Neat article on Guns.

[Seattleite]

The only "miracle" is that he was never shot through the heart. He did have both lungs punctured, along with his liver, but thankfully his heart, aorta and subclavian arteries were not damaged. He also suffered two shots to the head, don't forget. One only broke his jaw and damaged (but thankfully also clamped his jawbone into) his carotid artery, the other blew off a quarter of his frontal lobe. By all rights, he SHOULD have died, and if there wasn't a doctor close by (I'm assuming, no way he'd make it far before he bled out) he would have.

I KNOW that's an extreme example, but there was no "miracle" here and if all those had been .45 bullets his lungs would have been completely non-functional and he'd be a dead man. He owes his survival, in part, to the poor stopping power of the rifle rounds being used against him. The other parts are them missing his heart, probably good medical attention from a nearby doctor, and being a tough enough son of a bitch to get up with both lungs full of blood and find one of those doctors.

You can totally survive a gunshot wound through any organ in the body, save one. The heart. The only other place you can't survive a gunshot wound is the thalmus, a very tiny part of the brain. And for the record, bullets have a very hard time breaking the spine. Even rifle rounds at close range. The spine is thick, very tough, and its rounded surface means most bullets just ricochet off the vertebrae and do *nothing* to the spinal cord.

 

[Tower75]

Not as much as you'd think. Rifles actually don't have much stopping power, and pretty poor lethality, due to their small bore. And there are accounts of people not even noticing gunshot wounds right away. The stopping power of a .303 is pretty good for a rifle, kinda, but that's not really that much.

May I ask, where have you got that from? Rifles have a LOT of stopping power, esp. rifles chambered in "full length" cartridges, such as the .303". I've seen a .303" punch through a tree at 300 metres and it'll drop you at 1,000 metres.

Poor lethality? Erm... what? Ask any one that's been on the receiving end of a Lee Enfield what they think about the "poor lethality" of a rifle.

At point blank range a .303" would put a hole in you the size of your fist, well, the exit wound would be.

The muzzle velocity of a .303" from leaving the muzzle is about 700-odd metres per second with about 50,000-odd pounds of pressure per square inch.

Modern rifles, chambered for "intermediate" cartridges have nothing on a rifle chambered for a "full length" cartridge.

 

[Seattleite]

You old-school "energy transfer" purists drive me nuts. You're barely better than the even older-school "muzzle energy" nutjobs.

May I ask, where have you got that from? Rifles have a LOT of stopping power, esp. rifles chambered in "full length" cartridges, such as the .303". I've seen a .303" punch through a tree at 300 metres and it'll drop you at 1,000 metres.

Laughably incorrect. Human flesh is not plasticine, and is very good at absorbing kinetic energy with little damage, so making a bullet go really, really super fast does almost nothing to increase the amount of damage it does. The biggest factor is the bore, which is generally smaller in rifles than in pistols. Not to mention the body can withstand ridiculously massive amounts of damage and continue functioning.

Poor lethality? Erm... what? Ask any one that's been on the receiving end of a Lee Enfield what they think about the "poor lethality" of a rifle.

You mean like Wenseslao Moguel, who ate nine bullets from .303 rifles at close range, waited for the firing squad to leave, then got up and walked away? The guy whose only permanent trauma was from his head wounds, and who lived a full life after that? You think I should ask him all about the stopping power of the rifle that didn't "drop" him?

At point blank range a .303" would put a hole in you the size of your fist, well, the exit wound would be.

Also laughably incorrect. All talk about "fist-sized holes" is incorrect. The skin is stiff and tears wider than other tissues, so there are long tears where a bullet exits. That is your "fist-sized hole". The tears around the exit wound reach as far across as a fist. And fist-sized isn't very big for that, especially since that's a MEANINGLESS topical injury that adds NOTHING to stopping power.

The muzzle velocity of a .303" from leaving the muzzle is about 700-odd metres per second with about 50,000-odd pounds of pressure per square inch.

