What flaming moron thought of this one?

[Questor]

I keep re-reading the old gun writer's chestnut that it is better for a bullet to dump all its energy inside the animal and not pass through. That is total BS so long as the bullet expands and does some damage to the vitals.  Where did this stupid idea originate?, it makes no sense at all.  I, for one, want a big messy blood trail that leads to a nearby dead animal. And two holes are definitely better than one. Especially if they both leak a lot.

Second question (dag nabbit!):
Have the gun writers become irrelevant now that we have the Web and can hash things out for ourselves without having the one-way communication of print media? It seems like the ABC/NBC/CBS news anchors and their increasing anonymity and irrelevance.

[Mohawk]

Boy, is that a can of worms!!! I too like a good blood trail. I don't believe in the energy theory. And yes, I think gunwriters are pretty much a thing of the past. I also believe whether a bullet expands or not it is the damage it does that makes the difference. In rifles the energy transfer does significant damage but it is the tearing of vitals, not shock, that kills the critter. But this topic is so heated that flaming is inevitable. Kind of like the stopping power topic. I still believe the LRN .38's will save your life, so I get flamed all the time. Would gunwriters flame Col. Charles Askins for using the same load and being happy with it? Probably not. But they should to be fair. Oh, and if you disagree with the "energy" crowd in regards to handguns you mysteriously get booted from the discussion(can't log-in anymore). I guess I asked too many questions about shot placement and what anatomical structures the bullets hit. I'm a BAD influence, I guess.  

[Graybeard]

Dunno who first came up with the idea that "dumping" bullet energy in the animal is the proper and best method of killing game. Heck it may even have been Jack O'Connor as he was a small bullet and high velocity man. But yes it is wrong. I some times think that no magazine writer in the last 40 years has had an original thought of his own or done any "real world" hunting.

Now nearly all of the magazine writer's job seems to be going on a free (paid for by whichever company wants their product promoted this month) guided hunt. The guide does the hunting and the writer the shooting. They are there to test the new product by slaying one or two head of game and firing 2-3 groups on paper at some point. Most of their reviews are done after firing one box or less of ammo it seems. Some times none are fired.

Living breathing critters whether of the wild game variety or humans are killed in one of two ways when shot. Method one is you distrupt or damage the central nervous system (CNS) thereby shutting down all vital body functions and death follows. OR you damage enough tissue to cause massive blood lost which in turn leads to shutting down the CNS which in turn shuts down all vital body functions. It really is that simple. There just are no other ways to do it.

In rifles the energy transfer does significant damage but it is the tearing of vitals, not shock, that kills the critter.

This is another erroneous theory not substantiated by facts. Bullets do not "transfer" energy. In fact what they do is to "absorb" energy. Bullets have forward motion called velocity. When the bullet impacts flesh and/or bone this velocity is arrested rather rapidly. The velocity vector is transformed into heat and damage is done both to the bullet and whatever it has impacted. The bullet absorbs the heat energy it doesn't dump it. Look at it like the impact absorbing features built into modern vehicles. Car manufacturers don't talk about the ability of their vehicles to transfer energy. They talk about their ability to absorb it thus protecting the occupants from absorbing it. That's the same thing the bullet does. Just like the vehicle when it strikes an at rest object it absorbs energy from the forward motion of the bullet.

The energy numbers are paper numbers only, not real world "work" figures which are not measured in foot pounds but in pound feet.

Yes a high velocity projectile that expands and absorbs a lot of the velocity and rotation energy in it can created nice wound channels and thus create massive and rapid blood loss. Some times if near enough to the CNS it can even cause the animal to drop to the shot. So can bit slow ones if close enough to the CNS.

I'm of the school that wants an exit hole and the larger the better. I've shot enough critters in my life to know not all fall to the shot. Unless the CNS has been damaged in fact I've seen darn few fall to the shot. Arrows have precious little energy as computed by the energy theory nuts. But in fact kill very effectively. In fact on average the bow shot game I've taken has fallen closer to the spot it stood when hit than my rifle killed game. And also strangely has my handgun killed game.

