Gatling gun injuries & most importantly evidence

[tarvae]

Hi, I've had a dig through the injuries to order tag and have a pretty good grip on the type of injuries I want but having have googled every variation I can think of around Gatling guns, ballistics, gun shot wounds, historic injuries I still can't make sense of the part about how someone would tell how the victim got injured. All I seem to get is

Comments

[nuranar]

Does it have to be a Gatling gun? They were technically around at the very end of the Civil War, but way over-represented in movies. If it does, a lot of the answers to your questions will depend on the technical specifications of the Gatling: i.e. what the projectile is, its caliber, and its speed. The typical infantry weapon of the time had very large, very heavy, very slow projectiles that were capable of shattering bones and blowing really big holes in limbs. That was one reason (of several) for the high number of amputations during the war. They were also so slow that they could be deflected by objects like pocket Bibles and pocket watches, or even ricochet around and off bones. If a Gatling bullet is similar, it looks nothing like modern weaponry and will be very unusual in a modern emergency room. (For what it's worth, most "modern" firearm technology dates from WWI.)

You might also want to check on the rate of fire and if it's realistic for him to pick up only two bullets, and those as far apart as the shoulder and upper femur. Also, what is "moderate range" in your scenario? Infantry weapons were ranged for hundreds of yards, possibly up to 1000 IIRC. Gatlings are almost certainly far less - they're more the "spray and pray" type of weapon - but moderate range still varies according to the range. The range will also work into the rate of fire and the spread of the projectiles. I have to say, it sounds very unusual for him to pick up two injuries like that, but avoid either a chest or gut shot. Of course you can still write what you want, since weird thing happen and it's totally possible.

Regardless of the weapon, he should be able to survive 12-24 hours if no arteries are severed, particularly if he's protected from exposure. I lack professional medical knowledge, but infection shouldn't be much of a factor before then, although it could certainly begin.

As for a serious injury. Victorian medicine wasn't too shabby. Amputation was not the only choice, and even then there was a lot more to it than just hacking off limbs. They also had drugs and knew about germs. That said, there's only so much they could do, and chest and gut wounds tended to be pretty serious. I'm not sure if either of his injuries would rise to that level in the Victorians' minds. Anecdote: An officer in the Civil War was shot through the pelvis - side to side - and left on the battlefield for dead. His brother found him and forced the doctors to treat him; it was clearly a very serious wound with a low rate of recovery. Nevertheless, he did recover, and finished the war in combat - he actually received Lee's surrender at Appomattox - but he lived in residual pain from the wound for the remaining 40 years of his life.

[tarvae]

You've now got me tempted to throw in a gut shot as well just to be sure they'll want to write him off. Poor sod is not having a good time here lol

Anyone would think I 'liked' raining hell on the nice guy in the party...still, it is kinda his fault for deciding to all bloody heroic

[nuranar]

A gut shot has the best chance (besides obvious lung shot) of having your people think he's done.