Assaulted by a paint ball gun...

[stevebaby]

That doesn't make sense, since paint ball guns shoot above those speeds, close to 400 fps. Does that mean paint ball guns kill/penetrate people? Plus, as stated a lot, the bullet will probably be falling on its side, thus releasing its force over a great area. Yes, maybe that article is right, but only if the bullet is pointed foward, and hits the person that way.

And even though the bullet doesn't fall back down to earth in a perfect vertical line, it still can easily loose its ballistic trajectory even if fired a little off a vertical shot. This means also that the weather can play a big role, and cause freak accidents. Maybe the bullet should have lost its ballistic trajectory, but the wind blew or something, and caused it to keep on going in a lethal arc. And something opposite could happen too. A bullet that should have kept on a ballistic trajectory could have encounterd some winds or something, and started to tumble.

But at the end of all this, it is safe to say, that bullets fired straight up should generally not be lethal when coming back down.

The article applies to conventional bullets,not paintball projectiles.It's not just the velocity...the density of the bullet is also a factor.As you said,a frozen paintball would be a different story.
A falling bullet that follows the same path downward as upward may or may not be lethal.My point was that it is extremely unlikely for this to occur except in a vacuum chamber.Even robbie-boy agrees with that.As you say,the bullet only has to be a fraction of a degree off perpendicular to cause a potentially lethal terminal velocity.

 

[mitosis]

Actually, Im still right. Notice the weight of the bullets. Do you even know what weight a 9mm bullet is? No? 147gr. That 55 gr military load is falling at 404 ft/s, or probably about 125 m/s. Have you ever seen how fast a paintball is moving when it exits the barrel? Its actually about the same.

Youre also wrong about the spin. The spin is based on amount of twist of the firearm, so you cannot state that figure with any amount of certainty. Its just not possible.

Im well aware of the physics involved with this, and I conducted several studies on ballistics in different types of materials while I was in the Marines. You are a civilian, with a web browser and a "think you know it all" attitude.

It is YOU who are wrong on more than one account here. If you actually read any of those websites that "confirm" the ability of a falling bullet to kill, you would also read that the bullet tumbles due to wind resistance and loses its ballistic trajectory. The worse thats going to happen is a little broken skin, hardly skull penetration in order to cause death.

Youre barking up the wrong tree...

Point is: falling bullets can kill and do. Whether you are an expert or not, whether you admit it or not.

 

[stevebaby]

Exactly.There are way too many confirmed reports in the media for this to be a myth.It happens whether wobbie likes it or not.He's just being his usual trollish self and being unweasonable again.Now he's having a sulk because he's been proven wrong again.
If he follows form he will deny everything he's said,try to change the subject and throw in a few unsubstantiated whoppers.
If hangovers affect you that way,wobbie,maybe you should go easy on the sauce.

 

[SkinnyRob]

Point is: falling bullets can kill and do. Whether you are an expert or not, whether you admit it or not.

And I said it would, as long as it maintains ballistic trajectory. A bullet fired straight up, or within 10-15 degrees of vertical simply will not maintain its trajectory.

 

[SkinnyRob]

Exactly.There are way too many confirmed reports in the media for this to be a myth.It happens whether wobbie likes it or not.He's just being his usual trollish self and being unweasonable again.Now he's having a sulk because he's been proven wrong again.
If he follows form he will deny everything he's said,try to change the subject and throw in a few unsubstantiated whoppers.
If hangovers affect you that way,wobbie,maybe you should go easy on the sauce.

You are the troll, you obviously dont know what youre talking about, yet you continue to rant like you do. I think its YOU who need to lay off the "Im the expert on everything because Im a civilian with an internet browser and I can halfway read" sauce. You, like most, are going by hearsay, and thats fine, if you want to believe what everyone else tells you. I however, know the actual truth.

By the way, my name is Rob, and please learn how to spell. Thanks

 

[SkinnyRob]

What you actually said was..."A bullet is only going to fall between 150-200fps..."
"The worst it's going to do is put a lump on your skin or maybe break it."
"It is definitely not going to penetrate the bone though."
The article on wound ballistics from the surgeons at Baylor College of Medicine states quite clearly..."In describing bullet wounds,it only takes a speed of 125 to 230fps to penetrate the skin." and "Bone is penetrated at 200fps."
Any reasonable person can clearly see that the article on wound ballistics contradicts what you said.

Since you obviously (as I have explained this no less than FIVE TIMES ALREADY) cant read, as I have stated before, over and over again, a bullet that maintains its ballistic trajectory can do that. I never said it couldnt. That means, it enters TIP FIRST. Thats also assuming it has a tip and not a hollow point, or is a wadcutter type.

Not to mention the article from Baylor you mention ignores ballistic trajectories completely. It was written by a doctor. Unfortunately, doctors treat wounds, they arent ballistic experts. Funny, my wife (who is a doctor) doesnt argue with anything I say on this matter, mainly because Im right

 

[SkinnyRob]

Apology accepted.

Have to resort to twisting my words much? Good job...

 

[limerickman]

Fellas - what is it this weekend?
We have civil war breaking out on the racing threads - and it appears to be the same here as well.

I am not going contributing to this thread - because I know F-all about guns, ballistics etc.
But in re-reading what is posted here - there is an obvious difference of opinion.

By all means folks, you're entitled to disagree.

Just let's keep it civil.

Thanks for the co-operation.

 

[SkinnyRob]

Fellas - what is it this weekend?
We have civil war breaking out on the racing threads - and it appears to be the same here as well.

I am not going contributing to this thread - because I know F-all about guns, ballistics etc.
But in re-reading what is posted here - there is an obvious difference of opinion.

By all means folks, you're entitled to disagree.

Just let's keep it civil.

Thanks for the co-operation.

Why is there civil war in the racing threads, we already know Boonen is the best, and Basso will be winning the TdF.....

 

[stevebaby]

What you actually said was..."A bullet is only going to fall between 150-200fps..."
"The worst it's going to do is put a lump on your skin or maybe break it."
"It is definitely not going to penetrate the bone though."
The article on wound ballistics from the surgeons at Baylor College of Medicine states quite clearly..."In describing bullet wounds,it only takes a speed of 125 to 230fps to penetrate the skin." and "Bone is penetrated at 200fps."
Any reasonable person can clearly see that the article on wound ballistics contradicts what you said.

I don't like to quote my own post but I don't feel like re-typing the exact words that you posted...without the qualifications which you have now brought up as you have been proven incorrect.
The doctors who treat gunshot wounds regularly will naturally have a professional interest in the
cause of that injury,just as the doctors who treat say,bird 'flu,will naturally have a professional interest in the cause of that illness.Both military and forensic researchers have ,for obviously different reasons,spent a lot of time on the subject of how bullets wound or kill and the overwhelming weight of evidence says that bullets fired at random into the sky can cause death or injury.Noone has to be an expert on ballistics to understand that, just as noone has to be an aeronautical engineer to understand that people die when planes crash.

 

[SkinnyRob]

I don't like to quote my own post but I don't feel like re-typing the exact words that you posted...without the qualifications which you have now brought up as you have been proven incorrect.
The doctors who treat gunshot wounds regularly will naturally have a professional interest in the
cause of that injury,just as the doctors who treat say,bird 'flu,will naturally have a professional interest in the cause of that illness.Both military and forensic researchers have ,for obviously different reasons,spent a lot of time on the subject of how bullets wound or kill and the overwhelming weight of evidence says that bullets fired at random into the sky can cause death or injury.Noone has to be an expert on ballistics to understand that, just as noone has to be an aeronautical engineer to understand that people die when planes crash.

Well, Ill take that as your apology then. Ive already stated, and I never denied that bullets fired into the sky that maintain ballistic trajectory can kill. Doctors know about as much about ballistics as any civilian knows about military strategy, and thats not much. Doctors treat people, they dont research the ballistics behind what happened to them. To think such is foolish.

 

[stevebaby]

Well, Ill take that as your apology then. Ive already stated, and I never denied that bullets fired into the sky that maintain ballistic trajectory can kill. Doctors know about as much about ballistics as any civilian knows about military strategy, and thats not much. Doctors treat people, they dont research the ballistics behind what happened to them. To think such is foolish.

Take it any way you like but it is certainly not an apology.As you say,the average doctor will never treat a gunshot wound (at least in oz) but there are plenty of doctors (i.e.forensic pathologists and surgeons in say,northern ireland and probably israel) who unfortunately have to treat wounds caused by guns and of necessity have had to research both the causes and effects of gunshot injuries and they do have to learn about the ballistics involved.Ballistics is fairly basic physics and the average doctor would have no problem understanding the principles of ballistics.
As you say,bullets fired into the sky at random will almost always retain a ballistic trajectory and be capable of inflicting a potentially lethal wound.
The test of what is socially acceptable (according to Bentham) is the rule of utilitarianism...what is best for the greatest number.Somehow,I just can't see how the negligent discharge of firearms into the air (while it may temporarily amuse the people who do it ) can be balanced against the greater need (which is obviously ,to not be subjected to the possibility of lethal wounds from bullets falling out of the sky.)
Firing a gun into the air without knowing where the bullet may land is grossly irresponsible...even the NRA would agree with that.It's a basic principle of firearms use that you
always understand where the bullet may land if you miss your selected target and you never squeeze the trigger unless you have made yourself aware of that.

