| Title |
Distortion of the temporary cavity and its influence on staining in firearm barrels
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12024-018-9971-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christian Schyma, Rolf Müller, Eva Brenčičová, Julia Brünig |
| Abstract |
After contact shots to the head, biological traces can be found inside the barrel of the firearm. Experimental protocols to generate this sort of staining, using 12 cm gelatin cubes containing thin foil bags filled with acrylic paint, human blood, and radiocontrast agent, have been developed. Previous research on shots fired at a distance has shown the underlay sustaining these gelatin cubes has an influence on experimental results. This study was conducted to investigate the role of the sustaining base of the gelatin blocks during contact shots, and its influence on the staining result inside firearm barrels. Eighteen contact shots were performed using 22 LR, 32 ACP (7.65 Browning) and 9 mm Luger semi-automatic pistols. With each pistol, shots were fired onto six gelatin cubes; three placed upon a rigid platform and three upon an elastic underlay. The shots were recorded by a high-speed video camera as they penetrated the gelatin cube. Any staining present inside the firearm barrels after the shots were fired was documented by endoscopy. Cross sections of the gelatin blocks were then compared to the high-speed video. It was found that the nature of the staining inside the barrel was not influenced by the underlay sustaining the target model. In the experiment using a 9 mm Luger, the rigid counterfort provoked a visible distortion of the temporary cavity, but, cross sectional analysis of the gelatin cubes did not reveal a relevant influence of the sustaining underlay on the crack length in the gelatin. This could be explained by a secondary expansion of the temporary cavity left by the projectile as a consequence of subsequent inflow of muzzle gases. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 67% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 1 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 7 | 78% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 April 2018.
All research outputs
#16,454,538
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
#407
of 1,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,742
of 332,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
#10
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,014 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,657 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.