Guess SCAR is a done deal.

[P. Beck]

In January we were told we'd get the SCAR before SFAUC. After SFAUC we were told we'd get them before PMT. After PMT, we were told we'd get them before we deployed. Before leaving, we were told we'd get them when we get back.

I heard things like, "production problems" and, "low-rate production phase" etc, etc. Personally, I'm not holding my breath.

I have this:

And thusly am I then content.

Skeeter: What you are describing is trans-sonic yaw. And it does generally occur as the round drops from supersonic to subsonic. It is dependent on a number of factors and can occur to greater or lesser degrees. It is one reason that snipers like their bullets to hit the target at a speed above this threshold as substantial energy and some accuracy can be lost before the bullet settles back down into a nice stable subsonic trajectory.

This is a whole different animal than the sort of yaw that takes place after impact. It's the difference between external ballistics and wound ballistics.

 

[skeeter]

Thanks, thats cool.;)

 

[DoctorDoom]

Let me echo from the trauma surgery end of the house what P. Beck said earlier; shot placement is key. You guys would be amazed at the number of gunshot wounds I send home within 6 hours of ER evaluation, versus the number of stab wounds that arrive dead and stay dead. It's not just the size of the round or the polymer of the weapon's stock.

 

[WillBrink]

Let me echo from the trauma surgery end of the house what P. Beck said earlier; shot placement is key. You guys would be amazed at the number of gunshot wounds I send home within 6 hours of ER evaluation, versus the number of stab wounds that arrive dead and stay dead. It's not just the size of the round or the polymer of the weapon's stock.

That reminds me of a stat I read once, but can't find the cite for. I had read that although stabbings are rarer than shootings (in the US), stabbings have a higher % of being fatal. Not sure of the accuracy of that statement as I have been unable to find the source, so take it for what it's worth. It appears your experience mirrors that?

 

[Onemoretime]

Will,

There is a video series done by one of the "dog brothers", a kali group out of California. They got together with Gabe Suarez and made a series called "Die less often". In that series they talk about knife attacks having a higher percentage of deaths related to them then shootings.

I would tend to agree with that statement. It takes a different level of intensity and commitment to stabs someone rather then shoot them. ALMOST like the difference between a pilot firing a missle at a blip on the screen versus a ground soldier shooting the enemy at 25 yards.

When the average person shoots someone they MAY NOT be committed the killing that person, they may just want to stop the threat. One or two shots, they may not be dead but they may be out of the battle and now you can choose to run away or advance on them and capture or finish them. When you decide to stab someone you are going to be close enough that your intensity is automatically going to be raised to a level where you will be in a race with the other guy to "solve the problem". Knifings are characterized by multiple stab wounds because of the want to finish the fight.

There is an actual knife fighting tactic call the "sewing machine" where you take the knife in either an ice pick grip or fencing grip and repeatedly stab the opponent like a sewing maching.

 

[WillBrink]

Will,

There is a video series done by one of the "dog brothers", a kali group out of California. They got together with Gabe Suarez and made a series called "Die less often". In that series they talk about knife attacks having a higher percentage of deaths related to them then shootings.

I would tend to agree with that statement. It takes a different level of intensity and commitment to stabs someone rather then shoot them. ALMOST like the difference between a pilot firing a missle at a blip on the screen versus a ground soldier shooting the enemy at 25 yards.

When the average person shoots someone they MAY NOT be committed the killing that person, they may just want to stop the threat. One or two shots, they may not be dead but they may be out of the battle and now you can choose to run away or advance on them and capture or finish them. When you decide to stab someone you are going to be close enough that your intensity is automatically going to be raised to a level where you will be in a race with the other guy to "solve the problem". Knifings are characterized by multiple stab wounds because of the want to finish the fight.

There is an actual knife fighting tactic call the "sewing machine" where you take the knife in either an ice pick grip or fencing grip and repeatedly stab the opponent like a sewing maching.

All of the above makes sense, but my question was more regarding the nature of the wound of edged weapon vs handgun projectile. Would there be a strictly physical reason the edged weapon is more often fatal (assuming that stat is correct) than common service rnds the doc can fill us in on, or is it as you mention, more an issue of intent and intensity of the knife attack vs gun?

