Research for Practice 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

National Institute of Justice 

Impact Munitions Use: Types, Targets, Effects 

OCT. 04 
This and other publications and products 

found at: 

of the National Institute of Justice can be 

National Institute of Justice 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij 

Office of Justice Programs 

Partnerships for Safer Communities 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

810 Seventh Street N.W. 

Washington, DC 20531 

John Ashcroft 

Attorney General 

Deborah J. Daniels 

Assistant Attorney General 

Sarah V. Hart 

Director, National Institute of Justice 
OCT. 04 

This report is based on 

the authors’ final report: 

Impact Munitions: Data 

Base of Use and Effects 

by Ken Hubbs and David 

Klinger, Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of 

Justice, February 2004, 

NCJ 204433. 

Impact Munitions Use: Types, Targets, Effects


Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the 

authors and do not reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

The research discussed in this Research for Practice was conducted under 

National Institute of Justice (NIJ) grant number 98–LB–VX–K006. 

NCJ 206089 
R E S E A R C H F O R P R A C T I C E / O C T . 0 4 

ABOUT THIS REPORT 

More and more law enforcement agencies are using impact munitions as part of their 

weapons arsenals. These 

less-lethal devices give police 

the means to subdue and 

arrest potentially dangerous 

individuals and to disperse 

unruly crowds with less 

chance of injury or death to 

suspects, innocent bystanders, 

or themselves. Unfortunately, 

little is known about the circumstances under which 

impact munitions have been 

used or the physical effects 

they have on individuals in 

the field. This study seeks to 

fill that knowledge gap. 

What did the 

researchers find? 

A survey of law enforcement 

and corrections agencies 

yielded information from 106 

agencies about 373 incidents 

in which impact munitions 

were used, with 969 projectiles fired. Impact munitions 

can help law enforcement 

officers effectively resolve 

potentially violent encounters 

in which deadly force might 

otherwise be used. More 

than 90 percent of the encounters studied were resolved without officers 

having to resort to lethal 

force. However, because 

impact munitions are not 100 

percent effective, officers 

need to have deadly force 

available to protect themselves and others. Training in 

the use and handling of impact munitions is crucial to 

their proper use. Impact 

munitions need to be clearly 

marked so they are not confused with lethal munitions. 

The continuing development 

of improved impact munitions should further reduce 

the risk of death or injury to 

police, suspects, or others. 

What were the study’s 

limitations? 

Information was sought from 

both law enforcement and 

corrections agencies, but no 

corrections agencies are represented among the 106 

respondents. 

Who should read this 

study? 

It will benefit law enforcement and corrections leaders, planners, and trainers; 

procurement officials; munitions manufacturers; and citizen review boards. 

ii 
IMPACT MUNITIONS USE: TYPES, TARGETS, EFFECTS 

Ken Hubbs and David Klinger 

Impact Munitions Use: Types, 

About the Authors 

Ken Hubbs is President 

of Pro Tac International 

and the California 

Association of Tactical 

Officers. David Klinger is 

associate professor of 

Criminology and Criminal 

Justice at the University of 

Missouri–St. Louis. 

Targets, Effects 

As a dangerous and challenging part of their jobs, police, 

sheriff’s deputies, prison 

guards, and other officers are 

sometimes called on to face 

riots, political demonstrations, prison uprisings, 

hostage situations, fleeing 

or barricaded suspects, emotionally disturbed individuals, 

or suicidal persons. Not only 

must officers disarm potentially dangerous individuals or 

disperse unruly crowds, but 

at the same time they must 

ensure their own safety and 

that of the general public. 

And they are expected to do 

so using reasonable force to 

resolve the incident. 

To accomplish this, law enforcement agencies, the U.S. 

military, and private industry 

have worked together over 

the last several decades to 

develop weapons, munitions, 

and techniques that give officers alternatives to the use 

of deadly force. The result is 

a range of less-lethal devices 

that often allow law enforcement officers to subdue or 

arrest suspects or disperse 

crowds with significantly less 

likelihood of anyone being 

killed or seriously injured. 

Filling a gap in the 

weapons continuum 

One limitation of many of 

these longstanding less-lethal 

devices is that to be effective, officers must be close 

to their intended target. This 

proximity increases the risk 

to officers and raises the 

possibility that an encounter 

might escalate to the point 

where deadly force is used. 

As a result, in recent years, 

more and more law enforcement agencies have 

equipped their officers with 

impact munitions. These 

munitions can be fired at a 

greater distance from the 

target, thus reducing the risk 

to officers and the likelihood 

that they will resort to lethal 

force. 

