Why you dont shoot guns in the air...

[Guest TankerHC]

what goes up, must come down (Unless your NASA).

 

Not a joke, and yes this is the NYT Gun Blog, but couldnt find the story anywhere else. (And another "accidental" child shooting.

 

 

 

http://nocera.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/08/weekend-gun-report-july-4th-edition/

[K191145]

Not defending anyone shooting in a dangerous direction, in a populated area it's stupid and dangerous to fire a gun "at an angle" into the air. If you must shoot a gun into the air for any reason be sure to to fire it "straight up" where the bullet will loose all velocity, stall and freefall back to earth. It's not lethal then.Personally I don't shoot up in the air, I have shot shotguns with cheap skeet or bird loads "straight up" in the past to celebrate the 4th or New Years but I don't want to waste ammo anymore.

[TMF]

Not defending anyone shooting in a dangerous direction, in a populated area it's stupid and dangerous to fire a gun "at an angle" into the air. If you must shoot a gun into the air for any reason be sure to to fire it "straight up" where the bullet will loose all velocity, stall and freefall back to earth. It's not lethal then.

That's a big negative. Some folks here who served in Iraq about a decade ago when the Iraqi soccer team was winning at the Olympics or World Cup may remember (if you lived in the city) how every time the Iraqis won a game the ENTIRE city erupted into automatic gunfire. That's a lot of bullets in the air. The rooftop positions in our little outpost were covered by 1 inch plywood, because that would actually stop falling bullets. They made significant dents in the wood and were loud as sh** when they hit.

Now, some physics experts may argue for/against the lethality of a 120ish gr bullet falling at terminal velocity (which would be pretty fast for something that doesn't catch much air) but I can tell you first hand that there was a little girl in the next neighborhood over that was killed by a round landing on her head. Coulda been an angled shot for all I know, but from how I've seen those rounds hit the ply wood I would say that it has the power to penetrate a little nugget.

[Guest TankerHC]

"Hatcher's Notebook (1962) by Major General Julian S. Hatcher, a U.S. Army ordnance expert. Hatcher described military tests with, among other things, a .30 caliber bullet weighing .021 pounds. Using a special rig, the testers shot the bullet straight into the air. It came down bottom (not point) first at what was later computed to be about 300 feet per second. "With the [.021 pound] bullet, this corresponds to an energy of 30 foot pounds," Hatcher wrote. "Previously, the army had decided that on the average an energy of 60 foot pounds is required to produce a disabling wound. Thus, service bullets returning from extreme heights cannot be considered lethal by this standard." If 30 foot pounds doesn't mean much to you, the bullet made a mark about one-sixteenth of an inch deep in a soft pine board — about what you'd get giving it a good whack with a hammer.  Note that we're talking about bullets shot straight up. If the bullet is fired more or less horizontally, it may not lose much speed before returning to earth and could easily kill someone.

 

"On further investigation, it appears the 60 foot-pound injury threshold cited by Hatcher may be misleading â€” a falling bullet's kinetic energy (foot pounds) alone isn't a good predictor of the speed it needs to inflict a wound. B. N. Mattoo (Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1984) has proposed an equation relating mass and bullet diameter that seems to do a better job. Experiments on cadavers and such have shown, for example, that a .38 caliber revolver bullet will perforate the skin and lodge in the underlying tissue at 191 feet per second and that triple-ought buckshot will do so at 213 feet per second. Mattoo's equation predicts that Hatcher's .30 caliber bullet, which has a small diameter in relation to its weight, will perforate the skin at only 124 feet per second. It's easy to believe such a bullet falling at 300 feet per second could kill you, especially if it struck you in the head"

 

"doctors at King/Drew Medical Center, a major L.A. trauma center, published a report in a medical journal (Journal of Trauma, December 1994) saying that between 1985 and 1992 they treated 118 people for falling bullet injuries around New Year's Eve or the Fourth of July. Thirty-eight of the victims died."

 

 

Full article

 

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1199/can-a-bullet-fired-into-the-air-kill-someone-when-it-comes-down

[Defender]

...but Myth Busters said....

 

 

LOL

Edited July 13, 2013 by barewoolf

[Sam1]

...but Myth Busters said....

 

 

LOL

 

Yeah, now we sit back and wait for someone to sue them over this.

[Guest Bonedaddy]

I don't myth buster coverd all the variable, like the bullet comin' down point first. Sure your odds are better if shot straight up but not certain.

