TexasCHLforum.com

Has anyone else wondered about the intelligence of the "rebels" fighting in Libya when you see them firing off hundreds of rounds straight up into the air as if they are fireworks? What the heck???? Do they think those rounds just go to heaven or something?

Not to mention the extreme waist of ammo! If they are a struggling resistance movement, where do they get off waisting all that precious ammo?

03Lightningrocks wrote:Has anyone else wondered about the intelligence of the "rebels" fighting in Libya when you see them firing off hundreds of rounds straight up into the air as if they are fireworks? What the heck???? Do they think those rounds just go to heaven or something?

Not to mention the extreme waist of ammo! If they are a struggling resistance movement, where do they get off waisting all that precious ammo?

You're asking this about a people who put up with Ghaddafi for 40 years...?

Most of the time I have seen Qaddafi he is on a balcony looking down on the people. Maybe they are actually shooting up at him?

Bawahahahahaha! I didn't realize I was starting a humorous thread. Oh well... I can roll with it. Two good jokes in a row!

Worst I saw, was firing AA machine guns of 14.5mm in the air with no aiming device. When Asked by a reporter, a rebel claimed it is an effective means to deter air strikes or something like that. A large Baloney bigger then the bullets wasted.

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...

We have the same tradition here in our Texas trailer parks, no?

Munk 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...

We have the same tradition here in our Texas trailer parks, no?

Only acceptable after a formal wedding, and only with a white shotgun...any other is tacky.

There is actually a Wikipedia page for this.

There is some intersting info.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PappaGun wrote:There is actually a Wikipedia page for this.

There is some intersting info.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nice link. This surprised me.

"People are injured, sometimes fatally, when bullets discharged into the air fall back down. The mortality rate among those struck by falling bullets is about 32%, compared with about 2% to 6% normally associated with gunshot wounds.[5] The higher mortality is related to the higher incidence of head wounds from falling bullets."

2-6%???

G192627 wrote:

PappaGun wrote:There is actually a Wikipedia page for this.

There is some intersting info.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nice link. This surprised me.

"People are injured, sometimes fatally, when bullets discharged into the air fall back down. The mortality rate among those struck by falling bullets is about 32%, compared with about 2% to 6% normally associated with gunshot wounds.[5] The higher mortality is related to the higher incidence of head wounds from falling bullets."

2-6%???

i was scratching my head on that one a bit too, but after checking out the source i don't know if the data is entirely reliable. here's from the abstract:

The present study identified 118 patients treated since 1985 who were hit with spent bullets. Most (77%) were hit in the head. The mortality rate was 32%, which is significantly higher than for all gunshot wound victims in general seen at the same medical center.

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.

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

...I never believed that a falling bullet was a real danger till I dug a few out of roofs in the 90s...they fell hard enough to go through 3 layers of asphalt shingles and seriously dent the plywood...live and learn...

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.