# "Shooting to wound" - what % bullshit, medically, tactically and legally? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 17, 2014, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393 "2014-07-17T20:02:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393/61 "2014-07-18T18:05:04Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > The military has its own myths and urban legends that get passed along from one generation of grunts to the next and mutate along the way. The amount of flatly untrue crap I heard about guns while I was in the military boggled my mind. The M-16 figured in a lot of it…designed to wound…tumbling bullets…manufactured by Mattel…just tonnes of stupid, untrue shit. Tumbling is true. Read Martin Fackler on that. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393/62 "2014-07-18T18:06:57Z")
> [@Washoe](#): > > Are you absolutely sure about that? I’ve been hearing that factoid in one form or another almost my entire life. I’ve heard it from cops, soldiers, garden-variety gun nuts, EM personnel, NRA instructors, and even a couple of unusually intelligent Labrador Retrievers. The way I’ve always heard it is this: if you kill a soldier, you’re only taking one person out of action. If you wound a soldier, you’re taking several guys out of action, because the others are tending to the wounded man. If you can dig something up for me, I’d appreciate it. I’ll even start a spin-off thread if there isn’t already one in the archives. (I highly suspect that we’ve done this one before, considering the sheer number of firearm aficionados residing here. I’ll peek under the hamster poop first.) I’m no expert but I believe the jacketing of the bullet has a lot more effect on its lethality than the size does. A bullet with a full metal jacket - despite its cool sounding name - is much less likely to kill you than an unjacketed bullet is. And never believe anything a Labrador Retriever tells you. They’re just fucking with you. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393/63 "2014-07-18T18:08:43Z")
> [@Absinthe\_Anecdote](#): > > Warning shots make little sense in most scenarios, in many instances they prompt the suspect to return fire. > > Most US law enforcement agencies severely restrict their use, if not ban the use of warning shots outright. I worked in prisons. So we had the advantage that the people we were shooting at rarely had anything to shoot back at us with. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393/64 "2014-07-18T18:38:18Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > And never believe anything a Labrador Retriever tells you. They’re just fucking with you. Hey… Yeah, okay. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393/65 "2014-07-18T18:40:32Z")
> [@Rick](#): > > Watch this video. LAPD gunfight. The shots continue until the suspect is down. Warning real life case not from Hollywood [http://youtu.be/uHn7qEmi3go](http://youtu.be/uHn7qEmi3go) > [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > No, it’s fake. Well done enough that it’s not immediately obvious but it’s fake. > > The gunshots sound wrong, the muzzle flashes are far too prominent, we hear the suspects’ voices when we shouldn’t be able to unless they have a mic. The car chase is a little much to be believable too. It’s the opening scene in the movie _End of Watch_. “Not from Hollywood.” 😃 > [@Washoe](#): > > Are you absolutely sure about that? I’ve been hearing that factoid in one form or another almost my entire life. I’ve heard it from cops, soldiers, garden-variety gun nuts, EM personnel, NRA instructors, and even a couple of unusually intelligent Labrador Retrievers. The way I’ve always heard it is this: if you kill a soldier, you’re only taking one person out of action. If you wound a soldier, you’re taking several guys out of action, because the others are tending to the wounded man. If you can dig something up for me, I’d appreciate it. I’ll even start a spin-off thread if there isn’t already one in the archives. (I highly suspect that we’ve done this one before, considering the sheer number of firearm aficionados residing here. I’ll peek under the hamster poop first.) Bullshit army urban legend. point to one thing that makes the design less lethal other than the below… > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’m no expert but I believe the jacketing of the bullet has a lot more effect on its lethality than the size does. A bullet with a full metal jacket - despite its cool sounding name - is much less likely to kill you than an unjacketed bullet is. Military bullets are not FMJ because of some guy in the Pentagon deciding it’s better to wound. The bullets are FMJ because of the Hague Convention of 1899. No expanding rounds are allowed under the law of land warfare. That includes unjacketed and hollow point. ---
**Author:** ![GusNSpot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gusnspot/32/436_2.png) [@GusNSpot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GusNSpot)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393/66 "2014-07-18T20:18:46Z")
“Stop!!! I’m police & I am going to shoot you if you don’t.” If they are too far away to hear you, they are to far away to be shooting at with a handgun. IMO ---
