Shooting into the sky: Dropping bullets DO kill

[Hands of blue]

What people seem to be forgetting is there is a difference between dropping bullets and shot bullets.

If I were to go to a tall building and put to marks on the sidewalk and drop a bullet from the top of the building at one mark and shoot at the other mark there will be a difference.

Most of the time shooting into the air will result in shot bullets (stays stabilized and keeps speed) but if it is fired straight up it will be the same as dropping the bullet (will hit zero speed then fall back to the ground tumbling).

 

[DaveBeal]

Most of the time shooting into the air will result in shot bullets (stays stabilized and keeps speed) but if it is fired straight up it will be the same as dropping the bullet (will hit zero speed then fall back to the ground tumbling).

A bullet fired vertically upward is more likely to fall back base first than to tumble. It will remain stable because, while it's lost its upward velocity, it hasn't lost its rotation. See http://www.nennstiel-ruprecht.de/bullfly/faq.htm#Q13

 

[Zoogster]

I am amazed by such a wide desire to disbelieve the lethal danger posed.
The speed many rounds return to earth even shot straight up is several hundred feet per second.
Anyone can figure out the energy of such a round falling using the grains of the round and the speed it reaches.

Usualy this is between 60 and 100 foot pounds, even higher for big heavy rounds, which in the top of the head or entering between the shoulder and head can easily be lethal. Essentialy most exposed human bodyparts to the sky except the shoulder can easily be lethal.
The top of the skull is not nearly as strong as the front of the skull.
The energy levels of many rounds falling straight down is about that of a .22LR at the muzzle.

Now that is straight up, the "safest" way, which as I explained is still quite capable of being lethal. If you think the energy levels of a .22 in the top of your head is nothing, well by all means try it out.

Now fired at any angle even more energy is going to be retained on the rounds return in additional forward momentum. That means it is going to be even more dangerous, and is usualy the case considering the difficulties of firing straight up, and the reckless manner of those who do fire such rounds into the sky.

So one way is still potentialy lethal, the other is even more dangerous.

Mythbusters did a big disservice to many who are bad with math. They could not recover thier own bullets fired into the air so they simply dropped a few from relatively low height and measured the result. Since those dropped bullets had very little time to speed up the results were a mere fraction of what a truly fired bullet would be returning to earth. Since the speed of the returning round increases the energy exponential, thier primative method of deduction was flawed.
They couldn't figure out why thier horrible methods didn't prove it, but they found multiple cases of people who had been killed by falling rounds.

Falling objects gain 32 FPS, and continue to based on thier density and drag until they are going fast enough that thier drag creates enough resistance to reduce the gain. This happens very little for quite some time with a bullet on its return to earth, and more so at it approaches its terminal velocity.
Lead being one of the most dense materials, and bullets designed to cut through the air tend to have the best features all around for achieving near the highest terminal velocity possible.
Since bullets go quite high when fired into the sky, they have a lot of time to fall gaining speed.

The math is available to anyone that wants to figure it out.
The energy of returning rounds is fatal. Not reliably so to frontal parts of the body, but easily so to the parts of the body facing the sky.
Gambling with other people's lives is beyond irresponsible. The only life you have the right to gamble with is your own.

 

[JohnKSa]

Most of the time shooting into the air will result in shot bullets (stays stabilized and keeps speed) but if it is fired straight up it will be the same as dropping the bullet (will hit zero speed then fall back to the ground tumbling).

Mostly correct.

I have seen the results of a test (Mythbusters) that indicate pistol bullets tumble on the return trip when they are fired EXACTLY straight up. Terminal velocity was estimated at around 150fps. Not pleasant to get hit with but probably not terribly likely to be lethal.

I have seen the results of a test (Col. Julian Hatcher) that indicate rifle bullets remain spin stabilized and fall back base first when they are fired EXACTLY straight up. Terminal velocity was estimated at 300-400fps. Definite potential for causing serious injury or even death.

BOTH OF THOSE TESTS ARE LARGELY IRRELEVANT SINCE THEY DEAL WITH A SPECIAL CASE--BULLETS FIRED EXACTLY VERTICALLY.

Most of the time shooting into the air results in a steep trajectory because the bullets are not fired EXACTLY straight up. Under those circumstances the bullet will almost certainly remain spin stabilized and will return to earth, quite a long distance from the firing point, nose first with a velocity that is the vector sum of the terminal velocity (300-400fps since the bullet is stabilized) plus whatever horizontal velocity the bullet retained after air friction losses. There is no question that such a bullet has the potential for lethality. There are documented cases of people being killed and of damage to houses from descending bullets.

 

[Crunker1337]

About the Mythbusters experiment, it was totally inconclusive. Jaime and Adam couldn't prove either way anything about the lethality of bullets fired into the sky, and since they looked at the documented cases of bullets falling out the sky and killing people, they called the myth busted, plausible, and confirmed: because experimentally, either nothing was proven or it was proven non-lethal, but in real life, it was lethal.

In a nutshell, don't do it. Be sure of your target and what's behind it.

 

[JohnKSa]

About the Mythbusters experiment, it was totally inconclusive.

It was conclusive--but only as far as they actually had data for. They went farther based on some assumptions and that part was incorrect which is why it contradicted real world data.

They recovered some pistol bullets fired straight up in the air and used the information from that data point to make the assumption that ALL bullets would tumble (they could never recover any rifle bullets). Hatcher's tests showed that at least some rifle bullets don't tumble so while the Mythbusters' conclusion is right for at least some pistol bullets (when fired exactly straight up) it is clearly incorrect for at least some rifle bullets.

They also didn't properly cover the difference between what happens when a bullet is fired EXACTLY straight up vs a steep trajectory.

That is a critical omission--a steep trajectory yields very different results from a bullet fired perfectly vertically.

 

[thexrayboy]

All of the theoretical physics, the ballistic calculations, the controlled experiments and the discussion of these ad infinitum ad nauseum are fine.
However the basic facts of the matter are that if you fire a weapon into the air there is a real, substantive and measurable risk that an innocent person will be harmed or killed. There are far too many police investigations documenting holes in ceilings that correspond to holes in people to deny the utter stupidity of the act.

Argue all you want about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or if Bigfoot really exists. No harm no foul. Whether or not shooting into the air is dangerous or not is not subject to opinion or interpretation. It is exceedingly dangerous and any one who contemplates doing so is courting tragedy and potential criminal consequences.