Question about exit gunshot wounds

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
well... thats not really a clear cut answer. Bullets that stay in can cause infection, while if they edxist, its a patch job. But depending where, that exit can cause death. also, exit wounds can be larger then entance, and harder to deal with, depending on the bullet.


So I would say it varies.
 

maturin

New member
Jul 20, 2010
702
0
0
David Hebda said:
It is much MUCH better for the bullet to go straight through as more of the energy is retained and not transfered your soft wet tissue.
You make it sound like we're talking about Call of Duty where the bullets have "energy" (damage) that depletes our hitpoints. Energy doesn't kill people. Holes in people kill people.

I already made a post about hydro-static shock earlier. Talking about transferred energy is completely wrongheaded. You're talking about effect like it is cause, using made-up terminology.
 

Dogstile

New member
Jan 17, 2009
5,093
0
0
maturin said:
MasterOfWorlds said:
but the hydro-electric shock that all the organs and whatnot experience. Don't know what that is? Just take a look at ballistics gel that's been shot in slow motion. That explosive expansion and such? Yeah, not too good for organs.
And here we go. It's called hydro-static, not hydro-electric. It's also mostly a myth. We're not made of gelatin, and organs can withstand being deformed just fine. Only the liver and brain are dense enough to really be at risk from supersonic shockwaves, which the body absorbs quite quickly. While having your insides scrambled temporarily could arguably take the fight out of you faster, you are not going to die from organ failure caused by a bullet to an extremity. In gall bladder surgery, your body is subjected to shockwaves (quite close to the vulnerable liver) that are equivalent to the hydro-static shock effect of *thousands* of high velocity bullets. No one dies from it?
Depends on what organs. If you get shot in the cheek or a bullet goes through your nose side on, it will most likely blind you and can even brain damage you, even if you've not hit the eyes or the brain (think if the gunman was to your right, 90 degrees)

But yeah, mostly hydrostatic shock isn't that much of an issue, but if your organ tissue has been damaged before, it will really fuck you up. Depends on the type of bullet used and where you got hit, so their aren't any real definitive answers in this thread.
 

maturin

New member
Jul 20, 2010
702
0
0
dogstile said:
Depends on what organs. If you get shot in the cheek or a bullet goes through your nose side on, it will most likely blind you and can even brain damage you, even if you've not hit the eyes or the brain (think if the gunman was to your right, 90 degrees)
Well, yeah, the eyes are vulnerable external organs and the brain is dense enough to be at risk. But if you're talking about bullets to the nose, you're in such proximity that the permanent (as opposed to temporary 'hydrostatic') cavity is going to be of more concern. Get shot in the nose, pieces of bone could simply be flung into your brain, killing you.

Hydrostatic shock is a pretty tiny, incidental issue. The idea that if a bullet fails to come out the other side, it means that its energy has been converted into magical organ-killing shockwave power, is profoundly silly. It probably didn't come out the other side because it flipped arseyversy and made a bigger (permanent) hole. Or it was just a weak bullet, transferring a glorious 100% of its meager energy. The irony is that high velocity rounds that come out the other side have more energy to begin with and will cause greater hydrostatic shock effects. Basically you're just looking at nasty hollowpoints and thinking there's something special and physics-y about their performance.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
GrinningManiac said:
Quick question - I can't find an answer and Yahoo/other answer places are useless

Does anyone know if it's better or worse for a bullet to exit the body upon entering it?

I understand it's bad that the bullet's already gone IN and that it can bounce about and do loads of damage, but I was wondering (for the purpose of something I'm writing) if the bullet then exiting the body would make things worse or not.

I guess with an exit wound you have TWO holes you have to stop bleeding and suchlike, but with no exit wound you have a lump of metal somewhere in their body.

Anyone know?
In one fashion, it is worse to still have a bullet in you because they have to get it out and such. However, exit wounds have two problems with them as well. They are plowing through more of your body, and they cause a bigger wound going out.
 

War Penguin

Serious Whimsy
Jun 13, 2009
5,717
0
0
I would imagine that having the bullet go all the way through your body would be better than staying in there. If it were to stay in there, it would just tear up your insides and cause a whole lot of internal bleeding. Of course, that's just a guess. I have no idea.
 

Berethond

New member
Nov 8, 2008
6,474
0
0
In general, it's better with an exit wound. It's best if the bullet goes straight through - it's much easier to identify, get to, and fix the damaged tissues if the bullet follows a straight path through, although a straight-through shot can easily be fatal.
 

Jack Cheal

New member
Aug 25, 2010
121
0
0
it can be worse for an exit wound, as it allows more infection, and you lose more blood from it, plus if the round is stuck in a bone or something, then it can actually save your life. on the other hand if the round is free inside you then yeah, you're a dead man.
 

let's rock

New member
Jun 15, 2011
372
0
0
let it stay in, times in which it exits means

1) it goes through more tissue

2) if let in, the pressure stops the bleeding
 

Jegsimmons

New member
Nov 14, 2010
1,748
0
0
GrinningManiac said:
Quick question - I can't find an answer and Yahoo/other answer places are useless

Does anyone know if it's better or worse for a bullet to exit the body upon entering it?