Oh, and if you disagree with the "energy" crowd in regards to handguns you mysteriously get booted from the discussion(can't log-in anymore).

Dunno where that happens but not at GBO I'm sure. Better not at least.

But this topic is so heated that flaming is inevitable.

Again flaming is not allowed at GBO. We'll discuss it without that no matter which side of this one folks are on.

[Castaway]

I stopped buying magazines years ago, with the exception of Handloader.  Handloader sells information, the others sell products as stated by GB above.  I would buy one if it was filled with different writers penning "My Most Regrettable Article."  That would give them an opportunitiy to recant some of the inane things said over the years supporting an inane comment earlier on in their careers.

[OrangeWing]

I saw a large white tail shot at 40 yards broad side heart lung shot with a 300 ultra mag 180grain.  It was not a nice picture.  It just dropped in it's tracks.  Blood was dripping out it's mouth, nose & ears from a lung shot.  I call that energy transfer.  Varmint Hunter is also a great magizine.  I also saw another one that was shot with the same as above from the rear quarter & bullet hit the hip bone first.  It looked like it was hit by a semi truck.  It was a big waste of meat.  The deer was torn apart real bad.  As for writers there are not many left worth reading.

[New Hampshire]

I think that perhaps it is because writers today seem to pulling double duty.  They write about killing things, both 4 legged and 2, and seem to correlate the two together.  As we all know, shooting a 4 legged critter for recovery is a BIG difference from shooting a 2 legged critter in defence.  A good example is guys like David Fortier (not that I dont like the guy, as a matter of fact I think he is a pretty decent gun writer.)  I read in shooting times an article about about a hunt with the new .25WSSM and a few issues later he is comparing a Mauser and Nagant on human sized targets and such.  And then he is writing in Shotgun news about the new est, baddest sniper rifle.  I personaly think writers should stick to one area of expertise.  Massad Ayoob ONLY writes about handguns and self defense.  Jim Shocky does the Hunting thing.  When you begin crossing then someone is going to think that shooting humans can somehow relate to shooting deer.
But thats just my opinion.
Brian M.

[Gregory]

Has anyone read the October issue of Outdoor Life's shooting column by Jim Carmichel?  In it he refers to an article about how a bum shot would be more likely to connect on a follow up shot than a skilled marksmen.  Mr. Carmiichel says: "it  was about the dumbest thing he'd ever read. (Of course that was before the advent of Internet shooting forums)."

Do you think someone is feeling threatened?

[Mohawk]

GB, I don't get it. If the bullet aborbs the energy then there should be no wounding at all, with the exception of impact.

[Redhawk1]

I read the gun rags with a grain of salt. The writers are obligated to come up with something even if it is wrong. We the hunters know better.  

[KYsquirrelsniper]

The energy dump theory is a complete joke IMO, and probably was likely first dreamed up by someone who loved lightweight, high velocity rifle rounds ( a few names come to mind here). As for myself, I just want a bullet that goes in, creates a large wound channel through the vital organs, and once it has went through the vital organs I really don't care whether it exits or not, although I will admit an exit wound will greatly aid in tracking if you goofed and didn't hit where you should have. However, I do get particularly nervous about a bullet that does not exit on a good broadside shot, as it tells me the bullet might not penetrate well enough for a strong quartering shot.

As for gun writers and magazines, for the most part I quit reading them a few years ago. Maybe every 6 months I'll see a particular cover story that seems interesting and I'll spend my money on it. Of course 90% of the time I go home, read the whole magazine within an hour and think to myself "I wish I'd kept my money, these people are full of it" :roll:. Personally, I prefer the internet. Of course you still have to be careful because there's always a BSer in every crowd, but for the most part, the people on shooting forums have always seemed to be regular guys (and gals) that just like to hunt and shoot and will give you their honest opnion. Even though you may not always agree with them, in most cases people on the net are giving you their honest opinion that isn't being influenced by whether or not they get paid for what they write.

