18 17
� 16 c 8 15 ,g � 14 & 13
12 1 1
10 20 30
Figure 9
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 10 120 130 140
time (min)
88 penetration vs shooting temperature
D
0
10
+-----------�-------------r------------+-----------��----------� 0
5 10 15 20 25
gelatin temperature (degrees C)
1995 Vol 2 ,
1 50
• low
o ovg
• high
No. 1
WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
Results: Our BB penetration depth dropped approximately 69% as
our gelatin concentration increased from 1 0%-20%. Dr. Fackler's
data shows a penetration decrease of approximately 48%.8 Dr.
Fackler uses a calibration criteria of 8.5 +/- 1.0 em at a velocity
of 590 +/- 15 fps with standard 1 0% blocks. Although we were not
able to isolate one variable which accounted for our consistently
higher penetration we found that by making a 12% concentration our
penetration fell within the 8.5 +/- 1 .0 em range which most
closely approximates animal tissue.
Remelted gelatin block: Dr. Fackler reuses his
fit our calibration criteria. We did not test blocks remelted
immediately following use. If remelting after storing, one may wish
to use the remelted gelatin block only as a safety behind another
fresh block. (Figure 7)
Mechanical damage to gelatin block: We tested a block which was
subjected to physical "shock" by being dropped from a height of 3
feet, as may occur when trying to remove the block from its
mold.
Results: We found no significant difference in penetrations
(0.22 em) in the block which was shot before and after being
dropped several times.
Frozen gelatin block: We shot a block at 4°C,
Figure 1 0 88 penetration vs gelatin concentration
1 2
7 trials-standard 10
1 trial 0
E' 8 � c • low .Q 6 2 Gi
1 trial 0 o overage c Gl a. 4
• high
1 trlol 0 2
0 +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+--� 0% 2% 4% 6%
8% 10% 1 2% 14% 16% 18%
concentration (w /w)
gelatin two times by melting it down very slowly and rechilling
it. We found that approximately half of the experimenters surveyed
were remelting their gelatin blocks as well. We tested a gelatin
block which was remelted three times with a weeks storage time
between each remelt.
Results: One experimenter reported having difficulty meeting
their calibration test unless the blocks were remelted immediately
after use. Our remelted block was within the standard range when
shot 48 hours after being poured. When remelted and shot after
being stored the penetration decreased, and it no longer
Vol 2, No. 1 1995
froze it for several days, thawed it to 4°C, and reshot it to
compare the penetrations.
Results: After being frozen, our penetration depth dropped
almost 0.5 em. We cannot say if this is significant or not, but one
should avoid using a gelatin block that has been accidentally
frozen.
Pellet versus BB performance in gelatin: We shot flat nose
pellets (. 1 77") at 200-600 f/s to see if they behaved differently
than the BB 's did in our standard gelatin blocks.
Results: Pellets, like steel spheres, will give a straight line
when graphing their penetration versus ve-
17
-
Gelatin Evaluation WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
Figure 2 88 and pellet penetration in 1 0% gelatin at 4 degrees
C
14
12
10 e � 8 c: 0 � G) 6 c: �
4 P=.022 Vi - 1 .36
2 ,.,.
0 " 0 100 200 300 400
velocity (f/s)
locity (up to 1000 f/s). See Figure 2 .
CONCLUSION
While it seems that most experimenters surveyed reported using
the same basic formula and procedure to make their ballistic
gelatin blocks, some modifications have been made between
individuals in order to adapt to their own equipment and
circumstances. In carrying out this experiment we tried to test as
many variables as possible in order to determine how these
variations would affect the gelatin performance. We made
approximately 25 blocks of gelatin, and ran about 60 trials. This
corresponds to over 350 BB gun shots being fired, and their
penetrations measured.
In looking at the results from our data it seems that most of
the modifications reported did not have a significant effect on BB
penetration. Those variables with the most obvious effects are
storage time, shooting temperature, and gelatin concentration.
One question which was raised was whether or not an already
penetrated gelatin block should be used again as a target. The FBI
cautions against the reuse of a gelatin block as the trauma from
the first round's im-
18 1995
• BB
o pellet
500 600 700
pact may affect the consistency of the gelatin and affect the
measurement of penetration from later rounds fired into it. 12
However, due to practicality, those we questioned were firing
multiple shots into the same block of gelatin. Is this affecting
the gelatin's performance? If one can use our results from a block
of gelatin which was shot before and after suffering from
"mechanical damage" it would seem safe to say that the gelatin's
performance has not been significantly altered. Dr. Fackler, Dr.
