the splenic flexure of
the colon was wounded, in which the external opening was large, and a
comminuted fracture of the ribs of the left side existed. One can well
believe that bullets passing through the pelvic bones might 'set up' to
a considerable extent, and although I never happened to see such a case,
an explanation of some of the wounds described by others might be found
in this occurrence.

In instances in which the soft parts alone were perforated, I am
disinclined to believe that bullets of small calibre, either regulation
or soft-nosed, were responsible for the injuries. I had the opportunity
of examining two Mauser bullets of the Jeffreys variety which crossed
the abdomen and caused death. In the first (figured on page 94, fig. 40)
very little alteration beyond slight shortening had occurred. In the
second the deformity was almost the same, except that the side of the
bullet was indented, probably from impact with some object prior to its
entry into the body. In each case the bullet was of course travelling at
a low rate of velocity; hence no very strong inference can be drawn
from either. In the case of the second specimen, which was removed by
Mr. Cheatle, a remarkable observation was made, which tends to throw
some light on one possible mode of production of large exit apertures.
This bullet crossed the caecum, making two small type openings; but
later, when it crossed the sigmoid flexure, it tore two large irregular
openings in the gut. This might be explained on the ground that the
velocity was so small as only just to allow of perforation, which
therefore took the nature of a tear. I am inclined to suggest, as a more
likely explanation, that the spent bullet turned head over heels in its
course across the abdomen, and made lateral or irregular impact with the
last piece of bowel it touched. A slightly greater degree of force would
have allowed a similar large and irregular opening to be made in the
abdominal wall also.

In this relation the question will naturally be raised as to how far the
explosive appearances may have been due to high velocity alone on the
part of the bullet. I am disinclined from my general experience to
believe that explosive injuries of the soft parts were to be thus
explained. On the other hand, I believe that the possession of a low
degree of velocity very greatly increased the danger in abdominal
wounds. I believe that the bowel was, under these circumstances, less
likely