**Author:** ![Absinthe\_Anecdote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f6c823/32.png) [@Absinthe\_Anecdote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absinthe_Anecdote)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393/67 "2014-07-18T20:38:53Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I worked in prisons. So we had the advantage that the people we were shooting at rarely had anything to shoot back at us with. Prison tower guards, is one of the few scenarios that a warning shot might have some utility, but then I’m sure your training still included being aware of your backstop and that the conditions of deadly force had been met before you discharged your weapon, even for a warning shot. There are only a few military scenarios where warning shots are somewhat useful. On roadblocks is one, but that normally involves firing tracer rounds in front of a moving vehicle. Still, in Iraq that often proved ineffective because it prompted some Iraqi civilians to panic and drive faster. The use of warning shots fell out of favor in civilian US law enforcement a long time ago. I’d be surprised if many departments still endorse their use as part of policy. ---
**Author:** ![Sicks\_Ate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Sicks\_Ate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sicks_Ate)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393/68 "2014-07-18T20:45:05Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > Tumbling is true. Read Martin Fackler on that. Wait, tumbling in the air or after they strike a body? ---
**Author:** ![Absinthe\_Anecdote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f6c823/32.png) [@Absinthe\_Anecdote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absinthe_Anecdote)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393/69 "2014-07-18T20:59:24Z")
> [@Sicks\_Ate](#): > > Wait, tumbling in the air or after they strike a body? After they enter the body, not during flight. The 5.56 round (M-16/M-4) is a high velocity round with a projectile that has a relatively small mass, it tends to suck air in behind it after striking soft tissue, and that air rips the tissue apart. The larger 7.62 (AK-47/M-60) has a heavier projectile that will tend to tumble after entering the body. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393/70 "2014-07-18T21:18:37Z")
About those Scandinavian cops who aim for the legs… We’re told that they very seldom end up accidentally killing the guy, but how often do they try to aim for the legs but miss entirely? And if missing entirely is an acceptable outcome, why are they taking the shot at all? ---
**Author:** ![Mogle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mogle/32/12021_2.png) [@Mogle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mogle)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393/71 "2014-07-18T21:22:32Z")
> [@Absinthe\_Anecdote](#): > > The use of warning shots fell out of favor in civilian US law enforcement a long time ago. I’d be surprised if many departments still endorse their use as part of policy. I think it’s a matter of the ecosystem you’re operating in. Guns are much more common in the US than they are in Europe, so I guess that in the default scenario you envision, the suspect has a firearm. Over here it’s usually a knife or some other melee weapon. While there is no warning shot in this [clip](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWANmeH0Rt0)(suspect in red), it is a good representation of the scenario I think of when we speak of warning shots. Also, when I spoke of warning shots in a military context, that was for peacetime security where our use of firearms was regulated by legislation that is essentially the same as the one that applies to the police. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393/72 "2014-07-18T21:49:15Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > Tumbling is true. Read Martin Fackler on that. They may tumble or fragment after striking the target. However, I heard out of the mouths of military personnel that the M-16 fires bullets that tumble as they leave the bore in order to have a “buzz saw” effect in tissue. I also heard from a guy in an armored unit that they were issued Uzis with 2 inch barrels that fired 1000 rounds per minute (cyclic rate, one supposes;)). I was also told, repeatedly, that there is no such gun as a p-38 and that a round from a .50 cal can kill you just by passing too close. Despite weapons being part of their job, grunts\_even combat veterans with years in uniform\_are often appallingly ignorant on the topic. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393/73 "2014-07-18T21:53:46Z")
> [@Mogle](#): > > eg if something had ever happened at the front gate of the base I was at you wouldn’t fire any warning shots at all, **since they would’ve ended up in the colonel’s bedroom**. Most grunts I know would see that as a plus :p. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393/74 "2014-07-18T22:01:50Z")