Gary Roberts, and others have reported attaining consistent bullet
penetration depths when the shots are placed close to one another
in a single gelatin block. 11 •13 However, one should avoid
temporary cavity overlap, and shooting into cleavage lines or
bullet penetrations may be affected.
In order for ammunition test results to be of any value, BB
calibration and reporting is critical when ballistic gelatin is
used as a test medium. BB shots should be done before and after the
ammunition testing, and the temperature recorded before and after
the shooting. Velocities, and penetrations of the calibrations
should be reported, and sufficient detail of the methods, as well
as shooting conditions should be provided in order to allow others
to reproduce the experiment and compare data.
Vol 2 , N o . 1
WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
An example of inadequate information is a report of data
collected at a demonstration of body armor and ammunition testing
in 1993, and presented by The Specialist. As a test medium they
used 250 Type A Ordnance Gelatin of 10% concentration made into
blocks 5 " x 7 1/4" x 4 3/4". Unfortunately that is the extent of
the details provided. Some questions may arise when other
experimenters want to compare their own data to these results : How
was this gelatin prepared? No information is given about the
procedure or formula used in making up their gelatin blocks. What
temperature was their gelatin shot at? Obviously shooting
temperature is a critical variable and has a significant effect on
bullet penetration, but this detail is not included. In the
pictures they include with the report we see that the gelatin is
being shot outdoors in the sunlight. How much time has elapsed
between removing their gelatin from the refrigerator, and shooting?
Was any attempt made to insulate their gelatin blocks to slow the
temperature increase? Was the block temperature taken during the
shooting to insure consistency? Were the gelatin blocks calibrated
with BB' s? No mention is made of this, or if they were calibrated,
no supporting data of BB velocities, and/or penetrations is
provided.
If we can assume that BB penetration differences correlate
directly to bullet penetration differences the reporting of
calibration data may explain some of the anomalies seen in the
literature today.
APPEN DIX A
GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR RECONSTITUTING GELATIN
1 . Always start with cold water 45-50°F (7 -1 0°C). 2. Always
add the powdered gelatin to the water. Never pour water into
gelatin . 1 000 GM G E LATI N ,
9000 ML WATER (This g ives a 1 0% solution). 3. Agitate (by sti
rring) a bare m inimum just to wet al l particles (avoid violent
agitation to prevent entrain
ment of large quantities of air). 4. Let stand in refrigerator
for 2 hours to hydrate all gelatin particles. 5. Heat the container
in a hot water bath or double cooker, and again sti r gently unti l
all gelatin is in solu
tion and evenly dispersed throughout the container. DO NOT H EAT
OVE R 1 04°F (40°C) ! Do not sti r rapidly, to prevent entrainment
(entrapment) of air.
6. Pour into molds, set in refrigerator or cold water bath
45-50°F (7-1 0°C) until firmly set. (Overnight for best results)
.
7. After removal from molds, store in refrigerator at 39°F (4°C}
in airtight plastic bags. Do not use blocks u ntil at least 36
hours have elapsed from the time gelatin was poured into molds.
GENERAL NOTES 1 . Gelatin is insoluble in cold water. 2. Final
concentration will depend on desired firmness of block. 3. Fi
rmness of block wi l l increase with time in cold water bath , up
to 24-30 hours. 4. Blocks may be reused simply by heating to
melting temperature then rechi l l ing as in original proce
d u re. 5. Add 5 ml p ropionic acid per liter to inh ibit mold
(optional). 6. Gelatin firmness varies g reatly (inversely) with
temperature of the block. Gelatin temperature must be
constant throughout each block and there must be no temperature
variation between blocks. Dr. Fackler shot his gelatin blocks, 25 x
25 x 50 em, within 30 minutes of removal from the refrigerator. The
temperature was measured 2 em from the block surface; it took 90
minutes to rise 1 oc in Dr. Facklers's shooting range which was
kept at about 68°F (20°C).
Vol 2 , N o . 1 1995 19
-
WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
APPEN DIX B SURVEY:
Questions on general method of preparation of bal l istic
gelatin. 1 . Is the dry gelatin added to cold water or hot water?
What temperatu re is the water? Is gelatin added to
water, or water to gelatin? 2. What percent solution is being
used? Is this measured as percent weight or percent volume? How
much gelatin is added per amount of water? 3. How is this
mixture being stirred? 4. Is the mixture left to sit in cold water?