I understand it's bad that the bullet's already gone IN and that it can bounce about and do loads of damage, but I was wondering (for the purpose of something I'm writing) if the bullet then exiting the body would make things worse or not.

I guess with an exit wound you have TWO holes you have to stop bleeding and suchlike, but with no exit wound you have a lump of metal somewhere in their body.

Anyone know?
lets put it this way, the diameter of a .45 hollow point entrance wounds is about the same size of the bullet, the exit wound (assuming this is a chest would) is big enough to have a quadruple bypass on your now liquefied heart (exaggerated but you get the point...no pun intended). If anybody on the escapist is a hunter they know that an exit wound is fucking brutal, especially if it a hollow point (in which case you hit the wrong spot of the deer, learn to aim ;] )
 

xdom125x

New member
Dec 14, 2010
671
0
0
Common sense is telling me that having 1 hole in your body is better than having 2.

Also, if it is stuck in there, it can slow down the blood that is coming out of the wound.
 

Nightvalien

New member
Oct 18, 2010
237
0
0
If the bullet stays inside of you there's a chance it get caught by the bloodstream and it can end up inside any organ and that could be fatal, i believe that having an exit wound on a non fatal place would be much better.
 

Legendsmith

New member
Mar 9, 2010
622
0
0
GrinningManiac said:
Quick question - I can't find an answer and Yahoo/other answer places are useless

Does anyone know if it's better or worse for a bullet to exit the body upon entering it?
Anyone know?
When speaking of the human body, the exit wound is far worse than the entry wound. The entry wound tends to be a neat hole, where the exit wound is usually a bloody mess.
This is due to the force of the bullet distending and stretching the flesh it passes through. So when it exits, it's like a balloon bursting, more comes out, especially if the bullet tumbles.

Exit wounds are always worse, except for high calibre weaponry like 50.cal machineguns. 50cals bullets don't really tumble in human flesh, because the bullet has so much power behind it that it goes straight through.
 

thiosk

New member
Sep 18, 2008
5,410
0
0
You want it to go right through if you are the target. A clean through and through imparts less kinetic energy to the victim. This is why you don't use ultra-high powered sniper rifles for deer hunting-- any hunter who does so is either an idiot or just wants to play with high-powered sniper rifles (or both). Reloaders, enthusiasts who prepare their own gunpowder mixes and design their own ammunition, think long and hard about this-- you want the bullet to go at just the right velocity, enter the target, and then kaTHUNK transfer that energy to the target and knock it down or dead or both. A through and through will lead to a deer that prances off to escape and bleeds to death some hours later, and often unable to be tracked and found.

This writeup does not necessarily apply to specialized ammunition including, but not limited to, hollow points. Those devices expand on impact and cause internal shrapnal damage in addition to the gunshot, so its a whole different ballgame. As in, a lot of little balls blowing out the back side if you do manage to still get overpenetration. Yuck.
 

Flyingchciken93

New member
Apr 21, 2011
89
0
0
GrinningManiac said:
Quick question - I can't find an answer and Yahoo/other answer places are useless

Does anyone know if it's better or worse for a bullet to exit the body upon entering it?

I understand it's bad that the bullet's already gone IN and that it can bounce about and do loads of damage, but I was wondering (for the purpose of something I'm writing) if the bullet then exiting the body would make things worse or not.

I guess with an exit wound you have TWO holes you have to stop bleeding and suchlike, but with no exit wound you have a lump of metal somewhere in their body.

Anyone know?
If its in the extremities its better for it to go straight through. In the case of the torso if the bullet hits an organ its better for it not to go fully through as sometimes the bullet simply being there can keep things together long enough for surgery. If the bullet were to miss the organs leaing the body prevents further injury.
 

WolfThomas

Man must have a code.
Dec 21, 2007
5,292
0
0
Not sure but I do know the two best places to get shot are the arse and gut. The gut'll hurt like hell, probably get infected but you won't die immediately and if you get adequate treatment you will not only live but mostly complication free. The arm and legs are mainly myth, in the leg you've got the risk of bleeding out very quickly if it hits the femoral artery and the arm can have all sorts of permanent neurological problems.
 

goronlink8

New member
Mar 30, 2011
26
0
0
Yes. A bullet cleanly exiting the body is good for a number of reasons.
1. It doesn't have to be fished out.
2. It means it didn't bounce around before it left.
3. It means that the energy of the bullet was more concentrated and (sometimes) doesn't hurt other areas as bad.
4. If it doesn't come out in a joint or something, it will be very hard to use that body part.
5. If it went through all the way, it usually does not drag as much out with it.

