by Don Brown
Anyone who understands how a bullet cartridge is put together will understand there is the projectile, that is the bullet itself, which, when fired from a weapon, actually flies through the air at a target, and then there is the casing, which usually falls to the ground, or simply remains in the gun, depending on the type of gun being used.
What we’re discussing here is a topic within the field of internal ballistics. Internal ballistics is a subfield of ballistics that focuses primarily on the propulsion of the projectile. Internal ballistics studies how far and how powerfully the bullet is propelled through the air, if at all, toward the target. The phrase “if at all,” is significant, because as will be seen, bullets, even when there is an explosion of the propellant (gunpowder), are not always launched toward a target. This is particularly true of cook-off rounds, because bullets not in a weapon often fizzle and go nowhere.
Usually, a round that ignites inside a box from fire simply separates. The bullet does not go flying off in the air, and usually the casing itself goes farther than the bullet.
The bullet and the casing may separate by a few inches at the most, and that’s it.
Hatcher’s Notebook
Major General Julian Hatcher was the chief of ordnance for the US Army during World War II and later became technical editor for The American Rifleman. General Hatcher spent a career studying internal ballistics, and compiled his findings in his seminal work from 1962 entitled Hatcher’s Notebook.
One of the areas that the general studied and reported on was the subject of cook-off rounds. This study was done in part to address concerns of police and fire departments regarding the safety of working in situations where unchambered ammunition might be threatened by fire.
Here’s how General Hatcher addressed the study on page 4 of his book.
The second new chapter covers the subject of explosions and powder fires, as well as the behavior of ammunition when it is exploded, accidentally or otherwise, while it is not in a gun. The many inquiries on this subject that I received from Police and Fire Departments, state and municipal authorities, and from readers of the magazine caused me to make a large number of interesting experiments to be able to answer their questions with certainty. The information thus developed is of great value, and is so important that it should be preserved permanently in convenient form for reference.
General Hatcher specifically examined what happens when an unchambered bullet goes off in a fire. He turned to this very topic at Chapter XXI, page 521 of his book, under the topic of “Explosions and Powder Fires.”
General Hatcher covered numerous experiments, under controlled and uncontrolled circumstances, and then, under the topic “Small Arms Ammunition as a Fire or Explosion Hazard,” concluded at page 540 that “Enough experiments have been made on this subject so that almost any question that might arise can be answered with definite information based on tests. As for any possible explosion hazard from small arms ammunition, even in large quantities, it can be said with confidence that there is no danger.”
Here is an example of one of the tests cited in Hatcher’s Notebook, at page 533 [author’s emphasis]:
A fibreboard case containing 500 12-gauge shotgun shells was placed on a metal rack over a pile of kindling wood and the wood was ignited. After the case was burning, the blazing wood was dragged away. The burning continued until all the shells had burned. At no time did any of the shells explode with violence. The powder charges burned quietly, and barely opened the crimped shells. No propelling of shot charges could be detected. However, some of the primers did pop off audibly.
So in this controlled experiment, even with five hundred shotgun shells set on fire and burned, very few actually “cooked off.” On the next page, Hatcher was even more to the point demonstrating that (a) cook-off rounds are rare, and (b) even if a round cooks off, it isn’t dangerous.
Moreover, in other tests by the same organization, a large number of metallic cartridges and shotgun shells were burned in a fire of oil-soaked wood. The cartridges and shells exploded from time to time, but there was no general explosion or propulsion of shot or bullets with any great force or to any great distance. Throughout the test, the men conducting it remained within 20 feet without injury. The test showed that small arms cartridges, whether they are metallic cartridges or shotgun shells, will not explode simultaneously but rather piece by piece, and that the material of which the cartridges or shells are made will usually not fly more than a few feet.
This point should be emphasized: A cook-off round, which rarely occurs even when there is fire, which is not inside a gun, is not going to penetrate the body of a Navy SEAL. Consider these results, laid out at page 539 of General Hatcher’s book [author’s emphasis]:
In another exhaustive series of experiments, I took various cartridges for both rifle and pistol, loaded with smokeless powder and with black powder, and placed them downward in a lead melting pot that was arranged to be heated by electricity. On top of the pot I laid a piece of corrugated cardboard, with the cartridge standing on its base so the bullet was pointing directly at the cardboard. Then the heat was turned on until the cartridge exploded. In no case did the bullet pierce the cardboard, or even dent it deeply.
Two points should be drawn from General Hatcher’s extensive research, points that are now widely accepted in the field of ballistics. First, it is unlikely that ammunition is going to cook off in a fire to begin with. And second, even if the ammunition does cook off, unless that ammunition is in a gun that is pointed directly at the Navy SEAL, it is not going to penetrate through the SEAL’s thick Kevlar uniform, let alone penetrate the skin.
