Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23989221›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2013

Ballistic parameters of .177 (4.5 mm) caliber plastic-sleeved composite projectiles compared to conventional lead pellets.

Matthias Frank, Holger Schönekeß, Frank Jäger, Jörg Herbst, Axel Ekkernkamp, Thanh Tien Nguyen, Britta Bockholdt

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Subcaliber discarding sabot airgun projectiles.International journal of legal medicine · 2014
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Matthias FrankDepartment of Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery, University Medicine Greifswald, Sauerbruchstraße, 17475, Greifswald, Germany, matthias.frank@uni-greifswald.de.
Holger Schönekeß
Frank Jäger
Jörg Herbst
Axel Ekkernkamp
Thanh Tien Nguyen
Britta Bockholdt

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The capability of conventional air gun lead pellets (diabolo pellets) to cause severe injuries or fatalities even at low kinetic energy levels is well documented in medical literature. Modern composite hunting pellets, usually a metal core (made of steel, lead, zinc, or a zinc and aluminum alloy) encased in a plastic sleeve, are of special forensic and traumatological interest. These projectiles are advertised by the manufacturers to discharge at higher velocities than conventional air gun pellets, thus generating very high tissue-penetrating capabilities. Lack of experimental data on these uncommon air gun projectiles induced this work. Ballistic parameters of 12 different caliber .177 (4.5 mm) composite pellets, discharged from two spring-piston air guns (Weihrauch HW 35, Webley CUB) and three pneumatic air guns (Walther LGR, Walther LG400, Walther LP300), were investigated using a ballistic speed measurement system and compared to a conventional diabolo pellet (RWS Meisterkugel) as reference projectile. Although overall results were inconsistent, for some projectile-weapon combinations (particularly spring-piston air guns), a significant change of the kinetic energy (-53 up to +48 %) to the reference projectile was observed. The data provided in this work may serve as a basis for forensic investigation as well as traumatological diagnosis and treatment of injuries caused by these uncommon projectiles.

Indexed as

FirearmsForensic BallisticsLeadMetalsPlasticsHumansWounds, GunshotLeadMetalsPlastics

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.