4.4 Article

Gunshots through laminated glass: expelled compounded fragments as a function of bullet type

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEGAL MEDICINE
卷 137, 期 4, 页码 1235-1244

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00414-022-02904-z

关键词

Forensic ballistics; Reconstruction; Laminated glass; Intermediate target; Expelled fragments; Wounding potential

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined the formation of round-shaped compounded glass fragments after gunshots through windshields in an experimental setting. Using different projectiles and analyzing the morphology, impact angles, and terminal ballistics of the fragments, it was found that the morphology of the compounded glass fragments can differentiate the type of projectiles used, which can aid in understanding the atypical morphology of gunshot wounds.
In the frame of an experimental setting, the formation of round-shaped compounded glass fragments on the exit site after gunshots through a windshield was examined. For that purpose, a 9 x 19 mm pistol (HK P30) and two different cartridges containing (a) a full metal jacketed round-nosed projectile and (b) a deformation projectile were used. On the basis of 52 gunshots, the morphology, impact angles and terminal ballistics of occurring compounded glass fragments were examined. The results showed that the compounded glass fragments' morphology allowed for the differentiation of two used projectiles. Fragments were able to cause round-shaped defects in a single cotton layer (T-shirt) with subsequent penetration of up to 2.4 cm into ballistic gelatin (10%, 4 degrees C). As a function of the projectile type, the compounded glass fragments showed different reproducible impact angles that differed notably from the known conical pattern of expelled glass fragments after bullet penetration. These findings might help to explain the atypical morphology of gunshot wounds with laminated glass as an intermediate target and prevent possible misinterpretations when reconstructing the sequence of events.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据