Help Against All Odds: Lives Saved After an Intraoral .44 Magnum Gunshot

[DoomCry]

Are there documented cases of people who shot themselves intraorally with a .44 Magnum with a 6-inch barrel and survived?

 

[wham311]

There are cases where people survive shotguns intraorally. They're not common.

 

[DoomCry]

There are cases where people survive shotguns intraorally. They're not common.

Sure. I know there are cases where they survive intraoral gunshot wounds. But I was talking about 44 magnum 6 inch barrel regardless of ammo.

 

[wham311]

Sure. I know there are cases where they survive intraoral gunshot wounds. But I was talking about 44 magnum 6 inch barrel regardless of ammo.

If people survive a shotgun they're going to survive a 44.

People are going to survive every possible method. Things go wrong.

 

[Kbeau]

I got my 44 Magnum with a 7.5 inch barrel 2 weeks ago. That thing is a fucking cannon. Nothing is surviving that

 

[DoomCry]

If people survive a shotgun they're going to survive a 44.

People are going to survive every possible method. Things go wrong.

Maybe I explained myself badly. So I'll try the question again, trying to avoid misunderstandings.


Medicine has the disturbing talent of saying everything and its opposite, protected by the immunity of 'we cannot rule it out.' It is the same discipline that, for decades, still hasn't 'figured out' whether coffee is good or bad for you, whether eggs are heart-healthy or silent killers, whether the brain dies with the body or continues to echo awareness in the seconds following decapitation. And once again, without a single documented case, it leaves open the possibility that someone might survive a gunshot to the mouth with a high-caliber firearm, repeating the usual mantra: science never speaks in absolutes. As if epistemological caution were enough to reassemble a brainstem that's been obliterated."

Here's the point: anyone who claims that it is possible to survive an intraoral shot from a .44 Magnum revolver with a 6-inch barrel or longer must provide a verifiable medical or forensic source documenting at least one real case in such conditions. This is not about generic head trauma, nor about jaw or cheek wounds. This is about shots fired with the barrel inserted into the mouth, aimed at the soft palate or skull base — exactly as described in ballistic suicide protocols. Without such documentation, any claim of survival remains speculative, no more than urban myth dressed in scientific modesty."

I extend the same challenge to those who claim there are survivors of self-inflicted intraoral shots using high-energy rifles, meaning firearms that generate over 2,500 joules of kinetic energy, such as:
– 12-gauge magnum shotguns with high-pressure loads,
– 10-gauge full-power shotguns,
– .300 Winchester Magnum rifles,
– Barrett .50 BMG sniper rifles, exceeding 12,000 joules.
This is not about lightweight shotguns, modified arms, or grazing facial injuries. Once again, we are specifically referring to barrels inserted into the mouth, firing into the cranial cavity along known lethal trajectories — not under-the-chin shots, not superficial facial wounds."

To those who invoke privacy laws or the alleged difficulty of retrieving such data, we reply with the evidence of our time: we live in an era where every wound, every clinical case, every ballistic trauma is photographed, archived, published, and stored in medical and forensic databases. If there is no official documentation, if no scientific journal has ever published a case of survival after an intraoral shot with a firearm generating over 2,500 joules, the only rational conclusion is that such survival has never occurred.
Science demands evidence — not anecdotes. And in this case, the silence of the sources speaks louder than the voices of those who live in the realm of 'maybe'."

**So I reiterate, word for word and without omission: even if the .44 Magnum does not reach 2,500 joules in terms of kinetic energy — typically ranging between 900 and 1,600 joules depending on the load and projectile — the core question remains untouched, precise, and inescapable: does even a single scientifically documented clinical case exist, in medical or forensic literature, of survival after a self-inflicted intraoral gunshot using a .44 Magnum with a 6-inch barrel or longer, with any type of ammunition (FMJ, JHP, JSP, etc.), where the barrel was inserted into the mouth and the shot was actually fired into the cranial cavity?
Generalizations are not accepted. No peripheral wounds, no partial craniofacial trauma, no angled shots, no hearsay. A verifiable, readable, scientific document is required. If it does not exist, the claim that 'people survive even that' falls apart as definitively as the projectile that denies all return.

I got my 44 Magnum with a 7.5 inch barrel 2 weeks ago. That thing is a fucking cannon. Nothing is surviving that

You're absolutely right that a .44 Magnum with a 7.5-inch barrel is, technically, a pocket-sized cannon. It produces between 1,300 and 1,700 joules of kinetic energy, with muzzle velocities exceeding 500 m/s depending on the ammunition. It's a handgun designed for big game hunting — built to take down bears and deer — and the recoil confirms it with every shot.

