March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Who's Online Now
9 members (FlyChamps, ksauers1, Ken Nelson, Lloyd3, 3 invisible), 296 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums10
Topics38,374
Posts543,995
Members14,389
Most Online1,131
Jan 21st, 2024
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 23 of 26 1 2 21 22 23 24 25 26
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 180
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 180
As a practicing veterinarian with over twenty years experience in taking and interpreting radiographs, I'd like to make a few observations on the one presented here:

1) It is a horrible view. It is so under-exposed that I can barely identify the anatomical region it was taken from (and even then only the general region). It is certainly of no diagnostic value, in that it shows almost no anatomic structures due to the underexposure. It is clear that the exposure was manipulated for the sole purpose of demonstrating the fragmentation (which is fair to do, if that is the stated purpose). However it obscures the main damage to the large bone that it HAD to have impacted to fragment like that. The under-exposure makes it impossible to evaluate the wound tract path, and structures involved, as well as the extent of the damage they sustained. Large-game hunting bullets don't fragment without hitting fairly substantial bone.

2) Having radiographed hundreds of dogs shot with everything from BB guns to deer rifles, including many large-breed, heavy-boned dogs like Rottweilers, that pattern of fragmentation exceeds anything I've ever seen. No normal hunting bullet I've ever seen would fragment like that, even on hitting a solid bone. I have not seen any patients shot with "frangible" ammunition, but I can't imagine that they could possibly fragment any more than this bullet did.

3) No one would ever radiograph a dead deer unless they are looking to see the fragmentation pattern. Bullet manufacturers typically use gelatin to demonstrate performance. Whoever took this one was definitely trying to show the fragmentation pattern because it's useless for anything else. The manipulation of the exposure to maximize the appearance of the fragmentation causes one to question the motives of the one who took it, simply because it does not follow normal radiographic technique. It COULD still be unbiased, but there's ample evidence that it could also very easily be biased to demonstrate a pre-determined conclusion. It would be much more legitimate if it followed standard radiographic technique, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as impressive (i.e. intentional underexposure makes the tiniest fragments show up brighter and more vivid/"impressive", while all anatomic detail is lost in a "white-out").

4)The vast majority of fragments that come off of a normal hunting bullet will be found to be pieces of the copper jacket. When removing bullets surgically, the main lead core of the bullet is almost always still together for the most part. If we were to analyze the fragments shown, most of them would be copper (and as stated before - if this isn't a frangible bullet, it is the most extreme case of fragmentation of a normal bullet I've ever seen).

5) It's very hard to imagine that any animal hit like this (i.e. hard enough to cause such extraordinary fragmentation) would ever be "lost" to later die and be eaten by scavengers. This deer would have been collected at the point it was standing when the bullet impacted, or maybe a few scant yards away. Animals who are lost are generally poorly-hit (gut-shot, etc.) which means that the bullet either wholly or mostly only impacted soft tissue, or light bones like ribs, which results in minimal fragmentation. An exception to this would be an upper extremity, with the bullet hitting a large bone and fragmenting, but not causing enough immobilization to prevent the animal from being lost to die later.

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Your observations are only obvious to people with common sense...

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,698
Likes: 99
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,698
Likes: 99
If a particular Eagle or large fish-hawk, or whatever you wish to call it, is dumb enough to eat a lead fishing sinker or an entire 30-30 slug and croaks because of it, its no evidence that the lead is a danger to the resource overall. I quit shooting lead at waterfowl when it became the law and when I became convinced it was a danger to the waterfowl population (not neccesarily the same time), not because I was afraid a particular member of the population might be harmed.

If we worried this much about everything that might harm a buzzard or a raptor, we'd have to take down all the power lines and close all the highways. The Condor is a perfect 'poster boy' for the anti lead guys because there are so few of them to begin with, and anything that harms one of them might well be a danger to the population. There probably would not be any left outside of zoos anyhow if it were not for the interest and support of conservationists, led by sportsman...Geo

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,008
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,008
Quote:
3) No one would ever radiograph a dead deer unless they are looking to see the fragmentation pattern. Bullet manufacturers typically use gelatin to demonstrate performance. Whoever took this one was definitely trying to show the fragmentation pattern because it's useless for anything else. The manipulation of the exposure to maximize the appearance of the fragmentation causes one to question the motives of the one who took it, simply because it does not follow normal radiographic technique. It COULD still be unbiased, but there's ample evidence that it could also very easily be biased to demonstrate a pre-determined conclusion. It would be much more legitimate if it followed standard radiographic technique, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as impressive (i.e. intentional underexposure makes the tiniest fragments show up brighter and more vivid/"impressive", while all anatomic detail is lost in a "white-out").


While this is true, a radiograph is taken to show the structure of interest. That does not make it biased. The structures of interest were not bones or guts, but small metallic particles. Now of course the animal may have been "salted" in which case it's outright fraud, but if we are looking for a femur fracture we use the proper voltage and exposure for that purpose.

The degree of fragmentation in that radiograph is enormous - I wonder how common that is. It is also curious how far within the tissue mass some of the smaller fragments must have traveled. These tiny particles must have had a lot of energy! It is these issues that concern me more than the exposure of the plate.

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 180
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 180
Gnomon - I did not say it was biased, only that it caused me to question whether it is. I addressed the concerns of your first paragraph in MY first paragraph, where I said it was clear that the exposure was manipulated to show the fragmentation "WHICH IS FAIR TO DO IF THAT IS THE STATED PURPOSE". In this case, the purpose is not stated, so we are left to ourselves to decide if the presenter wanted to just maximize the fragmentation pattern to show it, or if they want us to think this is a typical appearance of what a bullet does inside the body (which it most definitely is not). To me, my concern is that the average person not used to viewing bullets on radiographs would think, "Wow! I had no idea that bullets did that inside the body," when in fact this is a rare/extreme case at best. Not sure if that's what the presenter wants us to think, though.