Impact munitions are designed to stun or otherwise 

temporarily incapacitate a 

suspect or dangerous individual so that law enforcement 

officers can subdue and 

arrest that person with less 

danger of injury or death for 

themselves and others. Impact munitions include foam 

rubber projectiles, wooden 

dowels, and small bean bags 

1 
RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / OCT. 04 

When impact 

munitions are 

fired from a 

distance of 10 

feet or more, 

their capacity to 

cause serious 

injury is 

diminished. 

that are usually fired from 

12-gauge shotguns or 37/40-

millimeter gas launchers. At 

first, law enforcement agencies assigned impact munitions to their special weapons 

and tactics teams, who were 

called when patrol officers 

in the field were faced with 

situations they were not 

equipped or trained to handle. 

In recent years, however, 

more and more police agencies have given impact munitions to patrol officers as well. 

Unfortunately, systematic 

information on the circumstances under which impact 

munitions have been used 

or the physical effects they 

have on people in the field 

is limited—a significant 

knowledge gap for law enforcement officers and policymakers considering when 

and how to use such weapons. 

To begin filling that gap, researchers gathered data from 

U.S. and Canadian law enforcement agencies on their 

use of less-lethal weapons 

and impact munitions. They 

collected case-by-case information from the agencies 

about incidents where impact 

munitions were used—e.g., 

details about the types of 

munitions used, how they 

were used, and the subjects 

fired on and the injuries they 

sustained. 

From these details, researchers created a database to 

sort the information and to 

provide a track record of the 

effectiveness and potential 

pitfalls of using impact munitions. The information lists 

characteristics of the subjects targeted, describes the 

encounters where impact 

munitions were used, catalogs the types of impact 

munitions used, and documents the injuries and fatalities that resulted from the 

use of impact munitions. 

Distance a key factor 

in injuries 

A key predictor of injury in 

the cases studied was the 

distance between the subject 

and where the impact munition was fired. The main reason why people struck by 

impact munitions are not 

more seriously injured is that 

most projectiles rapidly lose 

velocity once they reach their 

maximum speed shortly after 

being fired. When impact 

munitions are fired from a 

distance of 10 feet or more, 

their capacity to cause serious injury is diminished. The 

study found that broken 

bones were the most likely 

serious injury to result from 

being hit by an impact munition. Most broken bones 

2 
IMP ACT MUNITIONS USE: TYPES, TARGETS, EFFECTS 

were suffered when an impact munition was fired from 

a distance of 10 feet or less. 

Almost 10 percent of the 

munitions fired at 10 feet or 

less caused broken bones, by far the largest fracture rate of 

any distance. 

Fatalities 

In the 373 incidents reported, 

8 individuals died as a result 

of being hit by impact munitions. Two additional deaths 

resulted not from impact 

munitions themselves, but 

from lethal rounds mistakenly 

fired by officers who intended to use impact munitions. 

(More on these two cases 

below.) Of the other eight 

deaths, two incidents did not 

include enough information 

to determine where the target was struck or the dis­ tance from which the weapons were fired. In the 

remaining six incidents, the 

subject died when hit by impact munitions fired from 

less than 30 feet. Five of 

those six were struck in the chest. 

Of the 10 deaths, at least 3 

died as a result of the impact 

munition causing one or 

more broken ribs that, in turn, 

pierced the heart or lungs, or 

both. At least five were hit 

by bean bags, sometimes 

among other munitions fired. 

In one case, a target was 

struck by several munitions 

but died as a result of being 

hit in the neck by a bean bag. 

In another incident a bean 

bag penetrated a target’s chest and punctured a lung. The individuals killed by impact munitions ranged in age 

from 18 to 68. All but one were males. 

As mentioned above, 2 of the 

10 deaths resulted when law 

enforcement officers fired 

what they thought were impact munitions. In one case, 

a man was killed by a 12­

gauge, door-breaching round 

loaded into a shotgun by an 

officer who thought the 

round contained a bean bag 

projectile. In the other, an 

individual was struck in 

the chest by a barricadepenetrating projectile containing pepper spray that was 

mistakenly loaded instead of 

the intended bean bag round. 

In addition to these 10 deaths, 

at least 26 other individuals for whom case reports were 

submitted as part of this 

study died when impact 

munitions failed to incapaci­ tate them and police officers were then forced to intentionally fire lethal rounds. 