But the issue isn't acknowledging its power — the issue is that in forensic and clinical terms, when you say 'nothing survives that thing,' you need to show the literature to back it up. You need to present at least one documented clinical case showing what's left — or more precisely, what's not left — after an intraoral gunshot with a 7.5-inch .44 Magnum.

Because without official documentation, without autopsy reports, without published medical records, we're still in the realm of impressions. And as much as your judgment is understandable — yes, in theory, that thing obliterates everything — if we can't find even one single published case of survival after an intraoral shot with a .44 Magnum, then we're dealing with a weapon whose lethality is virtually certain.
Not by belief, but by the complete absence of counter-evidence.

 

[Kbeau]

Maybe I explained myself badly. So I'll try the question again, trying to avoid misunderstandings.


Medicine has the disturbing talent of saying everything and its opposite, protected by the immunity of 'we cannot rule it out.' It is the same discipline that, for decades, still hasn't 'figured out' whether coffee is good or bad for you, whether eggs are heart-healthy or silent killers, whether the brain dies with the body or continues to echo awareness in the seconds following decapitation. And once again, without a single documented case, it leaves open the possibility that someone might survive a gunshot to the mouth with a high-caliber firearm, repeating the usual mantra: science never speaks in absolutes. As if epistemological caution were enough to reassemble a brainstem that's been obliterated."

Here's the point: anyone who claims that it is possible to survive an intraoral shot from a .44 Magnum revolver with a 6-inch barrel or longer must provide a verifiable medical or forensic source documenting at least one real case in such conditions. This is not about generic head trauma, nor about jaw or cheek wounds. This is about shots fired with the barrel inserted into the mouth, aimed at the soft palate or skull base — exactly as described in ballistic suicide protocols. Without such documentation, any claim of survival remains speculative, no more than urban myth dressed in scientific modesty."

I extend the same challenge to those who claim there are survivors of self-inflicted intraoral shots using high-energy rifles, meaning firearms that generate over 2,500 joules of kinetic energy, such as:
– 12-gauge magnum shotguns with high-pressure loads,
– 10-gauge full-power shotguns,
– .300 Winchester Magnum rifles,
– Barrett .50 BMG sniper rifles, exceeding 12,000 joules.
This is not about lightweight shotguns, modified arms, or grazing facial injuries. Once again, we are specifically referring to barrels inserted into the mouth, firing into the cranial cavity along known lethal trajectories — not under-the-chin shots, not superficial facial wounds."

To those who invoke privacy laws or the alleged difficulty of retrieving such data, we reply with the evidence of our time: we live in an era where every wound, every clinical case, every ballistic trauma is photographed, archived, published, and stored in medical and forensic databases. If there is no official documentation, if no scientific journal has ever published a case of survival after an intraoral shot with a firearm generating over 2,500 joules, the only rational conclusion is that such survival has never occurred.
Science demands evidence — not anecdotes. And in this case, the silence of the sources speaks louder than the voices of those who live in the realm of 'maybe'."

**So I reiterate, word for word and without omission: even if the .44 Magnum does not reach 2,500 joules in terms of kinetic energy — typically ranging between 900 and 1,600 joules depending on the load and projectile — the core question remains untouched, precise, and inescapable: does even a single scientifically documented clinical case exist, in medical or forensic literature, of survival after a self-inflicted intraoral gunshot using a .44 Magnum with a 6-inch barrel or longer, with any type of ammunition (FMJ, JHP, JSP, etc.), where the barrel was inserted into the mouth and the shot was actually fired into the cranial cavity?
Generalizations are not accepted. No peripheral wounds, no partial craniofacial trauma, no angled shots, no hearsay. A verifiable, readable, scientific document is required. If it does not exist, the claim that 'people survive even that' falls apart as definitively as the projectile that denies all return.

You're absolutely right that a .44 Magnum with a 7.5-inch barrel is, technically, a pocket-sized cannon. It produces between 1,300 and 1,700 joules of kinetic energy, with muzzle velocities exceeding 500 m/s depending on the ammunition. It's a handgun designed for big game hunting — built to take down bears and deer — and the recoil confirms it with every shot.

But the issue isn't acknowledging its power — the issue is that in forensic and clinical terms, when you say 'nothing survives that thing,' you need to show the literature to back it up. You need to present at least one documented clinical case showing what's left — or more precisely, what's not left — after an intraoral gunshot with a 7.5-inch .44 Magnum.

Because without official documentation, without autopsy reports, without published medical records, we're still in the realm of impressions. And as much as your judgment is understandable — yes, in theory, that thing obliterates everything — if we can't find even one single published case of survival after an intraoral shot with a .44 Magnum, then we're dealing with a weapon whose lethality is virtually certain.
Not by belief, but by the complete absence of counter-evidence.