Regarding your second paragraph, all of that WOULD be much more apparent if the exposure followed standard diagnostic technique. You would be able to see anatomic structures and be able to judge distances, and also see what was impacted to cause such fragmentation. As it is, all the anatomy is lost in a white-out. You wondered how common that is - I can assure you that in hundreds of these cases over twenty years I've never seen one this dramatic, but we can't see what the bullet impacted to make it do this - because the technique is manipulated for a different result. My point was that standard technique would have made this radiograph tell us A LOT MORE about what really happened, and your questions would have been self-evident.

Last edited by vh20; 09/06/11 11:31 PM.
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,667
Likes: 372
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,667
Likes: 372


_________
BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]


Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 129
Likes: 4
Sidelock
**
Online Content
Sidelock
**

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 129
Likes: 4
Thanks for your comments vh20. Rookhawk, thanks for at least providing the source of the x-ray.

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Originally Posted By: BrentD


That's step 1. Step 2 is to determine whether those lead fragments pose a danger to humans. (The North Dakota test, in which some 80% of those tested ate game shot with lead, would seem to indicate it does not pose a danger--unless one eats a whole lot more game than those tested did.) Step 3 is to determine whether those lead fragments pose a danger to upland game (they don't scavenge, so we can eliminate that one) or predator/raptor SPECIES. In the latter case, there is evidence that INDIVIDUAL raptors/scavengers can get lead poisoning from unrecovered carcasses, although there does not appear to be much evidence that any otherwise healthy SPECIES (the condor being an exception because of its endangered status) is declining in numbers due to the ingestion of lead.

Given the way many buffalo hunters operated back in the mid to late 19th century, taking only the hide and maybe the hump and the tongue, you'd think that if lead fragments were a threat to the predator/raptor species, we would have wiped out a bunch of them, wholesale, back then--given the number of carcasses left lying on the plains. If someone thinks the prairie dog shooters are a problem, they ought to think on the buffalo hunters.

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,667
Likes: 372
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,667
Likes: 372
Larry, if the discussion is about humans, than I can agree with you about step 2. But I don't believe that is what we were discussing was it?

It is really only step 3. And if you wish, yes, Condors matter here, and the rest of the raptors - so far as we know, CURRENTLY do not. But you have to admit, you know damn little about many of them.

If you go back and look at the data from the MNDNR you will see that buffalo hunter lead fragments were really not such a big deal. You will also do well go to back and look at what is know about the predators of the day - particularly raptors, not mammals. A little anatomy is useful there.


_________
BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]


Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 707
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 707
Originally Posted By: BrentD


The really interesting part of the "short version" above is here:

The ballistic tip bullet (rapid expansion) had the highest fragmentation rate, with an average of 141 fragments per carcass and an average maximum distance of 11 inches from the wound channel. In one carcass, a fragment was found 14 inches from the exit wound.


Soft point bullets (rapid expansion) left an average of 86 fragments at an average maximum distance of 11 inches from the wound channel. In this research, bonded lead-core bullets (controlled expansion, exposed lead core) performed almost identically to the soft-core bullets and left an average of 82 fragments with an average maximum distance of nine inches from the wound.


Shotgun slugs left an average of 28 fragments at an average maximum distance of five inches from the wound channel. Muzzleloader bullets (245-grain and 300-grain respectively) left an average of three and 34 fragments, respectively, at an average maximum distances of one and six inches, respectively.


A key take away message from the study is that given fragments were found so far from the exit wound, routine trimming likely will not remove all of the fragments and DNR cannot make a recommendation as to how far out trimming should occur.


In counting fragments, only about 30 percent were within two inches of the exit wound. The vast majority was dispersed further from the carcass. In some cases, researchers found low levels of lead as far away as 18 inches from the bullet exit hole. The DNR also learned that rinsing a carcass produced mixed results. While rinsing tends to reduce lead around the wound channel it also transports lead away from the wound.


The research also showed that a shot to the hindquarters of a deer – where heavy bones are found – will result in extensive fragmentation. Fragmentation was so pronounced that a hunter would likely not want to utilize this meat as there would be no way to remove all the fragments. The full research report is available at www.dnr.state.gov/lead.



***Pretty astounding how much bullets fragment, isn't it?

Page 23 of 26 1 2 21 22 23 24 25 26

Link Copied to Clipboard

doublegunshop.com home | Welcome | Sponsors & Advertisers | DoubleGun Rack | Doublegun Book Rack

Order or request info | Other Useful Information

Updated every minute of everyday!


Copyright (c) 1993 - 2024 doublegunshop.com. All rights reserved. doublegunshop.com - Bloomfield, NY 14469. USA These materials are provided by doublegunshop.com as a service to its customers and may be used for informational purposes only. doublegunshop.com assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in these materials. THESE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT-ABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. doublegunshop.com further does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials. doublegunshop.com shall not be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages, including without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, which may result from the use of these materials. doublegunshop.com may make changes to these materials, or to the products described therein, at any time without notice. doublegunshop.com makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. This is a public un-moderated forum participate at your own risk.

Note: The posting of Copyrighted material on this forum is prohibited without prior written consent of the Copyright holder. For specifics on Copyright Law and restrictions refer to: http://www.copyright.gov/laws/ - doublegunshop.com will not monitor nor will they be held liable for copyright violations presented on the BBS which is an open and un-moderated public forum.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.0.33-0+deb9u11+hw1 Page Time: 0.078s Queries: 35 (0.055s) Memory: 0.8768 MB (Peak: 1.8988 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-28 14:44:45 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS