Fact check: Can a bullet's failure to exit the body indicate the type of firearm used?

1. Why a lodged bullet is a puzzle worth solving — and what medical imaging reveals

Computed tomography and other contemporary imaging tools allow clinicians and forensic examiners to visualize the bullet path inside the body, showing deflections, fragmentation, and the relationship to bones and organs that explain why a projectile stopped ^[1]. Imaging published in September 2025 demonstrates that CT can depict trajectory and internal damage in penetrating thoracic trauma, which helps reconstruct the shot’s direction and energy dissipation. However, imaging shows what happened to the bullet in the body, not the firearm’s serial characteristics; it reveals wound mechanics, not weapon make ^[1].

2. Ballistics: what an embedded bullet can suggest — and the limits of inference

Forensic ballistics distinguishes bullet performance (deformation, yaw, fragmentation) from firearm identification (rifling marks on a recovered projectile). A bullet that failed to exit likely lost kinetic energy due to distance, lower-velocity ammunition, intermediate targets, or tissue and bone interactions; these factors point toward broad classes of weapons or ammunition (e.g., high-velocity rifle vs. handgun, presence of armor-piercing rounds), but they do not identify a specific gun without lab comparison ^{[2] [3]}. Thus, an embedded projectile can narrow scenarios but cannot, by itself, conclusively indicate firearm model or manufacturer.

3. When experts overreach: media cases and the risk of single-source claims

High-profile reporting and commentary sometimes assert that an exit or non-exit proves the type of shooter or weapon; such claims must be treated cautiously. A September 2025 article presented a retired sniper’s reading that a non-exiting bullet indicated shots from behind in a high-profile killing, but that analysis relied on expertise without publishing corroborating forensic reports or laboratory ballistic comparisons ^[4]. Single expert readings and partisan outlets risk overstating certainty, so independent lab testing and multi-source corroboration are essential to avoid misleading conclusions.

4. Technology narrows the gap — 3D reconstructions and novel forensic tools

Emerging forensic techniques such as 3D reconstructions and advanced imaging provide powerful context for wound interpretation without directly identifying firearms; studies in late 2025 show successful application in other forensic injury analyses, illustrating how digital reconstructions can make wound dynamics more observable and defensible in court ^[5]. While these methods enhance the clarity of how a bullet traveled and interacted with tissues, they still require ballistic testing for links to specific ammunition or barrel characteristics. Technological advances improve interpretation but do not magically provide firearm signatures from tissue-only evidence ^[5].

5. Ammunition and muzzleloader testing illuminate performance, not provenance

Sources discussing ammunition testing and sabot-bullet combinations demonstrate that bullet construction and propellant choices crucially affect penetration and exit behavior; muzzleloader sabot setups and modern belted bullets alter terminal performance and therefore whether a bullet exits ^{[2] [3]}. Laboratory testing of specific ammunition in tissue simulants or ballistics gel can reproduce observed wound patterns and help infer the likely ammunition class. However, matching a wound to a class of ammunition is distinct from matching it to a specific firearm without recovered toolmarks or test fires ^{[2] [3]}.

6. Medical advances and battlefield experience change expectations about exits

Combat medicine and trauma care improvements have shifted survivability and the presentation of penetrating wounds, affecting forensic interpretation. Reporting on changes in combat trauma care emphasizes how medical interventions and the nature of battlefield injuries alter outcomes and wound patterns, which bear on whether bullets exit and how they are documented ^[6]. Forensic investigators must factor in medical treatment timing, surgical removal, and imaging quality when using exit/non-exit status as evidence. Clinical context can explain a lodged bullet as much as ballistic factors ^[6].

7. Bottom line: embedded bullets are informative but not definitive

A lodged bullet is a valuable piece of evidence for reconstructing the circumstances of a shooting: imaging and reconstructions show trajectory, energy loss, and interactions that can narrow hypotheses about range, angle, and ammunition class ^{[1] [5] [2]}. However, asserting a specific firearm model or shooter from a failure-to-exit alone exceeds what the medical and ballistic evidence supports; corroboration via laboratory ballistic matching, recovered projectiles with rifling marks, and chain-of-evidence testing is necessary to make definitive identifications ^{[3] [4]}.