Go do the research dude, no one is stopping you

 

[Pale_Rider]

SI kicks in subconsciously, and can cause horrendous survivable damage in firearm attempts. Thats for people who know what they are doing even.

As has been said above it not hard to find plenty of story's, and even images of people who survived self inflicted gunshots. It not uncommon even.

 

[bankai]

I got my 44 Magnum with a 7.5 inch barrel 2 weeks ago. That thing is a fucking cannon. Nothing is surviving that

You're making us all feel jealous. It's like posting about a high spec alienware gaming rig in a computer forum.

 

[Kbeau]

You're making us all feel jealous. It's like posting about a high spec alienware gaming rig in a computer forum.

I've never owned or fired a gun, including this one. But it is heavy, steel, and simple and easy AF to load and fire and cost me $1,400. I literally feel bad that I can't pass the gun along to someone here after I use it. I know a lot of folks aren't lucky enough to be able to purchase guns.

 

[bankai]

I've never owned or fired a gun, including this one. But it is heavy, steel, and simple and easy AF to load and fire and cost me $1,400. I literally feel bad that I can't pass the gun along to someone here after I use it. I know a lot of folks aren't lucky enough to be able to purchase guns.

Don't rub it in

But honestly, I do feel guns are a beautiful piece of engineering and art.another guy was showing off his.44 magnum that he bought for just 900 dollars used

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

I've never owned or fired a gun, including this one. But it is heavy, steel, and simple and easy AF to load and fire and cost me $1,400. I literally feel bad that I can't pass the gun along to someone here after I use it. I know a lot of folks aren't lucky enough to be able to purchase guns.

What model ? Going to use it In the mouth?

There are cases where people survive shotguns intraorally. They're not common.

where's the proof of cases it was a shotgun and it was intraoral , inside the mouth ?

I don't think there are any such verifiable cases

hitting the skull (not the face or jaw) with a high velocity round. The round will impart its energy as a shock wave through the brain matter that will essentially destroy it, as the brain has the consistency of a blancmange (jelly and custard).

The bullet strike will be painless because the speed of the destruction of the brain matter is faster than the body can transmit the pain signal so you wont feel the first strike to the flesh of your head as the brain behind it gets destroyed before the pain signal gets there.

In essence one moment you are alive and aware the next is like you never existed.

The head will burst if energy is over 2700 ft lbs. If the head bursts that is instant Death

Relation of kinetic energy to contact wounds of the head by centerfire rifles and shotgun slugs - PubMed

Wounds of high-energy centerfire rifles and shotguns represent distinctive injuries of forensic importance. Previous studies of contact wounds have shown variability in the potential of these weapons to produce bursting wounds of the head. The present study analyzed contact head wounds owing to...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Wounds of high-energy centerfire rifles and shotguns represent distinctive injuries of forensic importance. Previous studies of contact wounds have shown variability in the potential of these weapons to produce bursting wounds of the head. The present study analyzed contact head wounds owing to 26 centerfire rifles and nine shotgun slugs and compared them with respect to weapon, ammunition, entry wound site, and projectile kinetic energy. The bursting effect, defined for this study as disruption of at least 50% of the head, occurred in 25/35 of cases and was related to kinetic energy. Bursting was associated with energies <2700 ft-lbs in 12/22 cases and energies >2700 ft-lbs in 13/13 cases. The volume of gunpowder gas injected into the wound was considered as contributing to the bursting phenomenon. There was no relation of bursting to the specific entrance wound site, type of ammunition, or projectile fragmentation. unfurl="true"]https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2012.02262.x[/URL]

 

[DoomCry]

Go do the research dude, no one is stopping you

I've already done extensive research on this topic, and that's precisely why I'm asking for help: someone might have come across a case that I missed. So far, I haven't found any documentation of survivors of intraoral gunshot wounds with a .44 Magnum.

Anyone claiming such cases exist must provide concrete evidence—medical reports, forensic studies, or verifiable news articles. In life, facts matter—not talk. And there's already too much empty talk going around.

If such documentation doesn't exist or can't be provided, then we have to rely on what is currently documented: an intraoral shot with a .44 Magnum, based on available evidence, should be considered 100% lethal. The situation is different with the .357 Magnum, for which there are reports of survivors—but not in cases of direct intraoral shots. The known survivors were shot in the face, under the chin, or behind the incisors, but always with trajectories not fully directed toward the brain.

That said, I'm open to any new, serious, and verifiable documentation. Until such proof is presented, I'll continue to see certain claims as ideologically driven attempts to provoke fear without a shred of evidence. If survivors of intraoral .44 Magnum gunshots really exist, those making that claim should have no problem providing a link or source.