How long was this hydration time? Placed in refrigerator? For
how long? 5. Is the mixture heated in a hot water bath or in a
double boiler? Is it covered? What is the heating
time? What is the temperature? Was gelatin stirred whi le
heating? 6. What type and size molds were used? How long were the
molds refrigerated for? What temperature? 7. After removal from
molds, was the gelatin stored in refrigerator again? What
temperature? For how
long? 8. How much time elapsed between removal of b locks from
refrigerator and shooting? 9 . Is the gelatin reused? If so, after
melting it down was the gelatin rechil led following the same
proce
dure? 1 0. Was anyth ing added to the gelatin? What was added,
and how much? For what purpose? In what
step of the procedure was it added? 1 1 . Where did you get the
procedure or formula you were fol lowing in making the gelatin? 1
2. What actual tissue comparisons have you made to test your
gelatin results? 1 3. What other test mediums, such as soap or
water, have you used? Other results, variations, and/or additional
comments:
The authors wish to thank Dr. Martin Fackler and Duncan
MacPherson for all of their help and encouragement with the project
and paper.
References:
I. Fackler, M.L., "Theodor Kocher and the scientific foundation
of
wound ballistics." Surgery. 1 72 : 153- 160; February 1 99 1
.
2. Siemon, E., "Ballistic gelatin." Combat Handguns. 10(1) :
56-67;
February 1 989.
3. Fackler, M.L., and J.A. Malinowski, "The wound profile: A
visual
method for quantifying gunshot wound components." The Journal
of
Trauma. 25(6): 522-529; 1 985.
4. Fackler, M.L., Surinchak, M.A., Malinowski, J.A., and R.E.
Bowen,
"Bullet fragmentation: A major cause of tissue disruption." The
Journal of
Trauma. 24(1) : 35-39; 1984.
7. Kind & Knox, "General procedures for reconstituting
gelatin." Kind
& Knox, Division of Knox Gelatine, Inc.; n.d.
8. Fackler, M.L. and B.P. Kneubuehl, "Applied wound
ballistics:
What's new and what's true." Journal ofTrauma (China). 6(2)
Supplement:
32-37; 1990.
9. Fackler, M.L., "The wound profile and the human body:
Damage
pattern correlation." Wound Ballistics Review. 1 (4): 1 2- 1 9;
1 994.
I 0. Haag, L.C., "Ballistic gelatin: Controlling variances in
preparation
and a suggested method for the calibration of gelatin blocks."
AFTE Journal.
2 1 (3): 483-489; 1 989.
I I. Fackler, M.L., Personal communication. 5. Siemon, E.,
"Backyard ballistic gelatin part II." Combat Handguns.
1 0(2): 54-64; April 1 989.
6. Fackler, M.L. and J.A. Malinowski, "Ordnance gelatin for
ballistic
studies: Detrimental effect of excess heat used in gelatin
preparation."
Letterman Army Institute ofResearch: Institute Report#245.
December
1 987; and The American Journal of Medicine and Pathology. 9(8):
2 1 8-
2 1 9; 1988.
12. Scheers, N.J., and S.R. Band, "Ammunition selection:
Research and
measurement issues." FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. 58(1 1) : 1
6-22; No
vember 1989.
13. Roberts, G.K., Personal communication
20 1995 Vol 2, No. 1
WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
FALLING BULLETS :
TERMINAL VELOCITIES AND PENETRATION STUDIES Lucien C. Haag
Falling bullets from the reckless discharge of small
arms in populated areas becomes a matter of some
concern and discussion every New Year's Eve and
4th of July in the United States. Misconceptions
and misinformation abound on the subject of fall
ing bullets and their potential for harm.
Presently several ballistics programs for PCs allow for the
calculation of the free-fall or terminal velocity of
vertically-discharged small arms projectiles and shot from
shotguns. Terminal ballistic testing of some representative bullets
at such velocities can provide some insight into the wounding
capabilities of these returning projectiles.
INTRODUCTION
In the January 1990 issue of the AFTE J ournal1 , the author
described a ballistics program for personal computers that would
calculate a number of properties of vertically-discharged shots.
Such things as the maximum altitude reached, ascending flight time,
time to return to earth, free-fall (terminal) velocity and energy
for a base-first, point-first or tumbling return and the total
round trip time for a particular shot. A two-part table was
prepared showing the results of such calculations for some common
pistol and rifle bullets. Four years and 8 holidays associated with
revelrous gunfire have elapsed since and at least one case of an
individual struck by a presumed falling bullet has come to the
author' s attention. Additionally, the Baltec 1 computer program
obtained from William C. Davis, Jr.2 has been revised since 1990
including the Vertical Ballistics section previously employed.
Finally, the author
Vol 2, N o . 1 1995
has been involved in the terminal ballistic evaluation of low
and reduced velocity bullets and spheres during this 4 year
interval. All of these factors coupled with the first IWBA
conference in March of 1994 has prompted a revisiting on this
subject.