Again, meaningless. It transfers very little of that energy to the target because its pressure is so high. It goes right through with no serious resistance, transferring a couple hundred joules to the target, a thousand at the most. And that is seriously not as damaging as the bleeding hole it made in the organs it passed through. The most significant thing to a rifle's stopping power is organ damage. While the energy added is significant, it's not nearly as big of a factor as the hole left unless the organ is especially stiff, like in bones, the kidneys, liver or brain. The most significant factor in lethality is blood loss, where the rifle is even less effective as the smaller permanent wound cavity allows less bleeding and the added concussive injury from the temporary doesn't contribute as much to bleeding even for the amount of damage it adds.

Modern rifles, chambered for "intermediate" cartridges have nothing on a rifle chambered for a "full length" cartridge.

A full-length rifle has better range, a smoother trajectory and better penetrating power, and those are its only major advantages compared to a shorter rifle with the same bore. While these things are all great, you only need so much. It doesn't matter that your rifle is more effective beyond 800m if you're shooting from 200. It doesn't matter either that your rifle can punch through twelve walls instead of eight if there's only one between you and your target. And it doesn't matter if your rifle drops 25% less if the drop would only take the bullet from "upper half of left lung" to "lower half of left lung".

The increase in stopping power, while present, is hardly significant because the people we shoot with them are made of meat and not play-doh. Human flesh is elastic, can can stretch from the energy transfer without flying to pieces, and can return to normal afterwards. While there will be some additional crush and tear injuries due to the added velocity of the bullet, they will be minor and mostly in the adipose tissue and very small blood vessels like capillaries. You are adding more energy to the bullet to add minor lacerations and big bruises. That's not insignificant, but a lower-velocity round would allow for more and better shots, which is infinitely superior to a slightly more damaging shot. A shorter cased round is just as good at short to medium range against soft targets, while allowing for a lighter, more manoeuvrable rifle and having softer recoil to allow for multiple shots.

If the bore is the same: Assault rifles > Battle rifles at most ranges. A 7.62x39 is more effective than a 7.62x51 at 2m, 20m and 200m. The fact that it'd be less effective at 2000m really doesn't matter.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Just a reminder that I expect discussions to be civil. I do not expect people to start being abusive to others because they have a different point of view - no matter how wrong it appears to be.

In the meantime, I've removed a couple of posts that went that way - let's see if we can continue on a more civilised footing.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Without wanting to get into a scrap over this, I did a little googling. If we're talking the Mexican Civil War circa 1911 - 1920, the chances were that the 303's were firing Mk II bullets - full metal jacket. My understanding is that these sorts of bullets are more likely to pass through a person without fragmenting, compared to later bullets which were hollow points and flat noses. That's probably the first thing that saved this chap's life.

On top of that you can probably add a fair dollup of luck that the bullets missed many of his vital organs, and if it was a firing squad and then the men were all lined up in a row, the angle of impact from each shot would vary as well. Some of the shots were likely at a more acute angle and bounced off things.

Then there's also the likelihood that these were older weapons, poorly maintained - (he says knowing nothing of Mexico in those days save that it was a poor country.) Fouling of the weapons from not being cleaned (they originally fired black powder) may also have slowed muzzle velocity.

Still with eight bullets in him the man was undoubtedly very lucky to survive.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Seattleite]

Hi,

Without wanting to get into a scrap over this, I did a little googling. If we're talking the Mexican Civil War circa 1911 - 1920, the chances were that the 303's were firing Mk II bullets - full metal jacket. My understanding is that these sorts of bullets are more likely to pass through a person without fragmenting, compared to later bullets which were hollow points and flat noses. That's probably the first thing that saved this chap's life.

Full metal jacketed ammunition is the standard required by international law, and more effective in battle because of greater range, penetrating power and accuracy, although its stopping power is legitimately terrible.

On top of that you can probably add a fair dollup of luck that the bullets missed many of his vital organs, and if it was a firing squad and then the men were all lined up in a row, the angle of impact from each shot would vary as well. Some of the shots were likely at a more acute angle and bounced off things.

Of course. I think I noted his luck a ways back, actually.

Then there's also the likelihood that these were older weapons, poorly maintained - (he says knowing nothing of Mexico in those days save that it was a poor country.) Fouling of the weapons from not being cleaned (they originally fired black powder) may also have slowed muzzle velocity.

