What is the likelihood of a 30.06 bullet ricocheting off the femur versus the skull?

1. Bold Claims Extracted from the Source Set — What People Are Saying and Why It Matters

The set of analyses advances a few recurring claims: that a .30‑06 is a high‑velocity, high‑energy round with strong penetrating power; that ricochets from bone are rare for such rounds; and that when ricochets or internal deflections occur, the trajectory becomes highly unpredictable. One claim pushed in some summaries is a categorical assertion that a .30‑06 “did not exit” in a specific incident; the counterpoint in forensic literature is that exit wounds are variable and case‑dependent, not uniformly absent or present ^{[1] [2]}. The material also flags an evidence gap: none of the provided texts deliver quantified probabilities comparing femoral versus cranial ricochet rates, making any numerical likelihood statements speculative ^{[4] [5]}.

2. Where the Evidence Converges — Penetration, Fragmentation, and Unpredictability

Multiple analyses converge on a series of established ballistic principles: kinetic energy and sectional density of a high‑powered rifle round tend to favor penetration of large bones, with the potential for fragmentation and complex wound channels. The skull’s curved, layered anatomy often causes bullets to fragment or yaw, and dense cranial bone can produce secondary fragmentation, but this usually does not result in a clean ricochet away from the head; rather, it produces intracranial comminution or unpredictable internal deflection ^{[1] [3]}. For the femur, while large and strong, the bone is typically less dense and differently curved than cranial bone, and a high‑energy round commonly either fractures and transmits fragments or penetrates outright ^{[4] [6]}. These consistent statements support the position that penetration > ricochet in most realistic scenarios.

3. Key Variables That Change Everything — Angle, Velocity, and Bullet Design

All sources emphasize that impact angle, range (and thus velocity), and bullet construction are decisive. A near‑grazing angle or a bullet designed to deform/fragment increases the chance of energy loss and potential deflection; a full‑metal‑jacket, high‑mass .30‑06 round at close range maximizes penetration. The literature also highlights situational anatomy: the skull’s varying thickness, sinuses, and curvature create localized behaviors, while the femur’s cylindrical geometry may foster either catastrophic fracture or channeling depending on strike location. Because these factors vary widely across incidents, the reviewed material treats predictions probabilistically and case‑by‑case, not deterministically ^{[4] [2] [6]}.

4. Comparative Read: Femur Versus Skull — Which Is More Likely to Cause a Ricochet?

Synthesizing the evidence, the femur may offer a marginally greater chance of deflection under very specific conditions (shallow angle, reduced velocity, or bullet deformation) than the skull, but the difference is small and context‑dependent. The skull’s dense and often multilayered structure more commonly causes fragmentation or internal ricochet into the cranial vault rather than an external bounce, meaning that while the skull may not produce a classic outward ricochet, it can cause unpredictable internal deviation ^{[1] [3]}. The sources uniformly caution that neither bone reliably produces clean ricochets against a .30‑06; therefore any claim saying one bone will almost always cause ricochet is not supported ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Forensics and the Bottom Line — What Practitioners Rely On and Remaining Uncertainties

Forensic case reports and wound‑ballistics reviews conclude that individual incident reconstruction—including recovered projectile fragments, CT imaging, and scene measurements—is necessary to state what happened in any shooting. The available material documents internal ricochets and complex fragmentation patterns for high‑energy rounds, and it records both exits and non‑exits in different cases; thus, the correct forensic stance is cautious: expect penetration and fragmentation, anticipate unpredictability when bone is struck, and avoid general‑purpose probabilistic claims absent detailed impact data ^{[3] [2] [4]}. The primary uncertainty remaining in the provided corpus is the lack of controlled comparative experimental data quantifying ricochet probabilities for .30‑06 impacts on femur versus skull, which prevents absolute numerical likelihood statements ^[5].