 

[Edge_of_the_Grave]

Oh, but of course. It's always fascinating how, when someone brings up an intraoral shot with a .44 Magnum, there's still someone ready to slip in a little "it depends" or "not necessarily." You know how it is medicine loves to keep every door slightly ajar, as if reality were a hallway full of emergency exits. But in this case, honestly, there are no doors. Just a wall. And you hit it at 450 meters per second. The mere fact that there isn't a single documented case of survival from such a shot should already be telling, but of course, there's always someone who likes to imagine a kind-hearted bullet, the kind that takes a scenic route, politely avoids bones, and maybe just decides to stop short—because hey, the will to live works miracles, right? Too bad that's not how it works. The .44 Magnum is a firearm carried to stop a charging Kodiak bear. An animal weighing over half a ton, with a skull like medieval armor. One well-placed shot to the head takes it down. Not from suggestion, but from sheer mechanical force. And we, charming gelatinous creatures with skulls as delicate as meringue left in the sun, like to believe we could "survive" a shot that shatters everything it touches, tears through the cranial base, and turns the brain into a red mist. Intraoral. Soft palate. No bone to deflect. No barrier. Just darkness. But medicine, as we know, loves to mix everything together: grazing shots, .22 LR, failed attempts, people who shot themselves in the ear thinking they'd flip the off switch. Then along comes a "survival rate" and suddenly a .44 and a 9mm are treated like the same thing. Sure. That's like saying a sewing needle and a Viking axe are both just pointy tools. The truth? A .44 Magnum, fired in the mouth, pointed upward, ends everything. That's not an opinion. It's physics applied to the human skull. And if someone still wants to play around with the idea of "possibility," I suggest focusing on more cheerful odds. Like the chance of a unicorn ringing your doorbell.

 

[wham311]

What model ? Going to use it In the mouth?

where's the proof of cases it was a shotgun and it was intraoral , inside the mouth ?

I don't think there are any such verifiable cases

hitting the skull (not the face or jaw) with a high velocity round. The round will impart its energy as a shock wave through the brain matter that will essentially destroy it, as the brain has the consistency of a blancmange (jelly and custard).

The bullet strike will be painless because the speed of the destruction of the brain matter is faster than the body can transmit the pain signal so you wont feel the first strike to the flesh of your head as the brain behind it gets destroyed before the pain signal gets there.

In essence one moment you are alive and aware the next is like you never existed.

The head will burst if energy is over 2700 ft lbs. If the head bursts that is instant Death

Relation of kinetic energy to contact wounds of the head by centerfire rifles and shotgun slugs - PubMed

Wounds of high-energy centerfire rifles and shotguns represent distinctive injuries of forensic importance. Previous studies of contact wounds have shown variability in the potential of these weapons to produce bursting wounds of the head. The present study analyzed contact head wounds owing to...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Wounds of high-energy centerfire rifles and shotguns represent distinctive injuries of forensic importance. Previous studies of contact wounds have shown variability in the potential of these weapons to produce bursting wounds of the head. The present study analyzed contact head wounds owing to 26 centerfire rifles and nine shotgun slugs and compared them with respect to weapon, ammunition, entry wound site, and projectile kinetic energy. The bursting effect, defined for this study as disruption of at least 50% of the head, occurred in 25/35 of cases and was related to kinetic energy. Bursting was associated with energies <2700 ft-lbs in 12/22 cases and energies >2700 ft-lbs in 13/13 cases. The volume of gunpowder gas injected into the wound was considered as contributing to the bursting phenomenon. There was no relation of bursting to the specific entrance wound site, type of ammunition, or projectile fragmentation. unfurl="true"]https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2012.02262.x[/URL]

There's an ama on Reddit from a guy who survived intraoral. I don't have the energy to look it all up again but I've seen a study with 6 intraoral survivors

I've already done extensive research on this topic, and that's precisely why I'm asking for help: someone might have come across a case that I missed. So far, I haven't found any documentation of survivors of intraoral gunshot wounds with a .44 Magnum.

Anyone claiming such cases exist must provide concrete evidence—medical reports, forensic studies, or verifiable news articles. In life, facts matter—not talk. And there's already too much empty talk going around.

If such documentation doesn't exist or can't be provided, then we have to rely on what is currently documented: an intraoral shot with a .44 Magnum, based on available evidence, should be considered 100% lethal. The situation is different with the .357 Magnum, for which there are reports of survivors—but not in cases of direct intraoral shots. The known survivors were shot in the face, under the chin, or behind the incisors, but always with trajectories not fully directed toward the brain.