[crawfish]

Big flat nosed bullets that make big holes through tissue, bone, and organs that pass through kill animals real dead, real quick. That big hole drops blood pressure to zero instantaneously, broken shoulders, zero BP = animals dead in their tracks. Every handgun hunter knows that the energy dump thing doesn’t wash. They also know that you don’t need 3000FPS to kill animals, hell you don’t even need 1500fps. With the right bullet 1250 at the muzzle is enough.
Funny thing about gun rags, I logged on to my first forum (AR) in August 2000. I had just had major surgery on my right shoulder and was pretty much regulated to the house until November that year. So I found these forums. I let my subscriptions lapse, haven’t purchased one since. I find out about new stuff here, get field reports from shooters/hunters who don’t have anything to gain buy talking up a product or lose by trashing one.

[Questor]

I just picked up the December issue of Guns and Ammo and page 12 was worth the price of the magazine.  Read it if you get a chance.  All of the letters are very interesting.

[Mikey]

Folks, as I recall the 'energy dump theory' it began with police shootings and the like when they moved away from the 357 and 41 magnums some street officers were pakin' in the midwestern states and moved to calibers and ammo that wouldn't penetrate so badly.  It was a 'people' thing, not a 'hunting' thing and then some idjit took it to hunting.  

The first example that comes to mind was in the early to mid-60s when the Illinois State Police were using Python 357s and some of the older armor piercing bullets - in a significant number of instances those slugs would shoot right through a car body and into someone's Thanksgiving Dinner - while it was being served.  That prompted the ISP to go to the 9mm S&W Model 39.  Also in Ill were a number of city police shootings that resulted in innocent victims being shot after a complete pass-through on a bad guy, prompting a return to the 38 Spl or 38 Spl loads in 357s. for a while.

From my perspective with hunting, big flat nosed bullets that leave a big hole going in and a big hole going out are my preference.  I can tell you that from the few bears I have taken (maybe half a dozen) and especially those who were eye-balling my relative position on their food chain, when you shoot you want that bullet to do as much damage to muscle, bone and tissue as it can and there is where the 'energy dump' theory fails.


And Questor Ol Buddy, with 'rather the blather' on the way out, someone has to pick up his rantings - how else could those media morons manitain their anominity, and of course their irrelevance (lol).  Hay, how's Quester....  HTH.  Mikey.

[Questor]

Mikey:

It sounds like another network talking head resigned yesterday. Brokaw?  

Q. Puppus Doggus (his AKC name) is turning out to be a good rabbit hunting beagle. At the age of 11 months his hunting instincts just continue to improve every time we go after wascally wabbits.  We couldn't hunt for a few weeks because of our deer hunting down south and the deer seasons in the rabbit areas closer to home, but we returned to the field last Sunday. Arooo!  It's a great way to hunt.

[S.S.]

This is another one of those debates that will go on
until Satan is wearing an overcoat, mittens & boots!
Unfortunately so many people believe what they read
that they do not experiment themselves to actually
find out what is fact. I have argued the MOMENTUM
debate till I finally just gave up. (Some people believe
that Momentum and energy are the same thing and you just can't
convince them) :wink: .  I agree with the previous posts
about gun writers, They will sing the praises of whoever
pays them the most.  I quit reading most of that stuff
when Elmer Kieth and Fred Bear died. I think they are
the last two who really knew what they were talking about
anyway.

[IntrepidWizard]

You Boys have it right,and it is true on the Battle field,you read the old time writers and they were interested in Through and Through,best to have a 450 Exit holed animal than one walking around with 6 .22 shots.and that applys to Humans.

