Shooting through windscreens: ballistic injury assessment using a surrogate head model—two case reports

  • Peter F. MahoneyEmail author
  • Debra J. Carr
  • Russell J. Delaney
  • Iain E. Gibb
Case Report


A synthetic head model developed to reproduce military injuries was assessed in two different scenarios involving shooting through intermediate targets (a laminated vehicle windscreen in scenario 1 and a military helicopter windscreen in scenario 2) with 7.62 × 39-mm mild steel core (MSC) ammunition. The injury patterns resulting from the two scenarios were assessed by a military radiologist and a forensic pathologist with combat injury experience and found to be clinically realistic.


Window shooting 7.62 × 39 mm MSC ammunition Aviation helmet Ballistic head injury 



1. Cranfield University and Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, Shrivenham, SN6 8LA

David Miller, Alan Peare, Ian Morton, Liz Nelson

2. Centre for Defence Radiology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Mindelsohn Way, Birmingham B15 2TH.

Catherine Bean

Lauren Potts

Military CT Specialist Radiographers

3. Nottingham Trent University, Flexural Composites Research Laboratory, 107 Bonington Building, Dryden Street, Nottingham, NG1 4GG, UK

Richard Arm, Research Fellow

4. Boeing UK for providing the helicopter windscreen.

5. This case report formed part of the work for a doctoral thesis. The full thesis is available at:

Funding information

Funding was provided by the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical statement

Ethical approval was granted by Cranfield University for this work and the previous experiments leading up to this work.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent is not applicable as the work does not involve human subjects and the targets are inanimate objects.


  1. 1.
    Mahoney PF, Carr DJ, Harrison K, McGuire R, Hepper A, Flynn D, Delaney RJ, Gibb I (2019) Forensic reconstruction of two military shooting incidents using an anatomically correct synthetic skull with a surrogate skin/soft tissue layer. Int J Legal Med 133:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mahoney PF, Carr DJ, Arm R, Gibb I, Hunt N, Delaney RJ (2017) Ballistic impacts on an anatomically correct synthetic skull with a surrogate skin/soft tissue layer. Int J Legal Med 132:519–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kieser DC, Carr DJ, Leclair SCJ, Horsfall I, Theis JC, Swain MV, Kieser JA (2013) Clothing increases the risk of indirect ballistic fractures. J Orthop Surg Res 8:1–7. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stevenson T, Carr DJ, Gibb I, Stapley S (2019) The effect of military clothing on gunshot wound patterns in a cadaveric animal limb model. Int J Legal Med. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Farrugia A, Raul JS, Geraut A, Tortel MC, Ludes B (2009) Destabilisation and intracranial fragmentation of a full metal jacket bullet. J Forensic Legal Med 16:400–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mahoney PF, Carr DJ, Miller D, Teagle M (2017) Effect of helmet materials and simulated bone and tissue layers on bullet behaviour in a gelatine model of overmatch penetrating head injury. Int J Legal Med 131:1765–1776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lambert HC (1994) The effects of commercial tempered glass on rifle bullet deflection. Californian State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harper WW (1939) Behaviour of bullets fired through glass. Am Inst Crim L Criminol 29:718–723Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thornton JI, Cashman PJ (1985) The Effect of Tempered Glass on Bullet Trajectory. J Forensic Sci 31:743–746Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wilgus G, White JB (2013) An Investigation of the Effects of Laminated Glass on Bullet Deflection. J Forensic Identif 63:226–232Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    DiMaio VJM (2016) Introduction to the classification of gunshot wounds. Gunshot wounds: practical aspects of firearms, ballistics and forensic techniques, 3rd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 57–108Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hueske EE (2016) Bullet hole and wound characteristics. Practical analysis and reconstruction of shooting incidents, 2nd edn. CRC press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, pp 223–257Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mahoney PF, Carr DJ, Delaney R et al (2017) Does preliminary optimisation of an anatomically correct skull-brain model produce clinically realistic ballistic injury fracture patterns? Int J Legal Med 131:1043–1053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Russell R, Hunt N, Delaney R (2014) The mortality peer review panel: a report on the deaths on operations of UK service personnel. J R Army Med Corps 160:150–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mabbott AJ (2015) The overmatching of armour, PhD thesis. Cranfield UniversityGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karger B, Puskas Z, Ruwald B, Teige K, Schuirer G (1998) Morphological findings in the brain after experimental gunshots using radiology, pathology and histology. Int J Legal Med 111:314–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oehmichen M, Gehl H-B, Meissner C, Petersen D, Höche W, Gerling I, König HG (2003) Forensic pathological aspects of post-mortem imaging of gunshot injury to the head: documentation and biometric data. Acta Neuropathol 105:570–580PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Crown 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, ICT CentreBirminghamUK
  2. 2.Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA)SalisburyUK
  3. 3.Home Office Registered Forensic PathologistBristolUK
  4. 4.Joint Hospital Group (South) c/o Sickbay, HMS NelsonPortsmouthUK

Personalised recommendations