Consider the combat uniforms typically worn by Navy SEALs. The SEALs typically wear the AOR1 Navy SEAL combat uniform, made with Kevlar, which is the same material used in bulletproof vests. While a gun pointed at that uniform point-blank would penetrate it, a cook-off round popping off from an ammunition box is not going to penetrate it.
Remember also that when Extortion 17 went down, the US military was so unconcerned about the danger posed by cook-off rounds that units approached the helicopter while parts of it were still burning at least twice. Remember that the Pathfinder leader testified that the aircraft was “still smoldering” when they approached it to search for the black box.
General Hatcher wasn’t the only ballistics expert to come to this conclusion—that cook-off rounds outside of a weapon, if there is a cook-off at all, are not inherently dangerous.
Dr. Di Maio and the Harmless Cook-Off Round
One of the nation’s most noted forensics pathologists is Dr. Vincent J. M. Di Maio, who some may remember as an expert forensics witness in the George Zimmerman murder trial. Dr. Di Maio, who was a US Army Medical Corps pathologist and served as chief medical examiner for San Antonio, Texas, is a professor of pathology at the University of Texas at San Antonio.
He is among the world’s foremost authorities and, indeed, may be the foremost authority in the world on the topic of gunshot wounds. His magnum opus, appropriately entitled for the area of expertise for which he is most renowned, is Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques, published in 1985.
Though Dr. Di Maio’s studies on the issue of cook-off rounds may have come more than two decades after General Hatcher’s, his observations and conclusions are remarkably similar to the general’s.
In Chapter 10 of his book, in a section entitled “Behavior of Ammunition and Gunpowder in Fires,” Di Maio comments as follows on pages 284 and 285:
Occasionally a story appears in a newspaper describing how fire fighters fought a blaze in a sporting goods store as bullets from exploding ammunition “whizzed by” and cans of gunpowder “exploded” around them. Although this type of story makes fine newspaper copy, it bears no relation to what actually happens in a fire involving ammunition and gunpowder.
Smoke
less powder is used in all modern cartridges. When it is ignited in a gun, heat, and gas are produced, both of which are confined initially to the chamber. As the pressure of the gas builds up, the chemical processes of combustion are speeded up so that the rate of burning becomes relatively instantaneous, and an “explosion” is produced. This explosion, however, occurs only when smokeless powder is ignited in a confined space such as the chamber of a gun. Outside of a gun, the powder will only burn with a quick hot flame.
Then, on the next page, after citing some of the experiments conducted by General Hatcher, Di Maio further illustrated his findings on the notion of a cook-off round in a fire.
Occasionally one hears that an individual has been “wounded” when a cartridge was accidentally dropped into a fire and detonated. Investigation of such incidents usually reveals that the victim was really injured when they or another individual was playing with a gun. When small-arms ammunition is placed in a fire, the cartridge case may burst into a number of fragments and the bullet may then be propelled forward out of the case. In centerfire cartridges, the primer may blowout. None of these missiles, however, is dangerous to life under ordinary circumstances. The bullet in fact is probably the most harmless of all these missiles because with its relatively great mass it will have very little velocity.
All Hatcher and Di Maio’s studies point to one conclusion: The bullets found inside the bodies did not come from ammunition just cooking off inside the helicopter, as the autopsies might imply. The bullets came out of the barrel of a gun.
This brings us to another question. What about a cook-off round which explodes inside of a gun?
That’s an excellent question, because a round that cooks off inside the barrel of a gun can pose a danger, provided that the gun is aimed at its target.
Think about that. For the bullets inside the bodies of the SEALs to have come from a cook-off inside the gun barrel, someone would have had to aim the gun at the SEALs long enough for the bullet to have gotten hot enough to have cooked off. Or the SEALs would have to have found themselves juxtaposed in front of gun barrels at the moment of cook-off.
This isn’t plausible, for two reasons.
First, the SEALs’ weapons were found on the ground outside the aircraft, with no indication they were even burned. In Exhibit 65, the Pathfinder leader (PF PLT LDR) and the Pathfinder platoon sergeant (PF PSG), answering questions from the ADSAT officer, testified about where they found weapons.
ASDSAT3: Any other weapons’ components policed up on the battlefield?
PF PLT LDR: We recovered all three 240H’s from the aircrafts. Is that what you are referring to?
ASDSAT3: No [inaudible]. Keep talking. Anything else? Did you find anything else?
PF PSG: Just the personal weapons that the heroes were carrying in the birds. We found those scattered right there on the ground where the main compartment of the bird was at. We collected it up near the crash site thinking that nobody would come in. Once the rain and the flash flood came in, we had to go searching the Wadi looking for the pieces that had floated down with the current.
Also there simply wasn’t enough time from the time the RPG attacked the aircraft until it hit the ground for the weapons to heat up enough to cook off. Going back to the Colt Report, in the Joint Combat Assessment Team Report, we learn, at page 38, that “The entire event (from weapon impact to crash) likely lasted less than five seconds.”