That said, I'm open to any new, serious, and verifiable documentation. Until such proof is presented, I'll continue to see certain claims as ideologically driven attempts to provoke fear without a shred of evidence. If survivors of intraoral .44 Magnum gunshots really exist, those making that claim should have no problem providing a link or source.

No one is going to do the work for you and just because it isn't reported doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

This isn't going to affect whether or not you'll do it, you're not the type to follow through imo. Suicides are impulsive most of the time and you're researching and debating extensively

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

There's an ama on Reddit from a guy who survived intraoral. I don't have the energy to look it all up again but I've seen a study with 6 intraoral survivors

what about a shotgun intraoral , 12 gauge shotgun at least 2 inches inside the mouth aiming at brainstem? that's what i was asking . i don't even consider handguns for my suicide .

as i showed in the study a 12 gauge shotgun or rifle can have 2700 foot pounds of energy. a few inches inside the mouth that's like an explosion

 

[DoomCry]

No one is going to do the work for you and just because it isn't reported doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

This isn't going to affect whether or not you'll do it, you're not the type to follow through imo. Suicides are impulsive most of the time and you're researching and debating extensively

Let me remind you that in any discussion based on rational methodology,the burden of proof lies with the person making a positive claim.If someone claims that there are survivors of intraoral gunshot wounds with a .44 Magnum,then actual evidence must be provided,not anecdotes.As of today,scientific literature,medical reports,and journalistic sources do not document a single confirmed case of such survival.This lack of documentation is not an opinion,it is a fact.As for the attempt to shift the focus from the content of the discussion to a psychological evaluation of the user by saying "you're not the type to actually do it,"this is a clear fallacy,an ad hominem attack meant to dodge the real issue.Furthermore,anyone familiar with these forums knows that impulsive suicides are often the ones that fail precisely because they lack preparation.On the contrary,those who ask many questions and study the details are seeking precision,not attention.And in a forum where methods are being discussed,discrediting someone for wanting to understand is absurd.If you have evidence,show it.If you don't,just admit it.Everything else is rhetorical smoke.

There's an ama on Reddit from a guy who survived intraoral. I don't have the energy to look it all up again but I've seen a study with 6 intraoral survivors

Ah so now the Reddit AMA shows up Wonderful We've moved from documented evidence to "there's a guy on Reddit who said he's a survivor" Reddit is a platform where anyone can claim anything without verified identity no medical records no clinical documents nothing but a nickname and a bit of imagination That's not evidence it's anonymous tale-spinning the modern version of "I heard it from a friend" In rational discourse this has zero valid weight An AMA Ask Me Anything is not a scientific source nor a medical publication nor an official report it's just someone answering questions with no accountability And let me repeat it whoever makes an extraordinary claim such as surviving an intraoral gunshot with a 44 Magnum or a shotgun bears the burden of proof not "I saw it on Reddit" Especially when we're talking about weapons with 1200 to 2700 foot-pounds of kinetic energy Intraoral means point-blank destruction of the cranial vault brainstem and upper spinal column this isn't a ricochet it's an internal explosion So don't bring Reddit stories and leave behind medical studies autopsy reports forensic analyses those are evidence the rest is just noise

 

[DoomCry]

This ignores everything I said.

No one is here to debate you or do your work for you, it's your suicide. It's wholly irrational to have the opinion that "because there isn't documentation of a failed attempt it's impossible thats it's ever happened or could ever happen".

People tend to not document every failed suicide. I don't give a shit if you believe me or not, a shotgun is kore powerful than a 44 and people have survuved them. Ive provided you an opportunity to do your own work and find that on Reddit, which.. is a documented failure..his face is shot off.. and you're still debating it. It's literally a first hand report. Do two seconds of your own work to find it. Or don't I don't care. It's your life. And what you find still isn't going to influence whether or not you do it, you are not the type to do it and you won't. You are too meticulous and neurotic about failure

I've literally told you I have the evidence and can use inductive reasoning to conclude that it is possible to survive a 44. Mistakes happen. Your position is flawed as it assumes you'll do it correctlym every single attempt the person tries to do it correctly and they don't. It also assumes you'll have the balls to pull eht trigger and you're obsessed about finding a single failure so you're not brave enough to just go through with it



i don't care to look up your method of suicide for you, I have explained that it doesn't mean anything if there isn't documentation, failed suicide attempts tend not to make good morning America. If you do your own work you'll see reports on this very board of failed attempts via intraoral shotgun and people screaming in garages for hours on end until people come and save them. A shotgun is still more powerful than a 44. Do your own inductive reasoning.

You're literally trying to prove a negative dude.




