Potential retinal detachment from .50 BMG muzzle blast?

[Josh3239]

You should see what Dave from Ferrett thinks.

[Cobrafreak]

.950 JDJ

[EBR Works]

.950 JDJ

Hmm, I think that BMG/DTC is pricey enough already. No thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.950_JDJ

[stitchnicklas]

wear a pressurized helmet....!?!?!?!?!?!?!

[xr650r]

Forget the pressurized helment. What you want is your head in a vacuum. This will insulate your eyes from the pressure waves. I can see (pun intended) a few hurdles, but who's with me to develop such a thing?

[NorcalGSG]

With no brake on a .50 BMG/DTC rifle you would most likely end up with a dislocated or broken shoulder. We can try it .... you go first.

Dude I'll totally do it. And when I do, it'll have enough weight that recoil won't be a problem Now hiking with it, that may be another story, I'll leave that to you.

[jumpthestack]

Check out

http://frankwjames.blogspot.com/2010/02/dealing-with-recoil-and-retinas.html

http://frankwjames.blogspot.com/2009/05/detached-retina.html

from a blogger who had a detached retina that was suspected to be related to shooting large bore rifles.

[ke6guj]

With no brake on a .50 BMG/DTC rifle you would most likely end up with a dislocated or broken shoulder. We can try it .... you go first.

I've done it with one of my .50BMG rifles. My friend was shooting it and the muzzle brake broke off and was launched about 25 yards downrange. After asking him if he was OK, my next question was "how bad did it kick?". After hearing that recoil was STOUT, but that he'd do it again, I had to try it. It definitely gets your attention, but is livable I think I need to try it again one of these days and get it on video.

One thing to think about is shoulder damage, Tony that worked at Barrett and then Serbu has fired tons of .50BMG rounds and wore out his shoulder to the point of needing surgery. http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=3&t=310137 . Granted, that was 108k rounds over 15 years

[E-120]

There should be some scientific evidence material on the matter and not just hearsay. Always better to be safe than sorry.

[Sinixstar]

My understanding of retinal detachment was that it had to do with heavy recoil - not so much the over pressure and whatnot from the brake. It has more to do with the repeated violent jerking forces your body has to endure when shooting some of the bigger guns out there. It's not just limited to the .50 - but any big bore heavy rifle.

[xrMike]

If it's a pressure thing, I'm guessing that a good-fitting pair of swimming goggles would isolate your eyeballs from the over-pressure generated by the gun.

Yes, you will look like a total dork, shooting a .50 with swimming goggles on. But a dork with attached retinas!

[oddjob]

When my friend and I bought our McBros Tac .50 my friend asked McBros about the recoil without the brake. The fella at McBros told my friend don't due it due to potential retina detachment. He said there was a case of one such incident. What we don't know is if the shooter in question already had a pre-existing problem (assuming this is a true incident).

[Guns R Tools]

I remember watching a History channel or something like that that mentions that pilots/personnel training with jet type setup had retinal detachment problem. I think it was rapid deceleration that caused problem. I think they were on rail with jet on track.

[Sinixstar]

I remember watching a History channel or something like that that mentions that pilots/personnel training with jet type setup had retinal detachment problem. I think it was rapid deceleration that caused problem. I think they were on rail with jet on track.

Exactly. Rapid acceleration/deceleration will do it. Similar to Aortic dissection - but less severe. It comes down to tissues just not be able to take the stress of such rapid changes in velocity, and being torn apart. Overpressure and blast isn't really the concern at all.

[EBR Works]

This from a member over on the FCSA forum:

I am an ophthalmologist and a retinal surgeon, and have been a professor of ophthalmology, written 30 articles, one book, etc., etc. Let me be very clear about this -- there is no medical literature to justify the assertion that the recoil of any small arms caliber weapon can harm an eye, and there is little or no reason to suspect it would be at all likely, or even possible, except under the most unusual circumstances. Tens of thousands of people every day get their heads whipped about, and do not have eye problems from it. People bleed under their retina or within the vitreous of the eye all the time for all kinds of naturally occurring reasons, and there is no reason to think that shooting had anything to do with the problem described.

When I first started shooting a .50, I experienced blurred vision lasting seconds after each shot, and later in the day would have an ill feeling, like the onset of the "flu". I did not experience the headache typical of a concussion-type injury, which I would get after firing a heavy-recoiling shotgun, the result of the head and brain recoiling, and the brain rebounding off the skull or the meninges stretching.

I am not aware of any study that claims that the recoil or blast experienced from shooting a .50 (i.e. being the operator) is an eye hazard, but it is possible that the military may have some data I do not have access to. I do believe that being close to the muzzle or brake (that is, having the weapon fired with the muzzle near the face) would be hazardous, but the danger would not just be to the eyes, but the respiratory system, skin, etc.

From what I have been able to learn, the blast produced by a .50 with a muzzle brake is near or even slightly above the upper limits of human safety. One study claims that occasional exposure that would occur from firing the gun in a partially enclosed area (as from inside a room out a window) is safe, but there is a study done in lab animals that shows damage done to the upper respiratory system from repeated exposure to blast levels produced by a .50. One book on the use of .50's states that the military restricts the number of shots students or trainers can be exposed to each day. I am not aware of any published study on the effects or benefits of "blast shields", or the effects or benefits of other forms of protection a civilian user might improvise, such as helmets or goggles. The U.S. military has studied helmet suspension systems and helmet padding to reduce the propogation of blast waves underneath the helmet, with the intent of reducing brain damage from the blast produced by IED's.

Considering the vast number of .50-caliber rounds fired in crew-served weapons (a situation in which there may be people closer to the muzzle than one would like) in the past 60 years and the lack of reports of adverse effects, it is not likely that most people would be significantly harmed by the muzzle blast (other than their hearing), but because of the amplification of the blast by a muzzle brake I cannot say it would be medically impossible for a shooter to have permanent injury from the blast (again, hearing aside). But I should also be very clear that the eyes have not been reported to be at risk from the blast likely to be produced by a .50.

The only proven effective way to reduce blast is to use a suppressor.

I have not researched OSHA regulations regarding noise or blast exposure to determine the maximum acceptable occupational exposures....but you may or may not want to go there.

Finally, any 50-year old is at risk for having an eye disease occur as they get older; in fact, I can guarantee that if they live long enough they will have an eye disease. Whether or not an eye disease is the result of blast exposure is an entirely different question.

Off topic, there might be a market for personal protective gear to reduce risk from blast, but protection from blast injury would involve blast-activated valves that close the air supply to a padded, enclosed helmet...which I might wear on a winter day but not on a hot summmer's day, unless there was fan-supplied forced-air ventilation to the helmet. Such a helmet might also do a better job of protecting hearing, by reducing bone conduction from the gun. Insofar as injury to the lungs with ensuing air embolism is the most common cause of death from pure blast injury, I wonder if such a device has been tried in the past to protect from blast injury?