 

[pardus]

Two things come to mind for me, One, as stated the committment needed in order to stab someone is significantly more than to shoot, resulting in potentially more lethal wounds and Two, the knife is slicing through flesh not ripping it as a bullet would tend to do more, slicing makes things bleed more. I know that from experience in an operating room, (as well as having been both sliced and ripped open myself) though I'm no expert and this is just my :2c:

 

[Onemoretime]

I think it's either a matter of the number or perforations in an average knife attack versus the average shooting. Knife = 3, 4, or 5 may be more? vs. Gun = 1, 2, maybe 3? Also, the range will guarantee the accuracy of the "perforations".

As P.Beck said earlier holes in the body bleed whether they are from a knife or a bullet. More holes an/or better hole placement will make for better flow.

Also if the person knows how to use the knife they will most likely know how to use "wound enhancing" movements such as "churning the butter" or "twist and rip".

The intensity of a knife encounter will usually guarantee multiple stab wounds because of the range. The closer you are to someone the more they tend to freak out. Case in point, take someone who has never fought before and put them in with a seasoned BJJ practitioner and watch them freak out and poke you, grab you, rip your shirt, kick you in the balls, to get you off of them. They don't mean to, most of the time, they're just in survival mode.

In a gun battle you may be able to put a few rounds on target and then get away. In a knife battle getting away is not so easy so you tend to try to "over-solve" the problem. You stab until the enemy stops moving. Gabe Suarez teaches the same technique in using the gun for self defense. "Shoot them to the ground".

 

[WillBrink]

I think it's either a matter of the number or perforations in an average knife attack versus the average shooting. Knife = 3, 4, or 5 may be more? vs. Gun = 1, 2, maybe 3? Also, the range will guarantee the accuracy of the "perforations".

As P.Beck said earlier holes in the body bleed whether they are from a knife or a bullet. More holes an/or better hole placement will make for better flow.

Also if the person knows how to use the knife they will most likely know how to use "wound enhancing" movements such as "churning the butter" or "twist and rip".

The intensity of a knife encounter will usually guarantee multiple stab wounds because of the range. The closer you are to someone the more they tend to freak out. Case in point, take someone who has never fought before and put them in with a seasoned BJJ practitioner and watch them freak out and poke you, grab you, rip your shirt, kick you in the balls, to get you off of them. They don't mean to, most of the time, they're just in survival mode.

In a gun battle you may be able to put a few rounds on target and then get away. In a knife battle getting away is not so easy so you tend to try to "over-solve" the problem. You stab until the enemy stops moving. Gabe Suarez teaches the same technique in using the gun for self defense. "Shoot them to the ground".

Well, I guess to do it on a scientific level and reduce the number of variables, you could attempt to match up as many of the similarities as possible, then find the strength of the correlations, like similar number of holes, similar locations, similar depths, etc, etc and see if you can find if, based on your model, knife wounds have a higher fatality rate than handgun rnds when matched for controlled variable, but the number of variables you would have to (attempt) to control for would be many and or not possible. I wonder if anyone has done something lke that? Problem with correlational type research is you often end up with crap, like the "one shot stop" junk data and such, so it's a pitfall thing to try...

Interesting thoughts on the issue in the thread at least, which confirms my personal conclusions: don't get stabbed or shot if you can help it! :)

 

[Onemoretime]

Let me clarify my position. I do not believe that a single knife wound to the chest is more deadly then a single GS wound to the chest.

I do believe that an average knife encounter is more deadly then an average gun encounter due the the factors mentioned in the above posts.

It would be very very difficult to research simular scenarios. Most of the data at this point is most likely taken from ER's treating GS wounds and knife wounds on a regular basis.

I think the major difference in the encounters is the people involved in them. Your average joe who has never shot someone assumes that one round (maybe two) is sufficent to solve the problem. Where as if you stab someone, the range elevates your want the solve the problem which translates into more stab wounds. Also, "average joe" and society in general doesn't view the knife as being as deadly as the gun so "AJ" thinks he needs more wounds which translates into a higher mortality rate.

The major saving grace in most gun battles is the ability (of both combatants) to run away due to the range.

A knife battle at a range of 0-3 feet = someone will most likely die

A gun battle at a range of 0-3 feet = someone will most likely die

Like I said above, most of the data is likely collected from hospital ER's dealing with wounds not scenarios. I'd imagine, drive by shootings, mall shootings, ambushes, college campus'. Most of the deaths at our most recent incidents have been at close range (ie. bad guys walks up to cowering citizen and shoots them in the head).

Without doing the research I'd say that most bullet wounds treated are not from close range. People use guns because they DON'T want to get close to the enemy.

 

[P. Beck]

"Your average joe who has never shot someone assumes that one round (maybe two) is sufficent to solve the problem."