You're being stubborn and obtuse. Do it or don't I really don't care and no one else does either.

Enjoy your long ass life dude you're not pulling the trigger. If you were gonna do it you would have done it.

You claim that survival is possible even with high-powered firearms and that shotguns or rifles are "more powerful" than a .44 Magnum. Yet, once again, you fail to provide a single medically verified case of intraoral survival involving a firearm delivering 1,600+ Joules of kinetic energy. Let's be clear: a .44 Magnum typically produces 1,200 to 1,600 Joules. Numerous long guns are significantly weaker, such as: .22 LR (160 J), .17 HMR (300 J), .22 WMR (400 J), .410 bore shotgun (600 J), 5.7x28mm (500 J), and 9mm carbines (600–700 J). All of these are technically rifles or shotguns — yet they're far less powerful than a .44 Magnum. So your claim that "all shotguns or rifles are deadlier" is demonstrably false. You might refer to the case of a 27-year-old woman who survived a gunshot wound to the face from an AK-47, a weapon producing over 2,000 Joules. But let's set the record straight: the shot was not intraoral; the trajectory was lateral, striking the jaw and neck, not the brainstem. It was clearly a misdirected shot, not a properly aimed self-inflicted cranial wound. And yet, this is one of the very few documented survival cases involving a high-powered rifle. So yes, she survived — but not because rifles are survivable intraorally. She survived despite the weapon's power, precisely because the shot missed all vital structures. A misfire is not proof that a weapon is non-lethal. In conclusion: you still haven't provided a single verified case of intraoral survival from a firearm equal to or more powerful than a .44 Magnum. Until you do, the burden of proof is entirely yours. Source: Survival following gunshot wound to the face from an AK-47: a case report, Journal of Medical Case Reports (2014). https://jmedicalcasereports.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1752-1947-8-29

 

[wham311]

You claim that survival is possible even with high-powered firearms and that shotguns or rifles are "more powerful" than a .44 Magnum. Yet, once again, you fail to provide a single medically verified case of intraoral survival involving a firearm delivering 1,600+ Joules of kinetic energy. Let's be clear: a .44 Magnum typically produces 1,200 to 1,600 Joules. Numerous long guns are significantly weaker, such as: .22 LR (160 J), .17 HMR (300 J), .22 WMR (400 J), .410 bore shotgun (600 J), 5.7x28mm (500 J), and 9mm carbines (600–700 J). All of these are technically rifles or shotguns — yet they're far less powerful than a .44 Magnum. So your claim that "all shotguns or rifles are deadlier" is demonstrably false. You might refer to the case of a 27-year-old woman who survived a gunshot wound to the face from an AK-47, a weapon producing over 2,000 Joules. But let's set the record straight: the shot was not intraoral; the trajectory was lateral, striking the jaw and neck, not the brainstem. It was clearly a misdirected shot, not a properly aimed self-inflicted cranial wound. And yet, this is one of the very few documented survival cases involving a high-powered rifle. So yes, she survived — but not because rifles are survivable intraorally. She survived despite the weapon's power, precisely because the shot missed all vital structures. A misfire is not proof that a weapon is non-lethal. In conclusion: you still haven't provided a single verified case of intraoral survival from a firearm equal to or more powerful than a .44 Magnum. Until you do, the burden of proof is entirely yours. Source: Survival following gunshot wound to the face from an AK-47: a case report, Journal of Medical Case Reports (2014). https://jmedicalcasereports.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1752-1947-8-29

You are trying to prove a negative and people don't publish things like the fucking gun type of every failed suicide attempt


Go ahead and ignore that as much as you want, what you're asking for is ridiculous. You're not gonna do it. You're looking for excuses not to. Enjoy your life.

 

[DoomCry]

You are trying to prove a negative and people don't publish things like the fucking gun type of every failed suicide attempt


Go ahead and ignore that as much as you want, what you're asking for is ridiculous. You're not gonna do it. You're looking for excuses not to. Enjoy your life.

Your attitude reeks of passive-aggressiveness: you avoid the substance, ignore the data, and then throw in a sarcastic smile as if that could somehow diminish the effort and precision behind what I wrote. That kind of behavior doesn't come from someone confident in their argument — it comes from discomfort, from the unease of realizing you can't actually refute what's in front of you.

Unlike you, several other users in this thread have contributed actual content — videos, documentation, ballistic studies. You didn't. You chose not to engage in substance but to ridicule instead.

You haven't addressed a single technical point. You went for mockery. But mockery is the last refuge of someone who has nothing left to say.

I'm still waiting for even one documented case of intraoral survival with a .44 Magnum or a weapon of equal or greater energy. Not anecdotes. Not smirks. Facts.