3 
RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / OCT. 04 

DATA COLLECTION 

To learn which law enforcement agencies use impact munitions, the researchers obtained 

client lists from four of the largest manufacturers of impact munitions. From these lists, 685 

police and corrections agencies were identified and sent information packets. Additional agencies were identified when they responded to articles in trade journals and newsletters and to 

notices posted on Web sites. Total responses yielded 373 case reports from 106 law enforcement agencies (no corrections agencies sent in reports). A total of 969 projectiles were fired in 

the 373 incidents. Of the 373 reported incidents, 284 came from municipal police departments, 

80 from county sheriff’s offices, and 9 from state police agencies. Although the earliest reported incident happened in 1985, most occurred between 1995 and 2000. 

The Targets 

The study found that 181, or nearly half, of the reported 373 incidents involved emotionally disturbed persons who were armed and showed signs of suicidal intent. The reported incidents 

also included— 

■ Nonsuicidal but armed individuals in open areas who had refused police orders to drop their 

weapons (70 incidents). 

■ Persons barricaded inside buildings or vehicles (48 incidents). 

■ Hostage takers (9 incidents). 

The data showed the characteristics of persons who were shot by law enforcement officers 

firing impact munitions. 

■ Most individuals were in their 30s, though ages ranged from 14 to 83. 

■ Nearly all were men (291 of 315 cases in which gender was recorded). 

■ Nearly two-thirds were white (200 out of 301 where information on race or ethnic group was 

included), followed by Hispanics (49) and African Americans (40). 

Armed and Dangerous 

Subjects were armed in almost 90 percent of the 306 cases for which weapons data were 

available. (In the few instances where suspects possessed multiple weapons, the researchers 

counted only the most dangerous one.) 

■ Cutting instruments (knives, swords, axes, machetes)—50 percent of the 306 cases. 

■ Firearms (handguns, shotguns, rifles)—29 percent. 

4 
IMP ACT MUNITIONS USE: TYPES, TARGETS, EFFECTS 

■ Blunt instruments (bats, clubs, sticks)—6 percent. 

■ Other objects (rocks, bottles, Molotov cocktails)—4 percent. 

■ No weapon—11 percent. 

Law enforcement officers fired 1 to 141 shots at individual targets. Often, multiple shots were 

needed to subdue an individual because a single hit by an impact munition was not always 

able, 5 or fewer in 93 percent, and 1 shot in 38 percent of the cases. 

Respondents in 313 of the cases reported on the number of shots that struck their intended 

target, with the number of hits ranging from 1 to 13. In one case, the individual being fired at 

surrendered after the shots missed. Others surrendered when followup shots missed but the 

initial shots hit their target. 

The type of impact munition used was identified in 962 of the 969 reported discharges of 

devices. Of the 21 different types of munitions used, bean bags shot from 12-gauge shotguns 

were the most common, accounting for 65 percent of all the projectiles fired. Plastic baton 

rounds were the second most common, used in 28 percent of the cases. 

Most often, targets were struck in the abdomen (34 percent) or the chest (19 percent), followed 

by the legs (15 percent), arms (14 percent), and back (11 percent). Only 2 percent of the impacts were on the head, and only 1 percent each in the groin and neck, the more vulnerable 

injuries. Of those, more than 80 percent were bruises and abrasions, both relatively minor injuries that may not require medical treatment. Bruises accounted for 51 percent of the injuries, 

and abrasions added another 31 percent. More serious lacerations accounted for 5.5 percent 

of the injuries; broken bones accounted for 3.5 percent. Of the 782 injuries, there were 14 

Impacts to the head produced a greater proportion of nonfatal serious injuries than other areas 

struck. Of the 19 head impacts reported, 14 resulted in a laceration, bone fracture, or penetration wound. 

Number of Shots Fired 

immediately effective. In the overwhelming number of cases, however, the number of shots 

fired was few. 

Ten or fewer rounds were fired in 98 percent of the 316 cases for which information was availType of Munition Used 

Where Struck 

parts of a person’s body. Of the 969 reported discharges of impact munitions, 782 resulted in 

instances (1.8 percent) in which the impact munition penetrated the target’s skin and caused 

a more serious injury. 

5 
RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / OCT. 04 

Training in the 

use and 

handling of 

impact 

munitions is 

crucial to their 

effectiveness 

and proper use 

in the field. 

Lessons learned 

Several conclusions and recommendations stem from 

this study. Perhaps the most 

important is that less-lethal 

impact munitions are usually 

effective in resolving potentially violent police encounters without making it 

necessary for officers to 

resort to deadly force. The 

study found that 93 percent 

of the reported incidents 

involving impact munitions 

were resolved without officers having to fire their guns. 

