Analysis of a Bean-Bag-Type Projectile As a Less Lethal
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. I I I I ANALYSIS OF A I BEAN-BAG-TYPE I t PROJECTILE c I I ( { .... ,,,, .:: . ... , ..: . AS A LESS LETHAL .: : ... .. I :a" ••i : \ WEAPON I COYtt.ft f?~f()v-t) I LOAN DOCUMENT RETURN TO: NCJRS I by I p, O. BOX 24036 S. W. POST OFFICE Brenda K. Theil\(VASHINGTON, D,C. 20024 Ellsworth B. Shank Matthew J. vVargovich MAY 1974 MILITARY AND CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGY TEAM I U.S. ARMY HUMAN ENGINEERING LABORATORY I Aberdeen Proving Ground I Maryland 21005 I 57,9 I I I ANALYSIS OF A BEAN-RAG-TYPE PROJECfILE AS A LESS LETI1AL WEAPON I LOAN DOCUMENT RETURN TO: I NCJRS P. O. SOX 24036 S. W. POST C)ffJC£ I B)WASHtNGTON. D.C. 20024 13 renda K. '!he in c,..... n .9 --f. Ellsworth 13. Shank ," "." I ,. ~ ~.'. ." .. Matthew J. Wargovich , .. ./ i \ US Army Land Warfare Laboratory ; I ~ ~ I NCJRS ~lay 1974 I JUN 22, 1m I This project was supported by Interagency I Agreement No. LEM-J-IM-014-2 between the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration and the US Anny Land Warfare Laboratory and awarded under the Omnibus Crirlle Con I trol and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended. Points of view or opinions .f~f f (X, y) dA stated in this document are those of the I A authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the I US Department of Justice. I I I I 57,10 I I LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTMCE ADMINISTRATION Donald E. Santarelli I Administrator I NATIONAL INSTI'IUTE OF LAW ENFORCHlliNT I A!\D CRIMINAL JUSTICE Gerald ;\1. Caplan I Director I OFHCE OF HESEARCli PROGHAi,lS Geoffrey Alprin I Director I E~urpMENT SYSTf.J,/S IMPHOv12f'.1EN'f' lHVISION I ,Joseph T. Kochanski Director I I LliSS LUTllAL WEAPONS EVALUATI ON PROGIW./ Lester D. Shubin I' ;.Ianager I ACJ(;'JOWI.EDGB-IEN'fS This document was prepared by the Research Analysis Office of the US Amy Lund I~arfare I Laboratory. Technical research was perfonned by the authors of the report. I I ii I I 50,1 I. ABSTRACT I The primary objective of tilis report is the presentation of an effective ness analysis of a blunt-trauma-producing "nonlethal" projectile, representa I tive of several such items available on the market today t through the applica tion. of a previously-established methodology for the evaluation of less lethal I weapons. The item chosen for analysis is the Stun-Bag, an MB Associates pro prietary bean-bag-type projectile which uses kinetic energy to produce desired effe·cts. It should be noted, however, that the Stun-Bag also produces lUlde I sirable effects in the less lethal weapons role. It is emphasized that the StlUl-Bag is not investigated for itself, per se, but rather as a representa I tive of a class of projectiles/weapons. I I I I I I II I ~I r .1 I iii I I 57,5 I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I