Until then, you're not debating — you're deflecting.

 

[Kbeau]

Don't rub it in

But honestly, I do feel guns are a beautiful piece of engineering and art.another guy was showing off his.44 magnum that he bought for just 900 dollars used

I'll post some pictures of it shortly. If a burglar saw that thing they'd shit their pants and run!

 

[Edge_of_the_Grave]

You are trying to prove a negative and people don't publish things like the fucking gun type of every failed suicide attempt

Sorry to intervene but saying that the author of the thread is "trying to prove a negative" is a logical fallacy. The thread was opened precisely to search for positive evidence, that is, clinically documented cases of survival after intraoral gunshot wounds with a .44 Magnum. If those claiming such cases exist are unable to provide even a single publication, medical report or verifiable source, the issue does not lie with the thread's author. In the field of trauma medicine and clinical ballistics, what is not documented simply does not exist. This is not skepticism, it is scientific method.

 

[wham311]

Sorry to intervene but saying that the author of the thread is "trying to prove a negative" is a logical fallacy. The thread was opened precisely to search for positive evidence, that is, clinically documented cases of survival after intraoral gunshot wounds with a .44 Magnum. If those claiming such cases exist are unable to provide even a single publication, medical report or verifiable source, the issue does not lie with the thread's author. In the field of trauma medicine and clinical ballistics, what is not documented simply does not exist. This is not skepticism, it is scientific methoi

I do not believe that every gun used in a failed attempt is reported/able to be researched on Google.

 

[GhostInTheMachine]

It doesn't matter what you're using if you can't properly aim the thing and just blow your face off.

Here's some relevant data: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5175460/

 

[wham311]

It doesn't matter what you're using if you can't properly aim the thing and just blow your face off.

Here's some relevant data: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5175460/

Or if you flinch.

7 intraoral shots listed there, 2 via shotgun

Rather than looking at theoretical suggestions about pain and getting shot in the head or face and how the bullet is too quick, look for accounts from people who survived them or from emts who have to help survivors.

 

[Kbeau]

What model ? Going to use it In the mouth?

where's the proof of cases it was a shotgun and it was intraoral , inside the mouth ?

I don't think there are any such verifiable cases

hitting the skull (not the face or jaw) with a high velocity round. The round will impart its energy as a shock wave through the brain matter that will essentially destroy it, as the brain has the consistency of a blancmange (jelly and custard).

The bullet strike will be painless because the speed of the destruction of the brain matter is faster than the body can transmit the pain signal so you wont feel the first strike to the flesh of your head as the brain behind it gets destroyed before the pain signal gets there.

In essence one moment you are alive and aware the next is like you never existed.

The head will burst if energy is over 2700 ft lbs. If the head bursts that is instant Death

Relation of kinetic energy to contact wounds of the head by centerfire rifles and shotgun slugs - PubMed

Wounds of high-energy centerfire rifles and shotguns represent distinctive injuries of forensic importance. Previous studies of contact wounds have shown variability in the potential of these weapons to produce bursting wounds of the head. The present study analyzed contact head wounds owing to...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Wounds of high-energy centerfire rifles and shotguns represent distinctive injuries of forensic importance. Previous studies of contact wounds have shown variability in the potential of these weapons to produce bursting wounds of the head. The present study analyzed contact head wounds owing to 26 centerfire rifles and nine shotgun slugs and compared them with respect to weapon, ammunition, entry wound site, and projectile kinetic energy. The bursting effect, defined for this study as disruption of at least 50% of the head, occurred in 25/35 of cases and was related to kinetic energy. Bursting was associated with energies <2700 ft-lbs in 12/22 cases and energies >2700 ft-lbs in 13/13 cases. The volume of gunpowder gas injected into the wound was considered as contributing to the bursting phenomenon. There was no relation of bursting to the specific entrance wound site, type of ammunition, or projectile fragmentation. unfurl="true"]https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2012.02262.x[/URL]

Magnum Research BFR 44 Magnum Revolver with 7.5" barrel. Using Hornady Handgun Hunter (HH) .454 Casull 200 gr Monoflex (MFX) cartridge.

Gun in mouth pointed up a bit towards the brainstem.

 

[DoomCry]

It doesn't matter what you're using if you can't properly aim the thing and just blow your face off.