This is the primary reason why I train my guys to "shoot 'em all the way into the ground". Between the vertical and the hortizontal, you put as much lead into that sunnavabitch as you can. Bullets are cheap. We'll get more. I promise.

"One shot, one kill" is all very well and good, in it's place. Given a scalpel, proper placement and forces applied just so, it is theoretically possible to extract the meat from a walnut whole and intact in one move. But a nine pound hammer works every single time. Period.

Fuque a bunch of subtle.

 

[WillBrink]

"Your average joe who has never shot someone assumes that one round (maybe two) is sufficent to solve the problem."

This is the primary reason why I train my guys to "shoot 'em all the way into the ground". Between the vertical and the hortizontal, you put as much lead into that sunnavabitch as you can. Bullets are cheap. We'll get more. I promise.

"One shot, one kill" is all very well and good, in it's place. Given a scalpel, proper placement and forces applied just so, it is theoretically possible to extract the meat from a walnut whole and intact in one move. But a nine pound hammer works every single time. Period.

Fuque a bunch of subtle.

Who was it that said "until their head is at least 4 ft from their body, they should not be considered dead"?

 

[P. Beck]

Me.

I guess it could have something to do with me carrying a 24 oz. framing hammer on my kit.

One of these, in point of fact:

http://www.medfordtools.com/hammers/ds24.html

The Hajjis are scared to death that I'm just looking an excuse to bury the business end in somebody's forehead. Fuque a bunch of tomahawks.

It doesn't matter if they think I'm crazy or not. Just as long as I know.

 

[Ravage]

"One shot, one kill" is all very well and good, in it's place. Given a scalpel, proper placement and forces applied just so, it is theoretically possible to extract the meat from a walnut whole and intact in one move. But a nine pound hammer works every single time. Period.

Fuque a bunch of subtle.

Your Boomstick again

 

[Ravage]

P. Beck is the US Army SF still using the good old M-14 ?

 

[DoctorDoom]

That reminds me of a stat I read once, but can't find the cite for. I had read that although stabbings are rarer than shootings (in the US), stabbings have a higher % of being fatal. Not sure of the accuracy of that statement as I have been unable to find the source, so take it for what it's worth. It appears your experience mirrors that?

To a certain extent yes, but that is a very qualified yes. Death rates from stab wounds that present to the ER are higher, though SW are far more rare, but usually we don't see lacerations or stab wounds since they are usually not enough to warrant trauma surgery evaluation. Also, most GSW's to the chest which are fatal don't present to the ER; they die in the field.

In short, my experience is statistically unreliable. I would say that lethality based on location of injury is a common theme: central chest or major vascular injury= usually dead. So my very limited opinion is as I stated previously; whether with a sharp piece of metal moving at a few miles per hour, or a large projectile moving at several thousand feet per second, placement is key.

That being said, intent is a big part of stabbings. When people choose a knife, and try to stab and not slash, they want to KILL. They do not just pop some shots from a distance. So I think that has a lot to do with the fatality rate. Also, most of the jackasses we see think they can pop off shots, play tough. A trained shooter knows to shoot to kill. The same is likely true for knife users: someone who uses the knife is likely to have a better idea of how to use it assuming they choose it as a weapon, so intent and training make a difference also.

Wow, I didn't answer your question at all. :doh: :) I don't have any good overall stats.

Addendum: here's a little something I found, I'll try to track down the Annals of Surgery article and some other Trauma references.
http://timlambert.org/1993/10/knives-00000/

 

[P. Beck]

Rav,

Sure. We've got a bunch on my team. The "Boomstick" is primarily my "outside" piece. I've got a M4 shorty with a can on it for "inside" work.

 

[WillBrink]

To a certain extent yes, but that is a very qualified yes. Death rates from stab wounds that present to the ER are higher, though SW are far more rare, but usually we don't see lacerations or stab wounds since they are usually not enough to warrant trauma surgery evaluation. Also, most GSW's to the chest which are fatal don't present to the ER; they die in the field.

In short, my experience is statistically unreliable. I would say that lethality based on location of injury is a common theme: central chest or major vascular injury= usually dead. So my very limited opinion is as I stated previously; whether with a sharp piece of metal moving at a few miles per hour, or a large projectile moving at several thousand feet per second, placement is key.

That being said, intent is a big part of stabbings. When people choose a knife, and try to stab and not slash, they want to KILL. They do not just pop some shots from a distance. So I think that has a lot to do with the fatality rate. Also, most of the jackasses we see think they can pop off shots, play tough. A trained shooter knows to shoot to kill. The same is likely true for knife users: someone who uses the knife is likely to have a better idea of how to use it assuming they choose it as a weapon, so intent and training make a difference also.