ABSTUACT iii I TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS v I LIST OF TABLES vi roHEWOlID viii I ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ix I ~NARY x I • IN1HOWL'T ION 1 I I I • TEQINI CAL APPROACH 3 A. PlWECTILb/ J\jvfvUNITION PERFORl\fANCE CHARACTERISTICS 4 I B. scmwuos 13 I C. PHYSIOLOGICAL DATA 15 lJ. NONPltYSIOLOGlCAL DATA 16 I E. SUMMAlUZ.A:flON INDICES 16 P. CQl\lPARISON OF sruN- BAG ROUNDS 25 I II 1. OBSERVAT IONS 30 I IV. APPENDICES 31 A. SUPPOIITING CALUlLATIONS 32 I li. MINllfSS OF MlillICAL GROUP MEETINGS 38 C. MINUTES OF METHOnS Q{OUP 1\1IiliTING, 11 MAY 1973 60 : I BIl3LIOGRAPJ IY 67 I I I I I iv I I 57,6 I 'I LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURE 1 - I-UNCfIONAL DISABILI1Y OF I1UMAN VS TIME AFrER IMPACT xii I BY A S'lUN -BAG FIGLJRE 2 - PROBABILITY OF DESIRABLE EFFECf (Pm) VS PROBABILITY xiii OF UNUESIl{ABLE EFFECf (P ) FOR TIlE S1UN$,aAG IN 1WO I UE BASIC LAW gNFORCE!\!ENT SITUATIONS I a. SUSPECf FLEh ING Ol~ FOOT xiii b • DI SPERSAL OF A CROWl> xiii I FIGURE 3 - SUI\l\W{Y GHAPH (P VS P AS A FUNCTION OF RANGE) UE UE xiv I a. SUSPECI' FLEEING ON FOOT xiv b. DISPERSAL OF A CROWD xiv I FIGURE 4 - TIWECTORY Uwtf--O O AND 15 0 ANGLE OF FIRE 9 I FIGURE 5 - lJAMAGE PHOFILll GIWHS - HFAlJ SHOTS--LOW ENE1{GY 19 FIOJllli 6 - DAMAGE PROFILE G1~lIS - IlEAD SHOTS--MEUIUN ENERGY 20 I FIGURE 7 - DAMAGE PROFILE Ld<APHS - IliAD SIIOTS--HIGII E.1\]ERGY 21 FIGUHE Ii - DN-IAGh PROFILE GRAPHS - BODY SHOTS--LOW ENERGY 22 I FIGURE 9 - DJ\jvlAGh PROFILE GIW>IIS - BODY SI{OTS--~,n.:DIU~1 UJ\JERGY 23 I FIGURE 10 - llAl,lAGE PROFILE GRAPHS - BODY SIIOTS- -HIGH l1\JUlGY 24 FIGURE II - SUl'<i\~\RY GIWlII (P VS P AS A FUNCTION 01: RAI':(iE) - 26 DE UE I HOUNU A - -SUPER LONG - HANGE ROUND FIGUllli 12 - SlJt.M\RY GHAPII (P VS P AS A FUNCTION OF RANGE) - 27 UE UE I IOJNU B- - LOW IMPACT HOIJNU FIGURE 13 - SUr.i\Lt\l{Y Q{APl! (Pm~ VS P AS A 28 UE FUNCTION OP HANGE) - I HOUND C--CLOSE RANGE ROUND I I v I I 57,7 I LIST OF TABLES I Page I TABLE I - FAt-lORY -LOADED S'lUN -BAG ROUNDS TESTED 5 TABLE II - SnJN-BAG WEIGlITS 5 I TABLE III - KINETIC-Th~RGY DELIVERY (SUPER LONG-RANGE ROUND) 6 TABLE IV - I\INETIC-ENERGY DELIVERY (LOW IMPACT ROUND) 7 I TABLE V - KINETIC-ENERGY DELIVERY (CLOSE IWJGE ROUND) 8 I TABLE VI - RANGING TABLE (SUPER LONG-RANGE ROUND) 10 TABLE VII - RANGING TABLE (LOW ll4PACT ROUND) 11 I TABLE VIII - RANGING TABLE (CLOSE RANGE ROUND) 12 TABLE IX - S'I1JN-BAG BALLISTIC ERRORS 14 I TABLE X - TEST SHOT SUMMAAY SHEET (BABOONS) 17 I TABLE XI - TEST SHOT SUf.t.tARY SHEET (SWINE) 18 TABLE A-I - C(lIfPUTATION OF A = 21TOh0J<2 33 I TABLE A-Il - SUl\t.1ARY GHAPH SUPPOltr CALCULATIONS (SUPER LONG- 35 RANGE HOOND) TABLE A-III - SlJMMI\RY GlWlI SUPPORT CALCULATIONS (LOW IMPACT 36 I ROUND) TABLE A-IV - SUtvNARY GRAPII SUPPORT CALCULATIONS (CLOSE RANliE 37 I ROUND) TABLE B-1 - PROVISIONAL ESTIMATES OF PHYSIOLOGICALLY UNUESIR- 40 I ABLE EFFECTS, ALL