Fouling has a negligible effect on muzzle velocity, black powder was no longer in use, and these were Spanish federales executing him.

Still with eight bullets in him the man was undoubtedly very lucky to survive.

Cheers, Greg.

Well, yes, he was lucky. And quite tough. That never really was the point, though, neither thing would have mattered had the weapons or ammunition used been larger-bore.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I saw the following video on YouTube, and thought it might be interesting for this discussion.

Certainly not the quiet popping of film, or the "sneeze" Agatha Christie once described in a Miss Marple book.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I saw the following video on YouTube, and thought it might be interesting for this discussion.

Certainly not the quiet popping of film, or the "sneeze" Agatha Christie once described in a Miss Marple book.

Depends on a number of factors I'd guess. There are some designs that might be described as 'sneezing'. At least compared to a normal suppressed gun!

Here's a specialised assassination weapon developed by SOE in WW2 - the Welrod (it's difficult to tell what the environment is doing to the shot sound, you can hear the echo in the above video and it seems much more open in this clip):

But here's another venerable weapon being fired that was specifically designed for being quiet - the De Lisle Carbine:

From the Wikipedia it was (in 1943) "informally tested by firing the weapon into the River Thames from the roof of the New Adelphi building in London. This was chosen to discover if people in the street below heard it firing – they did not."

Possibly there were some other designs that were specifically 'assassination' type weapons as well, but I'm not up to speed on weird weaponry.

The other thing to remember (and I don't know if the two video's I've included used this) is that to further decrease sound they probably used sub-sonic ammunition. That will remove the 'crack' or 'angry bee' sound. It makes me think that the guy firing the suppressor gun, you had posted Brian, might have been still using normal supersonic ammunition for the comparison.

I don't know what weapon Agatha Christie was talking about or when she wrote it, but both weapons were definitely much more like a sneeze!

 

[Brian G Turner]

Indeed, but those appear to be specialist weapons designed solely to be fired as quietly as possible - as opposed to the frequent images in film where any gun + silencer = quiet shooting.

 

[Ursa major]

It makes me think that the guy firing the suppressor gun, you had posted Brian, might have been still using normal supersonic ammunition for the comparison.

There's a text screen after the demonstration that states that the shooter did not have any subsonic ammunition at the time.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Indeed, but those appear to be specialist weapons designed solely to be fired as quietly as possible - as opposed to the frequent images in film where any gun + silencer = quiet shooting.

Again it depends

For example, in Inception, Cobbs uses a pistol where he screws on a silencer right at the start...but it's in a dream, so of course it will just make a 'phut' sound and nothing else

 

[Edward M. Grant]

Indeed, but those appear to be specialist weapons designed solely to be fired as quietly as possible - as opposed to the frequent images in film where any gun + silencer = quiet shooting.

Ah, the good old 70s cop show, where the bad guy puts a silencer on a revolver and it goes 'phut!' because TV writers never even thought about how a revolver cylinder is supposed to form a gas-tight seal with the barrel.

As for those specialist weapons, with a locked-bolt .22 with a suppressor and subsonic ammo about all you hear is a click when the firing pin hits the cartridge. But you probably only get one chance, because you have to manually cycle the gun between shots.

 

[zmunkz]

What about that movie where they were bending the flight path of a bullet so it would curve around objects rather than just go straight?

I thought that was a bit far fetched.

Mythbusters tried that one, it was busted: MythBusters Episode 123: Curving Bullets

 

[Joshua Jones]

If anyone has any specific questions about guns, feel free to ask me. I grew up with guns and my brother is a gunsmith and registered collector. If I don't know the answer, he surely will.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Yes, I have a question. When will they all be turned into ploughshares?

 

[Mirannan]

Yes, I have a question. When will they all be turned into ploughshares?

About the same time lions lay down with lambs.

 

[Joshua Jones]

Yes, I have a question. When will they all be turned into ploughshares?

Depending on your theology, sometime between now and Christ's return, though I have a feeling they may have a more industrial transformation...