So think about that. We have Extortion 17 at an altitude of 100 to 150 feet above ground, struck by an RPG, now dropping violently and chaotically toward the ground, with men and weapons probably flinging about inside during the fall, and we’re supposed to assume that the weapons, in less than five seconds during that fall to earth, got hot enough and were then trained on the SEALs and cooked off, and perfectly aimed at the SEALS during that chaotic fall to earth, then fired bullets into the bodies of the SEALs during the less-than-five-second drop of 100 to 150 feet?
That is an impossible scenario to believe.
Moreover, based upon eyewitness testimonial accounts from the AC-130 witnesses and others, there was an immediate explosion contemporaneous with the RPG striking Extortion 17. An explosion erupting in flames would have killed all personnel immediately, strewing bodies and weapons in a chaotic manner and further reducing the likelihood that weapons could have been aimed in such a precise manner at bodies to have “cooked off.”
The more likely scenario was a firefight aboard the chopper before the RPG ever struck it.
When the helicopter hit the ground, the weapons, the only possible source of cook-off rounds, were then scattered all over the ground, outside the aircraft, outside the fire, with no evidence that they ever even got hot.
Despite the military pathologist’s decision to summarily remove bullets from the bodies of the SEALs at the autopsy, and to call them “cook-off rounds” and throw them away, the bullets found inside the bodies of the Navy SEALs were not cook-off rounds. The math works against that conclusion, the science of ballistics works against that conclusion, the evidence of the weapons being found strewn all over the ground, outside the burning aircraft, with no evidence that the weapons were even heated works against that conclusion, and the law of probability works against that conclusion.
Moreover, it should be pointed out that the military pathologist cannot, by on-the-spot visual inspection, make a determination as to whether a bullet was fired in a “cook-off” situation or fired conventionally by the gun’s hammer striking the primer in the center of the base of the casing.
If the rounds were fired conventionally, the primer would have an indentation, made visible when the gun’s hammer has struck the hammer. If the round were “cooked off,” there would be no indentation in the primer, because heat would have caused the gunpowder to explode, rather than the primers.
The pathologist would need to see the casing and look at the casing and primer to determine if the round had been cooked off or not. All he had, however, were the actual bullets pulled from the SEALs’ bodies.
The Joint Combat Assessment Team did not indicate that any casings were recovered. In fact, the report on “Collection Methodology” at page 26 of Exhibit 60 only indicates that “aircraft components” and some “residual” soil were taken from the shoot-down site.
In fact, no ballistics testing was reported at all, with the exception of extensive testing run on the RPG point-of-entry into the helicopter blade. In this regard, the forensics testing and analysis were conducted superbly, and based upon examination of the helicopter blade, the team concluded the angle of strike as being 40 degrees incoming under the wing.
There is absolutely no report of any ballistics testing done on any of the guns or small arms in the aircraft that could have been responsible for firing those bullets into the Navy SEALs. There is absolutely no report of any ballistics testing done on any of the casings or primers or gunpowder from any small arms in possession of either the SEALs or the Afghans on board. None.
No ballistics tests were done to match the bullets found in the bodies of Navy SEALs with the casings from which they were fired. Or, put it this way. If ballistics tests were conducted on the small arms in that aircraft or the discharged ammunition from those small arms, the results of those tests were not reported by the Joint Combat Assessment, nor were those tests reported on or mentioned anywhere in the Colt Report.
So how, then, did these bullets enter the bodies of the Navy SEALs?
And why would the military pathologist simply call these bullets cook-off rounds, declare them to be of no evidentiary value, and throw them away?
Could there have been a struggle for control of the aircraft before it landed?
Could the struggle for control of the aircraft have explained the thirteen to fourteen minute delay in the original landing time of the aircraft?
Could the seven unidentified Afgh
ans, loyal to a president who hated US Special Forces, standing with their Taliban brothers, have pulled their weapons on the SEALs, hoping to keep the aircraft airborne long enough for their terrorist comrades on the ground to take a shot at it?
Could there have been a firefight on board the chopper before it landed?
Is this why the chopper seemed to stall in the air?
Is this why it was delayed and never landed?
Is this why the SEALs have bullets in their bodies?
Could this explain why we don’t know the true identities of these Afghans to this day?
Could this explain the military’s inconsistent, contradictory, and unbelievable explanation about the black box?
Is this why no Afghans are interviewed in the Colt Report?
Is this why, when the J3 officer started to testify as to how the Afghans got aboard the aircraft, his boss essentially shut him up?
A US Army Ranger who was in the flight control center as Extortion 17 attempted to find its landing zone that night has indicated that near panic broke out among military officers in the room when Extortion 17 actually went into a hover and stopped moving forward in the air.
The sudden stop in the sky could not be explained, according to the Ranger, and some in the room theorized that the chopper was hovering so that the SEALs could rappel down ropes from the chopper to the ground.
If the Ranger who reported this was correct, could the chopper have been delayed and have gone into a strange hover, stopping its forward progress in the sky because of a firefight that was going on inside?