An interest in the properties and consequences of vertical
firings of small arms is not new. Hatcher3 reviewed the work and
computations of military ballisticians in the beginning of this
century. In Chapter XX ("Bullets from the Sky") he also reported on
various practical efforts to document and recover returning rifle
bullets fired vertically from 30 (7.62mm) to 32 caliber (7.92mm)
military arms. These reports included the .303 British Mark VII
bullet which weighed 174 grains and had a muzzle velocity of 2440
f/s and had been calculated to rise to an altitude of 9000 ft. in
19 seconds then return in 36 seconds for a round trip time of 55
seconds. Actual firings by Major Hardcastle carried out in 1909
recorded round trip times of 48 to 5 1 seconds for this bullet.
Hatcher goes on to report on vertical firings in the United States
in 1 919-1 920 with the 150 gr. flat-based .30-' 06 bullet. At a
muzzle velocity of 2700 f/s, calculations of the day gave a round
trip time of 49.2 seconds and the terminal velocity of
approximately 300 f/s for this bullet. Out of 500 rounds fired
vertically from a specially built platform, four returning bullets
were documented. From their impact impressions they were falling
base-first, as expected, or at an angle with the base downward. One
of these bullets struck a soft pine plank of the platform and left
a 1116" deep impression of the base of the bullet in the wood.
Since the Mark VII .303 bullet and the 150 gr. .30-'06 bullet
are still readily available, the Baltec 1 program was used to
calculate the vertical ballistics of
21
-
WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
these two rounds. The current program requires the following
bullet data in order to perform such a calculation:
• Bullet weight in grains, • Bullet diameter, • Bullet length, •
The length of the ogive (O.A.L. - bearing surface length), • The
diameter of the meplat (if any), • The bullet' s muzzle velocity. •
The ballistic coefficient (C) for the bullet. • The elevation of
the firing location is also considered in the Baltec 1 program.
(The thinner air at high altitude means that the projectile will
reach a higher point but it also results in a higher free-fall
terminal velocity. Using a value of C=0.340 for the 150 gr. .30-'06
bullet Table 1
or death as the consequence of being struck by one of these
returning bullets. Past criteria for estimating injury production
have been based on threshold velocities for skin perforation either
in animals or human cadavers or on projectile kinetic energy values
reported in various military publications. The one article that
would seem to be the most relevant to common civilian small arms
would be that of DiMaio, et.al.4 The authors found that a 1 13
grain 38 caliber round nose lead bullet penetrated skin on the leg
of a fresh cadaver at approximately 166 f/s and perforated the same
skin at an impact velocity of about 1 9 1 f/s. They also report
that a 16.5 gr. 22 caliber lead air rifle pellet at 245 f/s
successfully perforated human skin on the cadaver leg. They also
quote Journee' s findings for human skin perforation by a 1 3 1 gr.
44 caliber lead ball at 230 f/s .
This work gives
and C=0.390 Falling Bullet Values us some insight into the
matter
for the 174 gr. .303 bullet along with actual dimensional
measurements taken from representative
1 50 gr. 30-'06 mi l itary projectile [MV = 2700 f/s] Max. Alt.
= 9330' [9000'] Ascending time = 1 9.7 sec. [1 8 sec.] B .F. Return
time = 37.5 sec. [3 1 sec.] Terminal Vel. = 294 f/s [300 f/s] Round
Trip time = 57 sec. [49 sec.]
projectiles, sea level firings gave the following results (shown
in Table 1 ) with the current Baltec 1 program: Note-the values
shown in [ ] are the calculated values from Hatcher's Notebook.
The return times and terminal velocities for these bullets
falling in a tumbling manner (rather than base -first as calculated
above) lengthen and slow respectively as would be expected. The
.30-'06 bullet, if tumbling, would take 58 seconds to return from
its 9330' climb and would reach a calculated terminal velocity of
17 1 f/s during its return. The Baltec 1 program was used to
calculate the vertical ballistics of some common projectiles. These
are shown in Table 2.
An inspection of the Vertical Ballistics Table (Table 2) reveals
that the bullets most likely to be discharged in such a manner
return to earth with velocities on the order of 150 to 250 fps .
The question of greatest interest becomes one of the potential for
serious injury
1 7 4 gr.303 British Mk. V I I projectile [MV = 2440 f/s] Max.
Alt. = 9823' [9000'] Ascending time = 20.1 sec. B.F. Return time =
37.6 sec. Terminal Vel. = 3 1 3 f/s Round Trip time = 58 sec. [55
sec.]
but many questions and unexplored parameters remain. Indeed, if
one gives this subject a little thought it should quickly
become apparent that there can be no single solution to the
question of minimum velocity (or kinetic energy, or momentum, or
K.E. per unit area or MV per unit area) necessary to perforate skin
for a multitude of reasons. One needn' t consult a surgeon or
dermatologist to realize that the thickness of our skin varies
depending on body location. For example, we have very thick skin on
our upper backs and much thinner skin on the front of our necks.