I watch a good amount of military television shows :p

If it matters.

It is preferable to get shot by a 9mm (if it's a hand gun or SMG) as opposed to a .45. It is better to get shot by a 7.62mm as opposed to a 5.56x45 in rifle calibers.

Pistols - the 9mm makes a smaller hole and goes clean through, like a tunnel(not exactly, but closer than the .45) (usually), it also has more energy so it doesn't drag as much. The .45 makes a bigger hole and and the energy of the round actually makes the hole from the bullet slightly bigger, it also drags more.

The 5.56x45 will tumble and bounce around everywhere (same thing with the similar 5.45x39). The 7.62 is like the 9mm. If it was a 6.8x43(those are much less common due to its young age compared to other sizes) you're much more screwed as it has the advantages of both (more energy and likely to tumble in the body), but with fewer disadvantages.
 

kypsilon

New member
May 16, 2010
384
0
0
A clean entry and exit wound with a straight path through the body and no organs hit is survivable...plug the holes get to a doctor, tell your friends at a party about how you got the scar, etc. If it doesn't leave the body, there is the possibility that it will travel (not part of the ricochet from the initial shot) to some part of the body that could cause real harm. Like shrapnel from an explosion migrating its way into your heart or other vital organ.

Aside from that, a bullet still in the body may need to be removed and depending on how that goes it could complicate matters. It is possible that a doctor may opt to leave it in if the surgery is too risky for extraction. It really is a case-by-case basis and truth as they say, is stranger than fiction.
 

the_dancy_vagrant

New member
Apr 21, 2009
372
0
0
This is pretty well what my dad said about getting shot when I asked him about it many a year ago.

Back in the bad old days of the 1960s, he got drafted into the US army and one of the things that they taught riflemen was that if they received a flesh wound to the arm or leg (ie, a bullet went through their bicep/tricep or calf but it didn't hit the bone) the trick was to 1) call for a medic and 2) take their thumb and forefinger and jam them into the entry/exit wound to stem the bleeding. Risk of infection in several days is way, way secondary compared to bleeding to death in a couple of minutes.

If you get shot in the chest, regardless of whether or not the bullet exits, regardless of the caliber, you are in a lot of trouble. If it hits your heart, you're dead. If it hits your liver, you'll bleed out. If it hits one lung, you'll likely drown in your own blood. If it hits both lungs, it'll likely also hit your heart and you'll be dead before you hit the ground.

Bottom line: bullets are dangerous and should be avoided at all costs.
 

IRU

New member
Apr 6, 2010
5
0
0
In all fairness, lets take the scenario at hand:
I assume your character is surviving his wound, so it was not a "instant death" sort of wound. So no hollow point or super sized caliber.

This means he do not want fragments left in his body as he might die from surgery or fragments and secondary damage. A through and through injury would be better if he can get first aid.

Note: What about the issue of led bullets, led is supposidly not a good thing to have in the body. I think someone said bullets were "clean" and safer vs infection...well the outer layer is no longer intact as the bullet mushrom or fragment and the interior led is exposed.

Also: I do belive one of the arguments against 7.62mm amunition in support of the 5.56x45 rifle caliber is that the 5.56 is LESS leathal. In war you do not want to kill as an injured soldier is believed to be of higher strategic value than a dead one. So by army logic a 7.62 is more deadly (Far more power and deadly wounds when not close to a hospital). The point of the "new" 6.8 or 6.5 caliber is not to harvest both powers as stated above, it is rather to have a bullet with improved range withouth the high likelyhood of death from the larger calibers. And before you start to argue with this logic: The thumbeling effect of the "low power" 5.56 causes more complicated wounds, not necesarily to cause more death.

Quick to the point logic:
- I assume your character will survive or at least survived the initial impact
- Larger caliber = faster death
- Non penetrating bullet: may (if it is not lodged in bone or super low power) make your character unable to keep doing heroics due to pain and secondary damage
- If it is military rounds then it is not hollow point (As a general rule)
- Most ammo he is likely to encounter will not be hollow point
- Hollow point = death (As a general rule) so you will not let him be shot by this type
- Your character (if chasing someone or typically working with a partner) will need to be operational or at least able to live 10 minutes until first aid can be applied so he will need to have some idea of the critical effect of the damage. This is better with a clean through and through shot as he then knows the size and risk of the injury (To some extent) and his partner can run off or he can move on his own without ripping up more tissue

Hope this helped the questions presented
My sources: I am a writer and game desinger, I have done some reading on the topic. I am not a medical expert. Would like to hear the 2 cents of an american emergency surgon (Guess they would be the top experts on this topic)

Anyways I'm still doing research on the topic and would love some more insight on this, especially on the effect on lead withinn the body ;) Any medics out there?