 

[mitosis]

And I said it would, as long as it maintains ballistic trajectory. A bullet fired straight up, or within 10-15 degrees of vertical simply will not maintain its trajectory.

No. You started your first post to me with "wrong".

I think your next post to me should start with something like.."sorry you were right."

Whether you qualify your answer or not you have now admitted that a falling bullet can kill. Thank you.

 

[SkinnyRob]

No. You started your first post to me with "wrong".

I think your next post to me should start with something like.."sorry you were right."

Whether you qualify your answer or not you have now admitted that a falling bullet can kill. Thank you.

Making a generaliztion like yours is wrong. Ive said, at least 10 times now, any bullet that maintains its ballistic trajectory can kill. Your EXACT post, in response to a post on bullets fired straight up:

Muzzle velocity would be greater than terminal velocity when the projectile falls back to earth.

So the impact on the ground would be less than if you fired the bullet into the ground.

Still enough to kill someone tho'.

Do I really need to explain all this again? You generalized your answer, which was wrong, and I called you on it.

 

[free_rideman]

Guys, this is the reason why the world is so screwed up today. If you can't solve something so simple between yourselves, than I don't think the rest of the world has any hope. And it isn't even something that imporant.

 

[mitosis]

Making a generaliztion like yours is wrong. Ive said, at least 10 times now, any bullet that maintains its ballistic trajectory can kill. Your EXACT post, in response to a post on bullets fired straight up:


Do I really need to explain all this again? You generalized your answer, which was wrong, and I called you on it.

My words: "Muzzle velocity would be greater than terminal velocity when the projectile falls back to earth."

So you thing that the bullet would fall to earth faster than it leaves the gun?

My words: "So the impact on the ground would be less than if you fired the bullet into the ground. "

So the bullet falling back to earth would strike the earth at a slower speed than if it were fired directly into the earth from the gun.

You think it would have greater impact?

You've misread my post and tried to start an argument while agreeing with me all the time.

Maybe someone else can explain to you the meaning of these words. The few people I've just shown them to have no problem with understanding their meaning.

 

[SBSpartan]

My words: "Muzzle velocity would be greater than terminal velocity when the projectile falls back to earth."

So you thing that the bullet would fall to earth faster than it leaves the gun?

My words: "So the impact on the ground would be less than if you fired the bullet into the ground. "

So the bullet falling back to earth would strike the earth at a slower speed than if it were fired directly into the earth from the gun.

You think it would have greater impact?

You've misread my post and tried to start an argument while agreeing with me all the time.

Maybe someone else can explain to you the meaning of these words. The few people I've just shown them to have no problem with understanding their meaning.

I agree with Free. Some of you are just being crazy at this point.

As for this post. I honestly have not read anything that goes against what you are saying so I really have no clue why you brought it up.

What is happening here is that people are not taking what is said in the context in which it is said. Instead, many are taking one post and applying that statement to a post that it has nothing to do with in order to attempt and prove a point.

Look, Rob is right.

Here is a recap.

1 - Is a bullet fired in the air likely to kill you? NO
2 - Can a bullet fired in the air possibly kill you? Yes, but this is pretty rare.

Bottom line is that Rob is pretty much dead on and everyone is just twisting posts to be right.

Lock it.

 

[mitosis]

I agree with Free. Some of you are just being crazy at this point.

As for this post. I honestly have not read anything that goes against what you are saying so I really have no clue why you brought it up.

What is happening here is that people are not taking what is said in the context in which it is said. Instead, many are taking one post and applying that statement to a post that it has nothing to do with in order to attempt and prove a point.

Look, Rob is right.

Here is a recap.

1 - Is a bullet fired in the air likely to kill you? NO
2 - Can a bullet fired in the air possibly kill you? Yes, but this is pretty rare.

Bottom line is that Rob is pretty much dead on and everyone is just twisting posts to be right.

Lock it.

Have you ever heard of idiots who dive in to save a drowning person and who end up drowning themselves?

 

[stevebaby]

The worse thats going to happen is a little broken skin, hardly skull penetration in order to cause death.

The question was not the
likelihood ,it was the possibility.
Which the above statement clearly denies.

 

[SBSpartan]

Have you ever heard of idiots who dive in to save a drowning person and who end up drowning themselves?

Have you ever read an entire post?