Structures beneath the skin may also play a role in penetration I
perforation mechanics. Such underlying structures range from bone
to cartilage, muscle and fat. The profile and design of the nose of
the impacting bullet has received little or no consideration in the
past. All of this is not to say that the mission is hopeless. It is
more a matter of setting reasonable ranges of impact velocities
necessary for a particular caliber, weight and design of bullet ,
e.g.- round nose, spitzer, hollow point, semi-wadcutter, hollow
point,
22 1995 Vol 2, No. 1
WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
etc. to perforate skin in various locales on the human
constituted a third 'point' design when falling back to
body. earth base-first. Reduced loads using Bullseye pistol
Several years ago this writer addressed the question powder were
assembled with deep-seated bullets in 38
of projectile point design and profile on skin perf ora- Special
cases to give velocities in the range of 150 f/s tion in a
preliminary way. The three Speer brand 38 to about 250 f/s. This
required propellant charges of
caliber 158 grain lead bullets listed in the middle of the 0.4
gr. to 0.8 gr. of Bullseye and a short barreled re-Vertical
Ballistics Table served as useful models . They volver (a Charter
Arms 2" revolver) with shallow were all of the same caliber, weight
and composition riflings. A freshly-killed pig weighing
approximately but represented two profiles (round nose and semi--
50 pounds was suspended so as to present its abdomen wadcutter) and
two point designs (solid and hollow to the source of gunfire. The
Charter Arms test pistol
point) . All three of these bullets have flat bases which was
mounted approximately 15 feet away in a Ransom
Table 2 VERTICAL BALLISTICS FOR SOME REPRESENTATIVE
CARTRIDGES
CARTRI DGE BULLET MUZZLE BALLISTIC MAX. ALT. ASCENT TERMINAL
DESCENT ROUND TRIP NAME WT. VEL. COEF. (ft.) TIME VELOCITY TIME
TIME
(gr.) (fps) (sec.) (fps) (sec.) (sec.)
22 Short 29 1 095 .098 3014 1 0 1 68-BF* 21 .5 31 .5
LRN 1 34-TU* 25 35
22LR 40 1 255 . 1 32 3867 1 2.5 1 98-BF 23.5 36
LRN 1 42-TU 30 42
25ACP 50 760 .090 2288 9.4 1 91-BF 1 5.8 25
FMJ 1 46-TU 1 8.6 28
32ACP 71 905 .132 3342 1 1 .7 1 87-BF 21 .6 33
FMJ 1 58-TU 24.4 36
380ACP 95 FMJ 955 .079 2450 9.4 1 87-BF 1 6.9 26
9mmP(Win.) 1 1 5 JHP 1 225 . 1 42 4034 1 2.7 21 0--BF 23.4
36
9mmP 1 24 FMJ 1 1 1 0 . 1 72 4415 1 3.3 21 9-BF 24.6 38
38 Spi.(Rem.) 1 58 LRN 755 . 1 42 3004 1 1 .4 237-BF 1 7.4
29
38 Spi. (Speer) 1 58 LRN 950 . 1 70 4040 1 3.2 241-BF 22 35
[pdt.#4647] 1 82-TU 26 39
38 Spi. (Speer) 1 58 LSWC 950 .1 23 3296 1 1 .6 238-BF 1 9 30
[pdt.#4623] 1 67-TU 23 35 38 Spi .(Speer) 1 58 L- 950 . 1 21 3261 1
1 .5 238-BF 1 9 30
[pdt.#4627] SWC-HP 1 66-TU 23 35 41 Mag. 2 1 0 JSP 1 300 . 1 65
4537 1 3.6 247-BF 23.3 37
44 Mag. 240 JHP 1 1 80 . 1 72 451 9 1 3.6 249-BF 23.1 37
45 ACP 230 FMJ 850 . 1 39 3293 1 1 .9 228-BF 1 9.1 31
5.56mm 55 FMJ- 3240 .250 8024 1 7.0 244-BF 38 55 (223 Rem.) BT
141-TU 60 77 30 Carb. 1 1 0 FMJ 1 990 . 1 66 5 1 29 1 3.7 239-BF 26
40
7.62x39mm 1 23 FMJ 2400 .320 8556 1 9 264-BF 38 57 (Soviet) BT 1
58-TU 57 76
30-30Win. 1 50 JSP 2390 .217 6539 1 5.6 282-BF 28.7 44 30--'06 1
80 JSP 2700 .382 10,103 20.6 323-BF 37.5 58
#4 Buck 1 9.4 sph. 1 350 .026 •• 1 268 6.0 1 34 1 2 1 8 [1 7.8-1
8 act.]