[safetysheriff]

I would be inclined to agree with the two-hole theory, and would leave the energy-dump theory behind, IF I hadn't seen some of the damage to white tailed deer that I've seen by landowners using .223's on deer.     The use of 55 and 60 gr' spire points very seldom generates an exit wound.....but the deer expire quickly.    Some, when hit in the blood vessels of the chest leading up to the neck/head drop over immediately.    It would agree with Carmichaels article some time back about blood pressure and hydraulic shock rupturing the brain.    Others drop Very Quickly from their lungs being turned into a massive blood clot.   That's right -- their lungs look like jello or a massive, wet blood clot.   It's amazing.....and it's something I've seen for myself.    

I don't agree with the bullet-receiving-the-energy theory if one thinks that the bullet gets it all.     Why else the difference in permanent wound channels with various bullets.    Why have so many had problems with meat damage form high-velocity .270 bullets, as well as others?   It's because the meat received the energy is what I think.....

Sounds like we've got an all-or-none argument going here.     Kind of like whether environment or genetics matter the most.....in certain theories.    I don't think the mind of God, our Creator, is so unimaginative that He could only work with one parameter at a time.     I think small-framed, lightly boned, relatively lightly-muscled critters can be killed by shock or by hemorrhage!    That includes whitetails, pronghorn, coyotes, young g-hogs, men, etc.    Bigger critters like cape buffalo and such aren't impressed with shock -- it would seem.    

I'd like to see an exit hole with every shot.....kind of as an intellectual thing of my own --- but have seen too many deer taken immediately with no such wound so that it leaves my exit-hole premise at a loss.

Just my experience,

SS'

[Don Dick]

I read a lot of what Jack O`Connor wrote about the 270 and at that time I hunted with a 308 and disagreed with him.  A couple of years ago I picked up a 270 and shot my first deer with it and the 130 grain Federal Premium ammo.  What that bullet did to that deer changed my mind about the 270 and 130 grain bullets for ever.  Jack was right about the 270.  

No I am not a theory person, I like to see what the bullet does on the game I pursue.   I have shot clean thru a deer facing me with 240 grain HP from a mussleloader with sabbots.  That deer was nice enought to run up the hill toward me before he expired.  Less of a drag to the truck.

Both methods work; fast bullets like the 270 130 grain, and slow bullets
like the 240 hp.  Either way the deer is just as dead.  I  lost more meat to the 270.

[safetysheriff]

Don D'

Jan' 3rd will be 26 years ago that we lost one of our twins right after their birth.    The other is severely retarded, and multiply-handicapped.   I'm sorry for the loss that your closing documents.    I know how much it can hurt.

Best Regards,

SS'

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

I don't buy the Kinetic energy whole-heartedly, but I don't disgard it either.

Energy dumping is definitely what a bullet does.  And how violently it does that determines how much tissue damage is done.

Like the saying goes, "it isn't the fall, it's the sudden stop at the end that kills you."  (in reference to falling from great heights).  It is much the same with bullets.  It isn't how fast the bullet is going, it's how much it slows down.

To measure energy transfer you would have to set up a chronograph right before the deer's chest, and one immediately on the other side.  You measure the spead of the bullet going in, and the speed going out.  If the bullet fragments, you would also have to weigh the bullet before and after.  With those numbers you calculate the Kinetic energy the bullet has at impact, and the amount it has left over after exiting, the difference is the amount transferred.

To say that a bullet that stops on the other side is the ideal is stupid.  That just means that the bullet dumped all it's energy in the animal - it doesn't mean that it dumped a whole lot of energy.

For example, I can shoot a whitetail with a .54 caliber roundball at 100 yards and recover said ball from hide.  I can kill similar deer with .30-30 at same distance and have an exit wound.  

At 100 yards my .54 ball will have roughly 650 ft-lbs of KE by the time it impacts the chest.  Since it didn't exit, I know it dumped 650 ft-lbs of KE in the deer.  