Here's some relevant data: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5175460/

The cited study (PMC5175460, "Survivors of Self-inflicted Gunshot Wounds to the Head") does not document any survival after an intraoral gunshot wound where the barrel was inserted into the mouth and the weapon had an energy level equal to or greater than a .44 Magnum (≥1600 joules).
Although it generically mentions "intraoral entry" in 7 cases, the term is not anatomically or forensically defined, and it is never clarified whether the barrel was actually placed inside the mouth. Furthermore, the .44 Magnum is never mentioned.
The calibers reported are .22, .25, .38, .45, 9mm, and shotguns (.12 and .20), but none are directly linked to the "intraoral" cases.
Therefore, the study provides no scientific evidence of survival following an intraoral gunshot with a weapon ≥1600 J.

To suggest otherwise is a misreading or manipulation of the text.

At this point, some users bring up anonymous testimonials from Reddit or similar platforms.
This position is dangerous, fallacious, and intellectually dishonest.

Reddit is not a source.
A nickname without medical reports, without forensic documentation, and without ballistic analysis is not even worthy of being called a testimony.

The risk is very high that many of these stories are created by pro-life individuals, deliberately infiltrating forums with the aim of spreading fear, discouragement, and confusion.
This happens everywhere: on forums, social networks, and video platforms.
And they use a well-known strategy: showing extreme outcomes with no clinical context, with deliberately vague and emotional narratives.

We must not — and cannot — draw any reliable conclusions from these pseudo-sources.
Anyone who does so is betraying the rational method of inquiry.

I strongly urge anyone seeking serious information on methods or consequences to completely disregard:

Reddit
Anonymous forums
Unverified shock videos
Second-hand anecdotal stories

These are not sources. They are noise. And in a topic like this, noise is poison.

Regarding gore videos, a precise clarification is also needed.

In many of these videos, we don't see the moment of the gunshot, and only the aftermath is shown: a disfigured face, a person still alive and walking or moving with extreme injuries.
But it's not clear at all what happened before — whether it was an intraoral shot, a submental one, or a completely different type of trauma.
Even if the video is titled something like "survived suicide attempt with war-grade shotgun" with ironic tone or exaggeration, it means nothing:
we're simply watching a person with a torn face, and nothing more.
The actual dynamics of the event are unknown.
There's no medical confirmation, no forensic analysis, and no certainty about the weapon.

The potential for digital manipulation, selective editing, or staged material is real and widely known.

Shock videos are not evidence, not science, and not reliable.

Finally, regarding the mention of "aim" — a concept someone tried to sneak into the thread:

This thread is not about aim. It is not a guide to applied ballistics.

It is an investigation into one specific and central question:

"Is there at least one scientifically documented case of survival following an intraoral shot with the barrel inserted into the mouth and a weapon ≥1600 J?"

If the answer is no (as appears to be the case so far), then aim becomes irrelevant.
With a barrel inserted into the mouth, aim is secondary.
What matters is mouth closure, internal pressure, sagittal trajectory toward the brainstem, and sufficient force to shatter the skullcap.

That is the true substance of the thread: distinguishing between what is documented and what is media mythology.

Anyone shifting the discussion elsewhere — aim, vague testimonies, glancing shots — is sabotaging the core of the investigation.

Otherwise, we risk ending up like the megathread on firearms, which began with a serious and useful framework,
but gradually turned into a chaotic mass of unrelated comments, off-topic rambling, and constant contradictions.
A thread that today helps no one, because it was derailed by those who don't want clarity, but only seek to blur it.

Let's not make the same mistake.
Anyone truly seeking understanding needs precision, not noise.

 

[GhostInTheMachine]

Whatever dude, just test it out and see if you'll be the first to survive or not. All your yapping isn't going to change the physics behind not causing substantial enough damage to the brain because you didn't aim correctly.

 

[DoomCry]

Whatever dude, just test it out and see if you'll be the first to survive or not. All your yapping isn't going to change the physics behind not causing substantial enough damage to the brain because you didn't aim correctly.

You're the one making pointless talk, not me. You cited a study that's useless. The question was clear.

 

[GhostInTheMachine]

Your question is pointlessly hyper-specific. The study is only useless to people who can't put 2+2 together and figure out that you don't need 100 studies of a hyper-specific case when you can just use basic deduction and assume that total energy doesn't matter if that energy completely misses it's mark. You can be the first documented case and answer your question that way, or you can just separate the brain stem and enjoy oblivion. Otherwise, you will just be mulling over the vertexes and parabolas of something you're not going to do.

This entire line of inquiry is like assuming that crashing in a pickup truck would not kill somebody, because all the cases of car crashes were from sedans. There are so many cases of people dying from smaller rounds, and people surviving larger rounds. It's the aim that matters, just ask survivors of SIGSWs who used 12 gauges (2 of which are in that study), and look at the cases like Christine Chubbuck's, where she got it done with a mere .38 aimed behind the ear. All your yapping is not getting you any closer to this unicorn of a "documented case".