.050 1 1 22 6.0 1 34 1 1 1 7
00 Buck 53.7 sph. 1 350 .035** 1 605 7.0 1 57 1 3.5 20.5 [21
sec. act.] .070 1 451 6.7 1 58 1 3.4 20.1
*BF = Base First Return TU = Tumbling Return ** Subsonic value
for C for a lead sphere calculated by L. Haag
Vol 2 , N o . 1 1995 23
-
WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
Table 3
38 CALIBER (.3581 1) 1 58 GRAIN LEAD BULLETS FIRED INTO FRESH
KILLED PIG
ROUND NOSE
[Speer Pdt. #4647]
1 61 f/s-bullet
rebounded, yawed
1 72 fls-peliorated
skin & abdominal wall
SEMI-WADCUTTER (SWC) SWC-HOLLOW POINT
[Speer Pdt. #4623] [Speer Pdt. #4627]
STRIKES INTO ABDOMEN OF TEST ANIMAL 1 64 f/s-bullet
rebounded
1 87 fls-peliorated skin
1 68 tis-bullet peliorated
skin and abdominal wall
209 fls-peliorated skin
and abdominal wall
FLAT BASE FWD
(RN bul let reversed)
1 58 tis-bullet rebounded
1 7 4 tis-bullet rebounded
on impact
229 fls-peliorated skin
and abdominal wall
STRIKES INTO SIDE OF TEST ANIMAL 1 58 tis-bullet
rebounded
1 7 4 fls-peliorated
(bullet just under skin)
1 56 tis-bullet rebounded
1 93 tis-rebounded
Rest with a pair of matched ballistic chronographs positioned to
measure the impact velocity of each shot. A second series of shots
with the 3 Speer brand bullets was fired into the side of this same
pig in an area of the upper back where the skin was much thicker.
The body of the pig was still warm and the onset of rigor had not
begun by the completion of the tests. The results of these shots
are summarized above in Table 3 .
These same bullets were also fired at comparable velocities into
blocks of calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin. The same chronographs
were used to measure impact velocity. The results of these firings
are given in Table 4.
Additional blocks of 10% ballistic gelatin were equipped with a
facing panel of 0.060 inch thick rubber cut from an inner tube to
act as a skin simulant. The same series of Speer 38 caliber lead
bullets were once again fired into these modified gelatin blocks
with the results as shown in Table 5 .
Lucien C. Haag is a Criminalist & Firearms Exam
iner and President of Forensic Science Services, Inc.
24
1 72 tis-bul let stuck in
skin (ca. 1 12 in the skin)
1 71 tis-rebounded
1 69 tis-bullet rebounded
21 1 tis-rebounded
1995
OBSERVATIONS AND SUMMARY:
There are many interesting observations to be made from the
ballistic computations and subsequent test firings reported in this
paper. The vertical ballistics program written by William C. Davis,
Jr. gave a terminal velocity for the base-first return of the
classic 30-'06 military bullet which was in very good agreement
with the early work reported in the literature for this round (V1 =
294 f/s vs. 300 f/s respectively). The round trip times for #4 and
00 buckshot measured by this writer were also in good agreement
with the Baltec I- calculated values (see bottom of the Vertical
Ballistics Table on page 3).
This ballistics program not only provides reasonable estimates
for a bullet 's free-fall or terminal velocity with considerations
for terrain elevation (air density) and bullet behavior during the
return trip but also provides insight into the maximum altitude
reached by small arms projectiles. This could be important in
evaluating whether overflying aircraft are within or beyond the
reach of vertically-fired shots.