At 100 yards a 150 grain .30-30 bullet will be going 2018fps, carrying 1356 ft-lbs of KE.  If I managed to get the deer to stand between chronographs, and I clocked the bullet exiting the chest, say I got 1,036fps as the exit velocity.  And to make the math simple the bullet retained 100% weight.  So before impact the KE is 1356ft-lbs; after impact the KE is 356ft-lbs.  The difference is 1,000ft-lbs.  That means 1000 ft-lbs of KE was transferred.  

Even though the .30-30 exited with over 3/4 of it's impact velocity, it still dumped more KE than the .54 roundball did.  Mainly because the .30-30 had more KE to begin with.

So exit wounds mean little, in terms of how much net KE is dumped.

Energy transfer has some, limited meaning when we try to predict the size of a wound channel.  For example, take a 150 grain .308 win soft point vs. a full-metal jacket military round.  Same bullet weight, same velocity, same KE at impact.  Because the fmj retains its aerodynamic shape it will whistle on through a chest cavity and it's exit velocity will be much higher than the soft-pointed bullet.  So one will transfer more KE than the other.  Guess which one will have a bigger wound channel?  The one that dumps more KE.  And it's not simply due to the bigger diameter of the mushroom - how else can a .75" mushroomed bullet creat a 3" wound channel?  

Finally, there are often two different criteria for hunting bullet discussions.  There is the "Drop-in-its-tracks" criteria, and there is the "Clean, humane Kill" criteria.  Dropping-in-its-tracks is a subset of the Clean, humane kill.   You don't need to drop a deer in its tracks to cleanly and humanely kill it.  This is so important I'll re-type it.  You don't need to drop a deer in its tracks to cleanly and humanely kill it.

Obviously, dropping a deer in it's tracks is dramatic, convenient, humane, and fun.  So people have set out to determine how much hit it takes to consistantly get this performance.  Unfortunately some idjit came along and applied that criteria as the minimum necessary for a humane kill!!!!!

Now a .357 bullet may not consistantly drop every deer in it's tracks, but if they fall within 100 yards or so - the .357 certainly made a clean, humane kill.  I don't know how long it takes a deer to cover 100 yards, but highschool track athletes can cover it in less than 10 seconds.  That means even though the deer covered a long distance, it's pain and suffering lasted less than 10 seconds, probably WAY less.  That's humane.

The real reason for speed:

The main reason ammo companies are going gonzo for velocity is to get .30-30 performance at longer distances.  Look at the KE figures for .30-30s at 100 yards, then compare to a .300 Win Mag at 400 or 500 yards - yep, about the same.  So the 3000fps isn't to really hammer deer hard at 50 yards, it's to hit 'em like a .30-30 at 500 yards.

[Don Dick]

safetysheriff,  God bless you and yours in this holiday season.

[riddleofsteel]

In the case of a bullet and its performance;

The energy a bullet carries at it exits the muzzle represents is, of course, a function of its weight and velocity. When a bullet strikes an object there is a finite amount of energy. That energy can be converted but not lost. Methods of conversion include;

1. bullet deformation
2. heat in the bullet as it is distorted
3. disruption of target media (i.e. hydrostatic wave)
4. creation of wound channel PWC and physical    deformation of target media

After this process, the energy remaining propels the bullet or its fragments out of the far side of the target. If the bullet or fragments run out of energy during the four step process they will come to rest inside the target.

I have made a few observations during field dressing of animals over the years as well as viewed some of the high speed photography of bullets striking gelatin and other media.
 
1., 2. First of all a bullet may not deform at all in the target such as the case of full metal jackets and hard cast solids. Softer bullets, of course, deform and as a result either expand or fragment. Non deforming projectiles penetrate deeply and create narrow PWC's and narrow areas of hydrostatic disruption. Controlled deformation projectiles are the pretty little mushrooms of lead and copper we all see on magazine pages. They can double the size of a projectile's frontal area and increase the PWC over what a non expanding projectile can produce. Softer projectiles or bullets that reach their structural limits in the target literally blow up and create fragments with multiple PWC's. The problem here is that the less weight a projectile retains in relation to its frontal area the more rapidly it loses forward momentum.

