TexasCHLforum.com

philip964 wrote:Didn't Mythbusters do a story on this. I don't remember the outcome.

Looked it up, no wonder I was confused. It is the only test where all three results were made, busted, plausible and confirmed.

Their test busted it, but actual data they could not reproduce confirmed it. In their test a bullet was fired directly straight up. The bullet went straight up, stalled and then tumbled back to earth with a slow terminal velocity due to the tumbling . So it was busted. However, medical results from around the country confirmed it. In those cases the bullet was not fired straight up but at a high arc. The bullet did not stall and lose its spin, and thus was able to maintain a high velocity causing death and injury. They were not able to fire a bullet at a high arc and recover it, so it was also deemed plausible.

I saw that one on a re-run just a week or so ago. They fired the 9mm straight up with a ransom rest attached to a vertical jig. I think they used a similar setup with the M1 they fired straight up as well.

The data they were generating was based on 130ish grain 30-06 military ball ammo. The doctor they interviewed showed x-rays of recovered bullets that looked (to my untrained eye) to be much heavier slugs. I was thinking in the 190-200 grain range. Not a significant difference when we're talking terminal velocity--but enough to skew the results.

I think I would have deemed the myth "Plausible" and left it at that...that is to say it *could* be fatal, but in the great majority of cases it would simply be very painful. Hit at just the right angle, and in just the right conditions, the blunt trauma could kill...but not likely.

Still a bad idea to fire up in the air like that.

I can't confirm the 2-3% figure, but I think that it's higher. It hard to come up with a valid number. People who shoot themselves have a much higher fatality rate than those shot by others.

I ran across a study that found that gunshot victims with health insurance are 2.2 times more likely to survive than those without insurance.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 125555.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

General Hatcher did some experiments on such things. Find a copy of Hatcher's Notebook.

It upsets me whenever I see it. The people we are allied with in Afghanistan do it all the time even in the presence of our troops. Firing guns into the air is a third world expression of machoism. Ignorance of even simple ballistic science exists. I seem to recall a young girl from Fort Worth being killed by a returning bullet reportedly fired into the air during some holiday period. While not a physicist, I would suspect the a bullet returning at terminal velocity with the energy concentrated in a small pointed area could indeed be fatal. It is the same concentration of force principal that makes a lady's spike heel a formidable weapon. Most arguments, including mine, are based on the ascent and descent being on the same vertical plane. That is most unlikely in what we see on tv, hence the arcing velocity may be greater.

Keith B wrote:

G192627 wrote:I need to see that one.
How did they fire straight up? You would think wind etc would make it nearly impossible to find/measure.

Simple physics. There is a point where 'straight up' begins. Wind wouldn't really affect it. Basically, anything above an angle where the bullet will basically 'stop' and lose its fired momentum, then reverse it's course and just become a falling object. At that point it will only accelerate to terminal velocity and would not be normally lethal. I am not sure what that trajectory angle above 90 degrees is, but maybe one of our engineer or physics types on here can tell us. I would assume it would be somewhere in the 85 degree plus region above horizontal.

The forces going up would be exactly the same as coming down, except for the force due to (de)acceleration due to air friction (which would be significant, but still remove only a small fraction of the initial KE for an aerodynamic bullet -- spheroids would be an interesting worst case). Tumbling would be an interesting wildcard, but should only occur when close to the Normal path (when all KE becomes 0 at the peak), which would be unlikely.

Basically, if KE never becomes small, a bullet would maintain its stability throughout its trajectory, and so deceleration would be only that typical for any bullet in flight.

So, there is good reason to believe that a bullet has most of its original KE when returning to earth, and is quite lethal.

Edit x 2: Better grammar.

This is a little different from firing bullets in the air, Arab-style, but here goes.

A few years ago a lady was relaxing in her RV, parked on the grounds of TMS
(Texas Motor Speedway in Fort Worth) when a .50 round punctured the side of
the RV and hit her in the arm. Non-fatal, but still scary. The bullet's energy
had been dissipated significantly, but still had enough juice to puncture the
RV's skin and then the lady's skin.

Don't ask me how they did it, but the cops actually found the guy who fired the shot.
He was MILES away from TMS, had fired 6 rounds of .50 from a long gun, and thought
that his backstop was sufficient. But it wasn't, causing the lady to be shot in the arm.

Does anyone have any further information on the above?

TIA / SIA

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:This is a little different from firing bullets in the air, Arab-style, but here goes.

A few years ago a lady was relaxing in her RV, parked on the grounds of TMS
(Texas Motor Speedway in Fort Worth) when a .50 round punctured the side of
the RV and hit her in the arm. Non-fatal, but still scary. The bullet's energy
had been dissipated significantly, but still had enough juice to puncture the
RV's skin and then the lady's skin.

Don't ask me how they did it, but the cops actually found the guy who fired the shot.
He was MILES away from TMS, had fired 6 rounds of .50 from a long gun, and thought
that his backstop was sufficient. But it wasn't, causing the lady to be shot in the arm.

Does anyone have any further information on the above?

TIA / SIA

The way I understood it is a guy who was shooting a 50 cal. in that area was concerned it might be his round and turned himself in. I believe I read a post in here a few days back that the ballistics did not match his weapon. Maybe some more clarification would help.

Funny, but when I see those folks unloading into the air I think about the case you just mentioned.

I am really surprised that I haven't been able to find a valid scientific report on this subject. I would think that one of the NASA engineers has done a study on it.

TxLobo wrote:not sure why, but there seems to be a habit of shooting in the air in the middle east countries... celebration of a victory, or even a wedding...

, it's some sort of cultural thing. You know, kinda' like blowing up marketplaces, schools, weddings, etc. Eargesplitten Loudenboomer ist gute!

Oldgringo wrote:

TxLobo wrote:not sure why, but there seems to be a habit of shooting in the air in the middle east countries... celebration of a victory, or even a wedding...

, it's some sort of cultural thing. You know, kinda' like blowing up marketplaces, schools, weddings, etc. Eargesplitten Loudenboomer ist gute!

Aman to that Oldgringo!

rmr1923 wrote:i'm not willing to pay to access the article to see how they arrived at 2-6%, but it appears that the study was done at a single medical center/hospital. without knowing where that medical center is located, or what type of activity occurs in the area (gang violence, war zone, tourist attraction with wild west reenactments, etc) it's impossible to tell how reliable those numbers are.

Per the abstract, the study was done at King/Drew Medical Center, which was probably the busiest trauma center in Los Angeles until it was shut down in 2007 for poor patient care.

I work in an urban trauma center OR that takes care of a lot of gunshot wounds. I can tell you I was surprised by how many of them survive. Of course, a lot will never make it to us, but those that do typically do surprisingly well.

From my discussions with those involved in the history of the middle east and asia (I am an 'anthropologist') - the 'firing' of guns is a tradition extension of the 1100 - 1300 era introduction of rockets and fire lances into the middle east. The evolution of fire 'rats' (like a rocket but not guided and simply fired along the ground into opposing forces) into 'rockets' by adding 'fins', and the use of a 'fire lance' (a small cannon at the end of a pole) fired directly into the faces of the enemy, were all turned skyward and fired after battle to please gods and commanders. Sorta like fireworks displays - same sort of military history. The use of firearms in recent and current history is thru convenience (everybody has full automatic weapons and RPGs) and readily available cheap ammunition (made in China, middle east, and the tons of Russian surplus still in many countries).

WildBill wrote:I am really surprised that I haven't been able to find a valid scientific report on this subject. I would think that one of the NASA engineers has done a study on it.

It's essentially covered in every College Physics course -- at least in mine -- during the ballistics chapter.