The terminal velocities given by this program for common small
arms bullets are in the area where skin penetration and even
perforation is possible to likely, i.e.- return velocities on the
order of 150 to 250 f/s. Fatal wounds from falling bullets of the
type presented
Vol 2, No. 1
WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
PEN ETRATION INTO BARE BALLISTIC GELATIN [SPEER 38 CALIBER 1 58
GR. LEAD BULLETS]
Table 4
ROUND NOSE
1 77 fls- 4.6" with
yaw at terminus
1 9 1 fls- 6.9" , nose
forward
SEMI-WADCUTTER
1 68 tis- 5 .25", nose forward,
curved track at terminus
202 fls- 6.0" , bul let
reversed itself along track
SEM I-WADCUTTER HOLLOW POINT
1 60 fls- 5.6" nose forward, straight track
1 84 fls- 6 .75" , nose fwd . ,
bul let yawed a t terminus
SHOTS INTO BALLISTIC GELATIN COVERED WITH A SKIN SIMULANT*
[SPEER 38 CALIBER 1 58 GR. LEAD BULLETS]
ROUND NOSE
1 88 tis- 2 . 7" of
penetration, bul let sideways at terminus
SEMI-WADCUTTER
1 85 fls-2.2" of penetration
21 8 fls- 3.2" penetration, 237 fls- 4.6" of penetration, bul
let reversed itself bul let reversed itself
203 fls- 5.6" penetration, bul let reversed ends near
terminus with curved path
SEMI-WADCUTTER HOLLOW POINT
1 57 tis-bul let rebounded
1 82 fls- 1 .9" penetration
200 fls- 2.7" penetration,
nose forward, path curved ca. 1 0° off true toward end
FLAT BASE FORWARD
1 78 tis- 3.5", s l ightly curved
track
Table 5
FLAT BASE FORWARD
1 55 tis-bul let rebounded
1 73 f/s-bul let rebounded
223 fls- 2.8" of penetration,
curved path toward terminus
*A panel of 0.060 inch thick rubber inner tube material secured
across the i mpact side of the ball istic gelatin .
in the table 4 would appear quite unlikely however. Although
parameters associated with estimating or
predicting threshold velocities for human skin perforation by
small arms projectiles are numerous, the results of test firings
into an animal model for a 38 caliber lead round nose bullet gave
very similar results to those of DiMaio: Speer 158 gr. LRN
perforation threshold velocity ca. 170 f/s for both abdomen and
upper back of a freshly-killed pig by Haag vs. 19 1 f/s for human
skin
Vol 2 , No. 1 1995
(leg) perforation by a 1 13 gr. LRN bullet used in DiMaio' s
study. It should be noted that the 38 caliber bullet used in
DiMaio' s study was a lighter bullet and would consequently require
a higher impact velocity than a heavier bullet (keeping all other
parameters constant) to effect perforation.
The profile and design of a projectile' s point (or impacting
surface) have a decided effect on a bullet 's ability to achieve
skin penetration or perforation. This
25
-
WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
should not come as a surprise since our common experience tells
us that its much easier to drive a sharp nail into a board than a
blunt one. Nonetheless, these parameters seem not to have been
addressed in past studies of skin perforation by projectiles. An
inspection of the upper table on page 5 reveals that the
semi-wadcutter (with a flat, solid point of 0.22 inches diameter)
rebounded from the abdominal skin of the pig with an impact
velocity of 164 f/s. The hollow point semi-wadcutter (with a
comparable profile but a 0. 14" hollow point) at 1 68 f/s
perforated the skin and abdominal wall in the same area on the same
animal. Reversing these bullets to present the .358 diameter flat
base to the skin of the test animal raised the velocity
requirements to about 220 f/s to petforate the same skin. The round
nose design appears to have a slight edge over the hollow pointed
semi-wadcutter in achieving penetration (see the lower table on
page 5). The round nose bullet perforated the skin on the side of
the test animal at an impact velocity of 174 f/s whereas the SWCHP
bullet at 1 72 f/s stuck in the same skin.
None of the bullets recovered from the test shots into the
freshly-killed pig were flattened or deformed.
Very similar behavior was noted with the layer of tough but
pliable rubber mounted on ballistic gelatin. An impact velocity of
about 1 80 f/s was needed for the round nose, the semi-wadcutter
and the hollow pointed semi-wadcutter to achieve perforation. An
impact velocity of about 220 f/s was required for a reversed bullet
to effect perforation. It was also noted that the round nose bullet
parted the rubber which then closed in behind the bullet. The
hollow point SWC bullet 'plugged' the rubber as did bullets fired
base-first. This behavior is what one might expect and corresponds
to some extent with what one witnesses on the pistol range with
such bullets perforating paper and cardboard targets. The plugs of
rubber cut out by the blunt-faced and hollow-pointed bullets could
be seen in the 'wound' track in the gelatin blocks.
Finally, the velocity necessary to just perforate something such
as skin or rubber is not lost as a consequence of achieving such
perforation. In other words if a particular bullet requires 200 f/s
to perforate human skin over muscle and it strikes the skin in such
an area with an impact velocity of 800 f/s, it is incorrect to
26 1995
conclude that the bullet' s remaining velocity is now 600 f/s.