SCENARIOS - SM-BAG (BABOONS) TABLE a-II - PROVISIONAL ESTIMATUS OF PHYSIOLOGICALLY UNDESIR- 42 I ABLE EFFEt-1S, ALL SCENARIOS - S'IUN-BAG (SWINE) TABLE B-III - PHOVISIONAL ESTIMATES OF PHYSIOLOGICALLY DESIRABLE 45 EFFECTS,. SUSPECT FLEEING ON FOOT, LEAA SCENARIO III - I &1UN-BAG (BABOONS) 'fA!iLE a- IV - PROVISIONAL ESTIMATbS OF PHYSIOLOGICALLY UESIHABLE 47 I EFFECTS, SUSPECr FLEEING ON FOOT, LEAA SCENARIO III - SlUN -BAG (SWINE) I vi I I 57,8 I LIST OF TABLES (CONT) I Page TABLE B-V - PROVISIONAL EST~TES OF PHYSIOLOGICALLY DESIRABLE S1 I EFFEGrS t DISPERSAL OF A CROWD, LEAA SCENAlUO IV - STIJN-BAG (BABOONS) TABLE B-VI - PROVISIONAL EsrI~tATES OF PHYSIOLOGICALLY DESIRABLE S3 I EFFECTS, DISPERSAL OF A CROWD, LEM SCENARIO IV - STUN-BAG (SWINE) I TABLE B-VII - PROVISIONAL ESTI~lA.TES OF PHYSIOLOGICALLY DESIRABLE/56 UNDESIRABLE EFFECTS, FLEEING SUSPECT, ARMY SCE- I NARIO I - STUN-BAG (SWINE) TABLE C- I - SlM4ARY OF PROBABLE DESIRABLE EFFECTS RlR STUN-BAG 65 IN RENI' STRIKE CONFRONTATION, WHERE P = PROBA- DE I BILITY OF J)ESIRED EFFECI' (CROWl.) DISPERSES AND LEAVES SCENE WITHIN FIVE MINlfl'ES) TABLE C-U - Sl.Tht1ARY OF PROBABLE DESIRABLE EFFECTS FOR STUN-BAG 66 I IN VIb1'NAM PROTEST GATIlliRING (DISPERSAL OF A CROWD, I SCENARIO IV) I I I I I I I I vii I I 50,2 I FOHEWORD I TIle work described in this report was performed tmder Task Plan I I of the LEAA/LWL Interagency Agreement No. LEAA-J-IAA-014-2. Mr. Lester Shubin I and Mr. Marc A. Nerenstone were the LEM Program Monitors for this task. Mr. Donald O. Egner was the USALWL Project Officer, and the project is identified I as LWL Task No. 20-V-72, Subtask II. I Two of the justifications for using the Stun-Bag as the subject of this analys is are: I o It is representative of a class of nonfrangible, blullt-trauma-producing, I kinetic-energy-type projectiles. o It has achieved some popularity as a less lethal (so-called "nonlethal") I weapon and was readily available, both from MB Associates and through the com I mercial market. TIle work described in this report is pioneer in nature and the results are I subject to change as more knowledge is obtained in the area of study. Comments, data and other infonnation which could improve the analysis described herein are welcome and should be fon~arded to the Program Monitor, Less Lethal Weap I ons Evaluations Program, National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 633 Indiana Avenue, NW, I Washington, DC 20530. I The use of trade narnps in this report does not consti tutP rul official endorsement or approval of the USP of such cOJTanprcial hardware or softwarP. I This report may not be ci tpd for purposes of advertisempnt. I I I viii I I I 57,4 I ACKNOWLEDGMFNfS I The authors wish to acknO\dedge all teclmical contributions, timely guid ance, counse 1, data and supporting services \'lhich were rendered individually I or eoHeetive ly by members of the U\'L Evaluation Pane 1.