Mythbusters - falling bullets

Status
Not open for further replies.

SkyDaver

Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
319
Location
Winston Salem, NC
They're testing the basic bullets in the air myth.

They're going to try to determine if a bullet, falling vertically at terminal velocity, can kill. I'll write comments as the show broadcasts.

They determined that a 9mm FMJ bullet falls at about 100mph (but it was tumbling)

A .30-06 was also at about 100 mph.

The stable falling position was wobbly, and sideways. Again, no spin though.

Then, they built a rig to shoot the bullets at the appropriate terminal velocity.

This, though, isn't going to have the bullet going sideways, but will be tip first.

Then, they fired these bullets into a pig skull, and determined that it was not lethal.

So far, they haven't addressed that the fired bullets are spinning (which will change the way the bullets fall), and they still don't have a clue that firing into the air does NOT equal firing straight up.

A bullet fired non-vertical will maintain its point first attitude during flight, and it's terminal velocity will not be as slow as a tumbling bullet.

Also, they have not addressed the fact that non-vertically fired bullet will keep some amount of its horizontal vector as well as the vertical vector.

It would be pretty difficult to measure the velocity of a bullet fired at 45 degrees, for example, at the end of its flight.

There are certainly cases where bullets fired from long distance are lethal.

Ah, finally, they got the clue that if a bullet hits someone from a great distance, then the bullet isn't going to lose so much velocity that it isn't potentially lethal.

Now, they're going to try literally firing bullets straight up.

They found two 9mm bullets, fired straight up, about 330 ft from the firing point (carried by the wind, obviously) The depth of penetration indicated that it was falling sideways when they hit. Still, these were fired straight up, not at any measurable angle. (added on edit) Obviously, they don't have any telemetry from the path, but even if the bullet is still spinning at apogee, it appears to start falling backwards, and losing stability, rather than nosing over.

They couldn't find any .30 cal bullets, fired from a Garand.

Then, they lofted a bunch of bullets with a balloon to about 400 feet, and dropped them. Sure enough, the .30 cal bullets at unstable terminal velocity were non-lethal. They did a good job of calculating that bullets falling vertically were non-lethal.

They closed by emphasising that it is almost impossible to fire straight up, and if you've got any angle at all, the bullet will maintain its nose first attitude, and WILL be coming to earth at lethal velocity. They also emphasised that one should NEVER fire a firearm into the air (of course, they didn't mention shotguns in this test)

Not a bad show, all in all.
 
Last edited:
M1 as assault rifle

I caught that too, and would have preferred that they left that phrase out.

Of course, for it's day, it sort of was an assault rifle, just like the 1903 Springfield was, and the M-Ns, and the Lee-Enfields ...
 
For their day...

For their day the Springfield Rifled Musket was an assault rifle.

For their day the Brown Bess was an assult MUSKET (it had no rifling so it couldn't be a rifle).

No matter what the anti-gun idiots want to ban no law will stop those who seek to do evil things to other people. The only thing "gun control" stops is the ability of the common man to remain free.
 
Of course, I watched it too...fun episode, despite its flaws. Numerous examples of the "clip/magazine" error, and of course a Garand is nearly as opposite from what is denoted by the term "assault rifle" as is possible in a repeating centerfire rifle. Full-size cartridge, no detachable magazine, no pistol grip, semi-auto only. Even less of an assault rifle than an SKS for example, which at least fires an intermediate cartridge.

It more or less informally confirmed my own common-sense hypotheses about the subject - fired directly upwards, returning bullets would reach their terminal velocity and not constitute a lethal threat, but at an angle they might. In any case, don't shoot your guns in the air!

Speaking of firearms terminology errors in otherwise respectable shows, did anyone see the recent Frontline episode "Tank Man", about the Tianenmen Square protests and the Chinese economic boom in the wake of economic liberalization coupled with continued authoritarian political repression? Fantastic and excellent show, but with one or two minor but jarring sour spots where narrator referred to PLA troops attacking protesters with "semi-automatic weapons", as if those were somehow particularly heinous. My personal feeling that non-gun people sometimes like to add the word "semi" to "automatic" because they think it sounds more sinister, despite the fact that it means the exact opposite of what they thought they were trying to say. Not like it was directly relevant to the topic of the program, but...
 
I kept wondering whether or not they tried bump firing the Garand from that rest they rigged up. :D
 
I posted the following on their forums:

You loose some credibility when you misuse terminology. With regard to the "shoot a bullet into the air" episode:

The M-1 Garand is a Battle Rifle, not an Assault Rifle. The 9mm pistol uses a detachable magazine, not a clip. The M-1 Garand uses a clip, which is inserted into the rifle's internal magazine.

Definitions:

Clip: A clip is a device pushed into the magazine of a firearm to load it in one action. A clip-loading weapon needs the clip for proper operation; one cannot load it with loose cartridges.

Magazine: A magazine is an ammunition storage device within or attached to a firearm. The magazine may be integral to the firearm (fixed) or removable (detachable).

Assault Rifle: Assault rifles are selective fire intermediate-power rifles.