[K191145]

http://www.loadammo.com/Topics/March01.htm

Based on the results of these tests it was concluded that the bullet return velocity was about 300 f.p.s. For the 150 gr. bullet this corresponds to an energy of 30 foot pounds. Earlier the Army had determined that, on the average, it required 60 foot pounds of energy to produce a disabling wound. Based on this information, [b]a falling 150 gr. service bullet would not be lethal[/b], although it could produce a serious wound.

[TMF]

http://www.loadammo.com/Topics/March01.htm

Based on the results of these tests it was concluded that the bullet return velocity was about 300 f.p.s. For the 150 gr. bullet this corresponds to an energy of 30 foot pounds. Earlier the Army had determined that, on the average, it required 60 foot pounds of energy to produce a disabling wound. Based on this information, a falling 150 gr. service bullet would not be lethal, although it could produce a serious wound.

A child being hit in the head with a heavy grain bullet moving 300 fps is much different than an adult it think. Kinda like how a grown man can take a grown man punch, but a kid might easily be killed by such a blow.

[Sam1]

I don't myth buster coverd all the variable, like the bullet comin' down point first. Sure your odds are better if shot straight up but not certain.

 

I think they just dropped it from a balloon too, claiming that the bullet would reach terminal velocity by falling a few hundred feet - it may be true but I just think with the moment from falling 2 miles in the sky would increase the velocity more than they assume.

[Oh Shoot]

I think they just dropped it from a balloon too, claiming that the bullet would reach terminal velocity by falling a few hundred feet - it may be true but I just think with the moment from falling 2 miles in the sky would increase the velocity more than they assume.

 

Terminal velocity is terminal velocity. Assuming drag force doesn't vary, once it's reached, that's it. Around 1200 feet seems to be the minimum height.

 

- OS

[Guest Lester Weevils]

 

"Hatcher's Notebook (1962) by Major General Julian S. Hatcher, a U.S. Army ordnance expert. Hatcher described military tests with, among other things, a .30 caliber bullet weighing .021 pounds. Using a special rig, the testers shot the bullet straight into the air. It came down bottom (not point) first at what was later computed to be about 300 feet per second. "With the [.021 pound] bullet, this corresponds to an energy of 30 foot pounds," Hatcher wrote. "Previously, the army had decided that on the average an energy of 60 foot pounds is required to produce a disabling wound. Thus, service bullets returning from extreme heights cannot be considered lethal by this standard." If 30 foot pounds doesn't mean much to you, the bullet made a mark about one-sixteenth of an inch deep in a soft pine board — about what you'd get giving it a good whack with a hammer.

 

I'm too ignorant to belabor the facts of Hatcher's findings-- Maybe it is a lowball guess or not. Haven't the slightest clue.

 

Just a tongue-in-cheek question (for anyone, not aimed at TankerHC in particular)-- Assuming Gen Hatcher is correct, who wants to be hit in the head with a good whack from a hammer? Any volunteers? :)

[Defender]

nope, not me, but then, Im a guy who wouldnt want to be shot with lower caliber bullets too. 

[Volzfan]

I don't care what anyone says. I still would not want to be hit by one!

[K191145]

Well i'm not going to fire a rifle or pistol round straight in the air even though I don't think it will kill you but i'm pretty sure that if you are hit in the head by a watermelon tossed from a Cessna at 1000' it will kill you. Don't ask me how I know that.
No i've never hit anyone in the head with a watermelon from 1000'

[tnhawk]

While working at a plant in memphis, before most holidays, a warning would be posted informing us it could be dangerous to be on building roofs due to gun shots.

[leroy]

Just did the math out of curiosity.  300 fps is about 204 miles per hour.  That's pretty fast. (...88 fps is 60 mph...)

 

leroy

[TMF]

Just did the math out of curiosity. 300 fps is about 204 miles per hour. That's pretty fast. (...88 fps is 60 mph...)

leroy

Yep, and that 300 fps is a guestimation. There are different variables which may cause that terminal velocity to be faster; a lot faster.

[Spiffy]

A child being hit in the head with a heavy grain bullet moving 300 fps is much different than an adult it think. Kinda like how a grown man can take a grown man punch, but a kid might easily be killed by such a blow.

 

Blows to the head are tricky things. Remember that actress who fell over while taking a beginner ski lesson and died.  

 

Physics says a bumble bee shouldn't be able to fly either.