> [@Absinthe\_Anecdote](#): > > The 5.56 round (M-16/M-4) is a high velocity round with a projectile that has a relatively small mass, it tends to suck air in behind it after striking soft tissue, and that air rips the tissue apart. No. That is absolutely not how cavitation is caused at all. Did you learn that in the military, perchance? > **[Terminal Ballistics - Hornady Manufacturing, Inc](https://www.hornady.com/team-hornady/ballistic-calculators/ballistic-resources/terminal-ballistics)** > > Terminal Ballistics > > > Video Library... ---
**Author:** ![Absinthe\_Anecdote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f6c823/32.png) [@Absinthe\_Anecdote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absinthe_Anecdote)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393/75 "2014-07-18T22:14:35Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > No. That is absolutely not how cavitation is caused at all. Did you learn that in the military, perchance? > > [Terminal Ballistics - Hornady Manufacturing, Inc](http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/terminal) Yep, straight from the CATMs instructors. ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2014, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393/76 "2014-07-19T02:08:20Z")
Now, they told us the principle behind a 5.56 round was “Hydrostatic Shock”. That is, it’s traveling really fast (3,300 fps)\* when it strikes the enemy. Since humans are 78% water and water is incompressible, it makes a small hole going in and a large hole going out. In the Coast Guard, we did fire warning shots across the bow of a boat that was reluctant to heave to. About 5 rounds of .50 cal from the Browning M2 usually got the message across. And if that didn’t work, it was generally followed up with a warning burst from the twin - 20mm into the engine compartment. \*This was with an M-16/16A1 with full length barrel (not like the M4s now) and before the US switched to the lower powered NATO 5.56 rnd currently in use. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2014, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393/77 "2014-07-19T15:31:04Z")
> [@Ranger\_Jeff](#): > > Now, they told us the principle behind a 5.56 round was “Hydrostatic Shock”. That is, it’s traveling really fast (3,300 fps)\* when it strikes the enemy. Since humans are 78% water and water is incompressible, it makes a small hole going in and a large hole going out. Any bullet causes hydrostatic shock. A 5.56 round is not designed differently than any other rifle round. It has a full metal jacket bullet at the pointy end. No special charactaristics. If it was designed to specifically tumble more or do more damage it would most likely be outlawed by The Hague Convention. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2014, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393/78 "2014-07-19T16:11:15Z")
The huge wounds caused by cavitation occur when cavitation exceeds tissue elasticity… While all bullets cause hydrostatic shock, they don’t all cause permanent cavitation. ---
**Author:** ![Toxylon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f05b48/32.png) [@Toxylon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Toxylon)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393/79 "2014-07-21T19:38:06Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > About those Scandinavian cops who aim for the legs… We’re told that they very seldom end up accidentally killing the guy, but how often do they try to aim for the legs but miss entirely? And if missing entirely is an acceptable outcome, why are they taking the shot at all? I kinda covered that in my post, within the limits of an extremely small dataset. Out of the 8 cases of the Finnish police shooting at criminals in the 2000’s, 6 were shots at the perp’s extremities, with one miss and one accidental kill. So, 5 / 6 they aimed at the extremities and hit. This gives us an 83 % chance of hitting, a 66.66 % chance of succesful non-lethal hit, a 16.66 % chance of accidental death, and a 16.66 % chance of missing altogether. The other two cases are a hit in the chest resulting in death (resulting in much public discussion), and another hit in the chest without killing. A shot / shots in the leg with a 9 mm Glock results in incapacitating most criminals, including homicidal maniacs, that’s the experience Scandi police forces go by. There is one famous case from the 1990’s where a suicidal, psychopathic career criminal continued to be a threat after taking hits in the legs. The Finnish police responded by shooting the perp in the head. Would you not try a technique that, more than 8 times out of 10, succeeds in incapacitating a dangerous person? Scandi police officers use firearms as needed - most of the time, single, non-lethal shots work. When not, more bullets in more vital areas are used. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393/80 "2014-07-21T21:13:59Z")
> [@Toxylon](#): > > Would you not try a technique that, more than 8 times out of 10, succeeds in incapacitating a dangerous person? Scandi police officers use firearms as needed - most of the time, single, non-lethal shots work. When not, more bullets in more vital areas are used. I suspect that in the US, most suspects are better armed, more used to shooting back, and trigger happy. You’d end up with a lot more wounded and killed cops. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393.md?page=5)