This, along with other aspects of projectile penetration and
perforation, will be the subject of a future paper. One can gain
some insight into this phenomenon by examining the two tables on
page 6. Two of the round nosed bullets fired directly into bare
gelatin with impact velocities of 19 1 and 202 f/s penetrated 6.0
to 6.9" of gelatin. The lower table reveals that this same bullet
perforating the 0.060" thick rubber 'skin' with an impact velocity
of 203 f/s went on to penetrate 5.6 inches of ballistic gelatin.
Since the threshold velocity of perforation of this rubber skin is
about 1 80 f/s, it should be evident that subtracting 1 80 f/s from
203 f/s leaving 23 f/s would hardly account for the subsequent 5 .6
inches of gelatin penetration achieved by the 203 f/s RN bullet.
The same conclusion can be reached by studying the results for the
shots with the reversed bullets. At an impact velocity of 1 78 f/s
a reversed bullet penetrated 3.5 inches of bare gelatin. In the
lower table we see that at 173 f/s this bullet is still rebounding
off the rubber 'skin' on the gelatin block but at 223 f/s the
backwards bullet punches through the rubber and penetrates 2.8
inches of gelatin (which represents 80% of the previous 3 .5"
penetration value). Even if one estimates the threshold velocity
for penetration of this substrate by this bullet to be as low as 1
80 f/s (it is more likely around 200 to 2 10 f/s) , subtracting 180
f/s from 223 f/s would leave 43 f/s to produce the 2.8 inches of
gel penetration realized by the 223 f/s impact. Once the particular
threshold velocity for perforation is reached and exceeded, only a
small percentage of the impact velocity is given up in the
penetration I perforation process.
References:
1 Haag, L.C., "Vertical Ballistics", AFTE Jour., 22: l pp.27-3 1
2Williarn C. Davis, Jr., TIOGA ENGINEERING, P.O. Box 9 1 3, 1 3
Cone St., Wellsboro, PA 1 6901
3 Hatcher, Julian S., Hatcher's Notebook, 3rd Ed., 2nd Printing,
The Stackpole Co., Harrisburg, PA ( 1 966) pp. 5 10-5 17
4DiMaio, V .J.M., Copeland, A.R., Besant-Matthews, P.E.,
Fletcher,
L.A. and A. Jones, "Minimal Velocities Necessary for Perforation
of Skin by
Air Gun Pellets and Bullets", Jour, of For. Sci., 27:4 (Oct. 1
982) pp.
894-898.
Vol 2, No. 1
· ! •
WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION
The JFK Assassination:
THE FRANGIBLE OR PLASTIC BULLET THEORY DISPROVED John K.
Lattimer, M.D., Sc.D, Angus Laidlaw, Val Forget!, Eric Haubner, R.
T.
An experimental study to examine the speculative
theory that a disintegrating projectile was used in
the JFK assassination. The authors conducted tests
with human skulls and compared those results
with the radiographic and other data from JFK's
medical records to conclude that no such projectile
was involved.
The proposer admitted that there was very little evidence for
either of these scenarios and that this evidence would not stand up
in a court of law. 2
FRANGIBLE BULLETS
Frangible bullets, which break up on impact, are no
One of the loudest critics of the Warren Commission Report has
suggested that in addition
longer made, but specimens do still exist. By far the most
common examples are .22 cali
to Oswald' s bullets from the rear and above, perhaps President
Kennedy was also hit from the front with frangible or plastic
bullets, which then disappeared, leaving no trace. It was proposed
that a second shooter, on the grassy knoll, 50 feet to the
right-front of the Presidential automobile, precisely coordinated
his frangible bullet shot so that it struck the President in the
right temple area almost simultaneously with Oswald' s bullets from
behind and above. 1
Two scenarios were proposed. #1 - The frangible bullet hit
President Kennedy in the temple immediately before his head
exploded from the impact of Oswald's head bullet from the rear (as
shown in frame 3 1 3 of the Zapruder film).
#2 - The second scenario was that the disappearing bullet from
the grassy knoll struck the President in the right temple area
immediately after his head had exploded.
Vol 2 , No. 1
FIG. 1 FRANGIBLE GALLERY ROUND
This .22 short bullet is made of
flakes and particles of lead held
in a strong adhesive. It will pen
etrate one side of an adult hu-
man skull, but not both sides.
Lead particles are left in the
head. See Figs. 2 and 3.
1995
ber rimfire cartridges known as .22 "short" cartridges. They
contain 2 grains of powder and have a muzzle velocity of 350 feet
per second. They were known as "gallery" ammunition because they
were used primarily in shooting galleries. Their chief attribute
was that the bullet, being made of flakes of lead or iron, bound
together with a strong adhesive, into the shape of a bullet, would
break up when they struck the steel target of a shooting gallery.
They would not bounce or glance off, to inju