Because so many of the suspects were armed in the 

reported incidents, one has 

to assume that deadly force 

may have been used had 

impact munitions not been 

available. 

Impact munitions cause 

fewer casualties and deaths 

than the lethal munitions typically used by law enforcement officers. With 8 deaths 

attributed to impact munitions among 373 cases 

where at least one projectile 

was fired, the death rate 

from impact munitions is low, 

particularly when considered 

against the alternative of 

standard police ammunition 

being used. 

Nevertheless, less-lethal devices and impact munitions 

are not 100 percent effective. 

As a result, there are limits to 

how and when they should 

be used. The goal should be 

to arrest a suspect without 

resorting to lethal force, but 

law enforcement officers 

who decide to use impact 

munitions should ensure that 

deadly force is also available 

to protect themselves and 

others if less-lethal devices 

do not work. 

Second, training in the use 

and handling of impact munitions is crucial to their effectiveness and proper use in 

the field. Two deaths, mentioned previously, occurred 

because law enforcement 

officers fired lethal munitions 

that were mistaken for impact munitions. Officers need 

better training to ensure that 

the projectiles they fire in circumstances where deadly 

force is not appropriate are 

indeed impact munitions. 

Third, impact munitions 

should be clearly identifiable 

so that the likelihood of mistakes similar to those cited 

above is significantly reduced. A review of those 

two cases indicates that 

6 
IMP ACT MUNITIONS USE: TYPES, TARGETS, EFFECTS 

lethal shotgun shells look 

very much like those containing impact munitions. Other 

lethal munitions can also be 

misidentified as impact munitions. Distinctive markings 

and colorings on the different 

shells would help to more 

reliably distinguish lethal 

from less-lethal ones. 

Fourth, in deadly force encounters, law enforcement 

personnel are generally 

trained to aim for the “center 

of mass.” This is often the 

chest or abdominal area of 

the target. These are also 

the areas most often hit by 

impact munitions. The chest 

and abdomen have been successfully targeted the vast 

majority of the time, but 

users of impact munitions 

should be aware that individuals struck in these areas are 

also more susceptible to serious injury or death, especially 

at close ranges. 

Fifth, the fact that eight people died as a result of injuries 

caused by impact munitions 

suggests the need for continuing research and development on even more effective 

and less dangerous lesslethal weapons. 

In this regard, some newly 

developed munitions show 

promise. These include “pepper balls,” “super socks,” and 

“sponge rounds.” Pepper 

balls are modified paint balls 

designed to rupture on contact and release pepper 

spray. Super socks are bean 

bags that look more like cloth 

socks than the traditional 

square bags. Super socks are 

typically sewed or tied off in 

the middle and often have a 

streamer at the rear to stabilize their flight. Sponge 

rounds are, as their name 

implies, projectiles made of a 

spongy material that can be 

fired from long range with 

increased accuracy and 

consistency. 

Finally, more information is 

needed on the use and consequences of less-lethal 

weapons and impact munitions in law enforcement. Too 

much of the information available now is anecdotal rather 

than based on hard data. Better information is needed to 

identify deficiencies in the 

manufacture of impact munitions and in the training and 

use of the weapons in reallife situations. 

7 
RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / OCT. 04 

With more data, researchers, 

policymakers, and law enforcement and corrections 

agencies can better learn 

what works and what does 

not. They can compare their 

data with that from agencies 

in different cities or other 

parts of the country. In this 

regard, law enforcement and 

corrections agencies need to 

keep better and more complete records. Such information will aid not only 

policymakers who have to 

decide whether and how to 

integrate impact munitions 

into their agencies’ inventory, 

but also patrol officers who 

might have to use impact 

munitions in the field. 

8 


The National Institute of Justice is the 

research, development, and evaluation 

agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

NIJ provides objective, independent, 

evidence-based knowledge and tools 

to enhance the administration 

of justice and public safety. 

NIJ is a component of the Office of Justice 

Programs, which also includes the Bureau 

of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention, and the 

Office for Victims of Crime. 
DOJ/NIJ *NCJ~206089* 

OCT. 04 

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice ProgramsNational Institute of Justice Washington, DC 20531 Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300 

PRESORTED STANDARD 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

PERMIT NO. G–91 

MAILING LABEL AREA (5” x 2”) 

DO NOT PRINT THIS AREA 

(INK NOR VARNISH)