Wow, I didn't answer your question at all. :doh: :) I don't have any good overall stats.

Addendum: here's a little something I found, I'll try to track down the Annals of Surgery article and some other Trauma references.
http://timlambert.org/1993/10/knives-00000/

Good info doc, thanx.

 

[Ravage]

http://www.military.com/news/article/operators-test-new-commando-rifle.html

Operators Test New Commando Rifle

It's a rifle designed specifically for the special operations community. Modular barrels, ambidextrous controls, a gas-piston operating system, a host of adjustment options -- but you already know that.

So with all the slick marketing language and eye-popping specifications of the SOCOM Combat Assault Rifle, it's a given that operators will embrace the thing wholeheartedly, right?

Well, let's ask them.

"This rifle is awesome," said one Special Forces operator who, like the rest of the Green Berets in this interview, declined to be named for security reasons. "It's spot on."

Now you get an idea of how the men who'll use the weapon in combat felt about it, not just some six-figure marketing guru spewing crafty catch-phrases. But what's most interesting is why they liked the rifle so much.

In an exclusive, Military.com joined a group of about a dozen special operations Soldiers from around the country who traveled to Northern Virginia this summer to test fire the SCAR before their upcoming deployment to the Middle East. Ground rules agreed to between the special operators, the rifle manufacturer and Military.com precluded naming the unit, its members or its deployment destination.

See the Military.com SCAR Demo Slideshow
http://images.military.com/slideshows/scar-demo.htm

The SCAR, which comes in a 5.56mm version and a 7.62mm one, is nearing the end of its field user assessment phase -- the final stage before full-rate production and fielding to units under U.S. Special Operations Command, including SEALs, Green Berets and Air Force Special Tactics units.

The entry of the SCAR into the spec ops community comes as the services, Congress and the Pentagon scuffle over whether or not to replace the current M4 rifle and address persistent complaints over the standard-issued carbine's reported lack of "stopping power" and its need for constant maintenance and cleaning to avoid jams.

But ask the special operations troops firing both the Mk-16 (the 5.56mm version of the SCAR) and the Mk-17, its 7.62mm brethren, and you'll get a completely different response on the rifles' advantages over the venerable M4.

To these hardened commandos, the issue wasn't the new carbine's gas-piston system that many experts agree causes fewer stoppages than the all-gas operated M4 -- they keep their weapons in tip top shape. Instead, some operators appreciated how well the SCAR felt with lead pouring from its muzzle.

"I like it a lot better than the M4," one special operator said after firing a magazine full of 5.56mm through the Mk-16. "There's a lot less recoil."

One Special Forces Soldier applauded the weapon's controls, with safety latches located on both sides of the receiver and situated much closer to the weapon's handle.

"This works better with my stumpy hands," the stocky operator joked.

But by far the feature that most impressed these operators was the SCAR's ability to change from something as small as a submachine gun to a weapon with the reach of a sniper rifle.

Like many competitors to the M4, both the Mk-16 and Mk-17 can be outfitted with barrels ranging from 10 inches for close-quarters battle operations to 18-inch designated marksman barrels.

"That's the best part of this weapon," explained one Special Forces Soldier. "When we deploy, we usually go with just our M4s. But if we're on an operation where we need an overwatch or we're observing at a distance, the M4 doesn't do us much good until it's too late."

With the SCAR, the NCO said, the team could have both the reach and protection of a long gun and the maneuverability and portability of an assault rifle -- all in one.

Both the Mk-17 and Mk-16 have a fully adjustable stock that can be folded to the side to shrink the carbine into the length of a submachine gun. Some of the operators at the test shoot gave the stumpy rifle a try in this configuration, but marksmanship was mixed.

"I'm not sure I'd ever want to fire it like this," one operator said after shooting the Mk-17 with its stock folded. "But it'd sure be nice to fold it up like this for transporting in a vehicle or something."

Officials with FN-USA say that U.S. Special Operations Command has ordered about 18,000 SCAR variants for commandos and a limited run of about 1,200 rifles has already begun.

It's unclear still whether these Special Forces Soldiers will be slinging lead down range with a SCAR pinned to their shoulder on their next deployment, but judging by the pile of spent casings littering the ground during their demo shoot, some of them wouldn't complain if the new rifle wound up in their armory.

 

[pardus]

Good news and a step in the right direction.

The M-16 series has had it's time in the sun, time for the next one to step up.