Question about exit gunshot wounds

[Silverslith]

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.

Here's a cool vid to demonstrate what happens:

(warning: kinda graphic if you are squeamish)

 

[Twilight_guy]

Why are you asking this on a gaming forum? It isn't the kind of place that attracts people who know a lot about medicine/guns. Anyways, If the bullet doesn't exit, it will need to be removed or it can't heal. That's what I know.

 

[Aur0ra145]

Both are bad. You got shot.

However look up internal ballistics, that will give you a good starting point.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

Exit wounds are much larger than entry wounds (due to the accumulation of mass inside the body cavity) and can cause massive damage.

 

[IRU]

Guess you can say it is a question with two answeres (As far as I can gather):
1- You are more likely to die "on the spot" from it going through
2- If you survive you are more likely to recover from the insident if the same is true

And you do NOT want the bullet to hit bones or get stuck in the joints, it will be a mess and you will risk led poisening and complications
(It's supposed to be worse if it gets stuck in bone vs organs, also the bullet may save your life if it blocks the bleeding)



Also it would be useful if you spesified if this is not a modern setting, the situation can be different in some other era as we are to day pretty good at fighting infections and bullets did not fragment or tumble as much in the olden days
A silk shirt could save your life in the 17th century, it would likely not matter much against a modern firearm.



Consercing the aspect of the "shock" discussion: Not really relevant unless the bullet was stopped by body armor. It was stated that "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". This may be interesting information but it is also slightly irrelevant as a bullet that did NOT get though would be stuck somewhere inside your head and likely do far vorse damage...

 

[Pain Is Inevitable]

Less open wounds for you to bleed from is always a good thing, everything else being equal. ALWAYS.

Besides, it's not like bullets are made of radioactive materials or poison that will kill you if you don't immediately remove them from your body. A lot of soldiers have lived with bullets inside of them for the rest of their lives simply because removing them would be more dangerous than just leaving them be.

 

[targren]

Depends on the bullet. Some bullets can leave gaping exit wounds, much larger than the entrance wound. I honestly couldn't say which is better.

A good point. A through shot with something like a 9mm is probably better if you're not far from medical attention, since it means that the surgeons can get to stitching you up without having to dig the bugger out.

Bigger slugs, though, often have an annoying tendency to take big ol' chunks with them on the way out. That'll ruin your day.

 

[IRU]

Pain is inevitable said: "it's not like bullets are made of radioactive materials or poison that will kill you if you don't immediately remove them from your body"



I hope you are trying to be ironic or funny here

Acutally bullets are made of almost pure poison (some are even radioactive) and that CAN kill you, but likely it will just reduce your quality of life and general health. As I stated above it depends on where the bullet is located, they MAY add unwanted led to the blood flow. The reason they are left inn is simply becouse removing them might yield instant death or damage that is more severe than the risks of leaving it behind.
It is far from a perfect solution, guess you can say it is more like cancer treatmen: it sucks and will harm you, but it is better than the original affliction (Cancer or kemo vs bleeding out or leaving the bullet inn)

As far as I can see the research on led poisoning from bullets is a young science. It has also been reported that freequent shooters and especially the enviroment can suffer from long term effects of ammunition led deposits. There is a reason why they are working for led free green ammunition. Sad fact: Led free (Green) ammunition used in afganistan has been reported to cause even more imidiate health issues for the soldiers using it. So sad

 

[Thaluikhain]

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.

Well, depends if you are armoured or not.

But, all bullets tumble when they strike the target.

I really don't buy the 7.62, being the larger, more powerful round, having less of an effect on the target.

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.

Yeah, I don't buy that at all. From a strategic point of view, yeah, an injured soldier is more of a liability than a dead one. But making guns that injure, instead of kill just doesn't work.

You need your weapon to immediately incapacitate the target, you can't really build it not to hurt them...hell, if you could, police shootings would result in fatalities.

Likewise, the US army trains its soldiers (for close range fighting) to use the failure failure drill of "two in the chest, one in the head", and repeat until nobody it left standing. It's not "shoot them somewhere that won't hurt them much, wait to see if they are giving up, and if not, shoot them somewhere else not vital", because that would get your soldiers killed.

Giving them less powerful weapons to avoid harming the enemy too much is also going to get your soldiers killed.

 

[IRU]

"You need your weapon to immediately incapacitate the target, you can't really build it not to hurt them"

The Hague convention prohibits the use of expanding and exploding bullets for this very reason. All NATO countries are bound to this.

Still it has been stated in this thread over and over that getting shot sucks, if struck by any military grade bullet you will likely be out of the fight/war regardless of death. That is why we use the idea of stopping power rather than something such as simply killing power (or what ever).
The real world is not like the games where you respawn or simply lose HP until dead, getting shot will have an imidiate and radical effect.


Still this is a complex topic. For one: close range means that the enemy is upon you and your are fighting for your life. Thus overkill lose some of its meaning. In modern warfare there is a shift towards more "short" range and less longer ranged combat. Mainly due to the "popular" ideas evolving around terrorist threats and urban warfare. The US developed the M16 to fit with this idea.
Both in the US and in Europe there is a discussion going on now regarding whatevver the 5.56 being the right ammunition or not for NATO. In a way you can say this started with the Germans during WWII when it was argued that most combat was at shorter ranges than previously belived.
This whole topic deserves and have its own threads in multiple forums across the net


"Giving them less powerful weapons to avoid harming the enemy too much is also going to get your soldiers killed"

This is one of the reasons why some US troops have asked for a stronger caliber. Soldiers in Afganistan and Irak have reported that the 5.56 is a risk to use as it does not always have the necesary stopping power. Even with the "double tap" the oposing forces may be able to return fire before going down. So far it looks like the 6.5 to 6.8 could be a contender.
The argument of what caliber is the most practical is still going on.


Also on the failure drill: Special forces, marines and elite soldiers is a category on their own, they are not really representative for the armed forces across the world. Overkill among the common soldiers is usually regarded (By European standards at least) as a bad thing.

Remember when the war is over the different sides will need to reconcile and return to a civil way of life. It can be argued that overkill is one of the reasons why the middle east is such a powdercake of unmatched dimensions.
War is not about killing the most soldiers, it is about controll and sumbmissions.