 

[Mirannan]

There is a serious issue hiding here, IMHO. The various killing sprees that have been happening for a while (leaving aside terrorist incidents, which although linked are a separate issue) are a consequence of two factors, one of which is new (availability of easy-to-use rapid-firing weapons) and the other of which is as old as humanity; some people are mentally ill, and some of those are violently so.

Both issues are difficult to deal with, and the first will soon get much worse - of which more later. The first because the weapons exist, and in the case of the USA there are several hundred million in circulation - the vast majority legally. The second is going to take major changes in the human condition.

Now for the delayed discussion. Anyone reading and contributing to this board knows that appallingly powerful instrumentalities are going to be available, to people tinkering in basements, within maybe 30-40 years. These include gene-tailored microorganisms and nanotech goo.

Now let's imagine someone with the mindset of the typical computer virus writer, who often uses a kit he downloaded from a dodgy site. And combine it with a cheap gene-tailoring lab and the inevitable creation of attack genomes - written "just for a laugh" (a very sick one) or maybe even by someone who actually wants everyone to die - could be a religiously-inspired terrorist, could be a "deep green" enviro-nutter.

Guns are not a problem - they are tools, albeit with a very narrow reason for being. People are the problem. Humanity has to grow up or die - and if we can't manage that, then we have to spread out enough so that when a superplague or grey goo infestation happens, it doesn't kill everyone.

I would like to refer to the Fermi Paradox. The previous paragraph is the start of one answer to that.

 

[ralphkern]

Silenced weapons:

There are three phases of a rounds flight which cause noise (arguably a forth).

1. Initial explosion of the propellant. And it is an explosion. It causes a bang, which can be compensated for with silenced weapons.

2. More crucially, the sound of a round going supersonic. Much like a fighter jet, it will make a supersonic bang as it breaks the sound barrier. This can be compensated for by subsonic rounds. These are FAR less effective. They have little or no armour piercing capability. Albeit they can be nastier as they lodge in the body rather than travelling through. If the subject is wearing armour, probably no beuno.

3. The sound of passage. Assuming, as in 99% of the cases, it isn't the supersonic bang which first alerts one to an incoming round, then the first one will hear of it is a hissing or zipping sound. The round has travelled faster than the speed of sound, it is faster than its own 'gun shot'.

- No way to defeat this. It is simple flight of passage mechanics occuring -

4. Whatever it hits. If a Michael Bay film, something which will explode. If real life, it will tend to 'thud' into something. But whatever it hits will make a different noise.

Silenced or not, the order of the sounds one will hear for an individual shot is - 'Zip', 'thud','bang' (or a click / pop for a correctly silenced weapon with subsonic rounds)

When I was training on hand guns which tends to be <100 meters. a third of a second between the (zip, thud) and bang.

When on carbines <100 - 300 meters. There can be as much as a second between the (zip, thud) and the (bang). (At 300 meters, try it, Zip, Thud, One missisipi, bang)

It just gets more distinct as you go to higher distances with rifles. At 600 meters, you will have around two seconds between the 'zip, thud' and the 'bang'.

For a very good representation of this, the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan. Listen when the landing craft drops its ramp:

Also, a scene from one of my books reflecting this:

Hold breath in lungs. Grayson smoothly squeezed the trigger, taking up its slack and then…


The rifle boomed.


The 0.338 Lapua Magnum round exploded out of the barrel at 805 meters per second. It soared silently across the smashed ruins of the city, outpacing the sound of its own gunshot.

Grayson watched as the figure walked back into his sights. As he reached the crosshairs, he dropped anticlimactically to the floor.

In other words, the subject was literally dead before he knew it. On hindsight, I probably shoud have said, it 'hissed over the city' or something, but c'est la vie. Perfection Is The Enemy Of Done.

Source -

Me: Police and TA firearms training.

 

[WarriorMouse]

The Welrod Pistol was specifically designed as an assassination weapon that could be used
A- in a public setting where its suppressed sound would be masked by other noises. ie; The assassination of a rival nations intelligence officer sitting at a cafe' along side a busy street.
B- in a quiet setting where it's suppressed sound would be odd but not considered alarming. ie; the killing of a person in a room of a public office building.
The Welrod (or similar copies of it) is still thought to be standard issue for quiet assassinations by a number of nations government intelligence groups.