Battle Rifle: A battle rifle or main battle rifle is a military longarm firing a full sized rifle cartridge. It may be manually operated, self loading (semi-automatic) or capable of selective fire. It is designed to effectively engage targets at ranges in excess of 500 meters with individually aimed fire.
 
Tanksoldier;
You shouldn't chide other people for not being able to use the correct terminolgy unless you are able to use it yourself.

There is no such term as battle rifle that was ever used by any army to identify a particular type of rifle.

The term was coined by some gunwriter for a mainstream gun magazine to separate full caliber rifles from intermediate caliber rifles.

The US Army has always had rifles and carbines. We've never identified any long arm that was issued as an assault rifle or a battle rifle or a main battle rifle.

In fact we called the forerunner to the M4 carbine, the XM177 series a submachine gun, even though it clearly was not.

No accepted reference such as Small Arms of the World divides rifles and carbines into groupings like that.

When select fire, intermediate caliber weapons (assault rifles) were adopted by the armies of the world, they replaced the full caliber semi only and select fire rifles in general issue. The older rifles were relegated to second line duty with reserve forces, put in storage, sold or given away to allied nations, or issued to ceremonial units. Those that remained in inventory are used in marksmanship competition or brought out of storage for special purpose uses.

Jeff
 
Thank you, Musher.

An M1 Garand/03/etc. is no more an "Assault Rifle" than a dump truck is a sports car. You can dress up some economy commuter car and call it a sports car like you can dress up a semiauto rifle and call it an assault rifle (looks don't make is so), but calling a .30 cal battle rifle an assult rifle is absurd.
 
Not trying to be a grammar nazi...

... But this really bugs me.

You loose some credibility...

You yourself will LOSE some credibility if you cannot distinguish between "lose" and "loose." "Loose" is what you get if you have not tightened a screw/nut/rope/etc. "Lose" is what happens when something is gone entirely.

While I don't quibble with your definitions (although I think the emphasis on "battle rifles" by many is a little overblown IMHO), although this is a more and more common spelling error, those who commit it run the risk of having their comments viewed with less weight.
 
Tanksoldier;
You shouldn't chide other people for not being able to use the correct terminolgy unless you are able to use it yourself


Well put Jeff, I could not have said it as well as you did. Thank you.
 
Myths

Back on topic...:p

I watched part of the show last night..and it raises a question as to the lethality of falling bullets. If a dropped .30 caliber/150 grain bullet will penetrate 2 inches deep into what appeared to be hard, dry soil...sideways...
what would it do to soft tissue or a human skull. Also...The tumbling bullet has at least a decent chance of impacting point on. How much would that increase the depth of penetration and damage in living tissue?

They may be satisfied that it's non-lethal velocity...but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be standing in the beaten zone of a 20-30 count, 400-foot drop.
 
Interesting show, but I have to ask . . . so what did they do that hadn't already been covered in Hatcher's Notebook more than a generation ago? :confused:

And it would have been more interesting if they said something about the effect of conservation of angular momentum (the Earth is revolving on its axis) on the ultimate impact point of the returning bullet . . .
 
Mythbusters vs. Hatchers

Nothing new, really, except it's presented visually, to a wider audience.

It would have been a good thing if their researcher had found, and they reference, Hatcher's notebook.

As far as the earth's rotation is concerned, wouldn't the velocity imparted by the rotation stay with the round (absent air resistance)? I have to get some work done this morning:D and don't have time to think about it much.
 
Good show!

Isn't having a string near a semiautomatic rifle to actuate the trigger considered a machine gun if there are any loops tied into the string? (Not that they haven't accidently made fully auto weapons before... :neener: )

-Colin
 
Then there is.....

the gyroscopic progression of the spinning bullet when fired from a gun. But, there would not be any progression if the bullet was dropped.

The reason people call magazines "clips" is from the sound it makes when inserted into the gun.........chris3
 
Yep, they demonstrated Hatcher's work and showed to the viewing public that a bullet falling at terminal velocity has poor potential for a lethal wound. And, yes, they should have referenced Hatcher.
 
In fact we called the forerunner to the M4 carbine, the XM177 series a submachine gun, even though it clearly was not.


You should clue in the Russians, Bulgarians, and Yugoslavians then. They also refer to their assault rifles as sub-machine guns.
http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/history.html

What Jeff is alluding to is that there is no set rule as to what defines an 'assault rifle', 'machinegun', etc. You are just helping to make his point.

They are, however, different countries and may have their own set of hard or soft rule on what to call things. The term "assault rifle" was actually used as an official name, but not in this country.
 
hksw said:
They are, however, different countries and may have their own set of hard or soft rule on what to call things. The term "assault rifle" was actually used as an official name, but not in this country.

Like the StG44? :)
 
Tuner
The tumbling bullet has at least a decent chance of impacting point on. How much would that increase the depth of penetration and damage in living tissue?
I think they covered that possibility by shooting bullets using air pressure at terminal velocity at a pig's head. I certainly wouldn't want to take that kind of hit, but it didn't appear lethal.

One thing that confused me was the doctor who had documented evidence of a bullet causing death from a rifle fired one mile away. He used the term "falling at terminal velocity" when describing the incident. That bullet certainly wasn't going 150 fps when it killed that guy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top