3. Hydrostatic disruption of tissue and stretch cavity is reality. As a projectile passes through a target the energy of its forward momentum distorts the tissue as it passes. Extending the metaphor of the crashing car, this is the same way a little Toyota or a 150 LB deer crushes the front of your SUV. Some of this distortion is temporary. As the bullet passes the stretch cavity snaps back. It never snaps back to what it once was just like your SUV never absorbs the energy of the little Toyota or deer and returns to showroom fresh. The permanent damage done by this stretch is hydrostatic deformation.

4. The damage done by the path of the bullet, whatever size or its fragments, is the PWC (permanent wound channel or cavity). It goes without saying that the bigger the PWC the faster the animal bleeds out and if the channel has an entrance and an exit the easier it is to vent that blood to the outside.

You know, what all this means is that there are a couple of good means to the same end. That end being a dead game animal that the hunter can recover. If you push a big, hard, metal projectile thru an animal the PWC will bleed and if that projectile hits enough vital stuff the animal will die. If you push a metal projectile thru an animal fast enough the bow wave from the bullet's frontal section will plow thru much more tissue than the bullet itself will ever physically disrupt on its own. What is left is a much larger bruised and shredded PWC than a slower moving bullet can produce. In the case of fragmenting projectiles like the .223 or varmit bullets used on big game the PWC and hydrostatic deformation areas can be quite large but one does take the risk of not including vital organs, nerves and blood vessels in the PWC due to lack of penetration.

I have taken deer with .357, .44 and .50 solids. I have help skin out deer taken with .58 balls and .70 slugs. I have seen the damage they do and the PWC's that they create and no they do not have to be breaking the sound barrier to do that damage. Most of what they do is actual physical damage done by the bullet as it passes.
I have also skinned out and helped with deer taken with medium and small bore projectiles that were trucking at 2500 to well over 3500 FPS or more. The PWC's are as large as those made by .58 solids in some cases with extra associated hydrostatic trauma.
I have seen deer slamified by a .58 ball to the neck that hit the ground and never got back up. I have also seen (this year) a 129 grain 6.5mm bullet at 2500+ FPS do the same job. The main difference seemed to be the amount of recoil I experienced on my end of the rifle.

[safetysheriff]

Don D'

Same to you and yours.   Thanks.

R'O'S'

Thththththaaaaaaaaat was quite a post!     Wish you'd taken a little more time with the part about PWC's; but it'll have to do........  

Just kidding!    :wink:   I think you've said a lot of what we're looking at with high-speed projectiles.

Take care, Riddle'

SS'

[Van/TX]

Very interesting thread.  I quit reading gun magazines long ago too because the articles were all the same and they were just plain dumb.  I subscribed to a handgun magazine for a couple of years and it got so ridiculous that I dropped that one too when a well know writer said that if you shoot a bullet straight up that it will hit the ground with the same energy :-D  :-D

Anyway, I've killed deer with bows & arrows rifles, shotgun slugs and handguns over a period of 44 years.  I've seen stuff that just doesn't seem to fit what some folks say is suppose to happen.

I've seen deer go 25 yards with an arrow thru the lungs.  Seen deer go 200 yards with a .30-06 thru the heart.  Seen deer drop in their tracks with a .30-30 with a shot thru the hip.  Seen several deer drop with a .243 hit anywhere in the lungs when the same shot with a .30-06 they would take off like they were never hit and run 100 yards.  I've also noticed that for some reason a .30-30 kills way beyond it's energy produced.  I've noticed the same thing with handguns.

What really cracks me up is archers talking about K.E. :lol: Ya need 50 FP for elk, ya need X amount for moose and whatever for deer.  Heck a bow producing 30#'s of K.E will kill the biggest animal that walks the face of the earth.  But that's about 1/4 the energy of a .22 rimfire  :lol:  :lol: ....Van

[safetysheriff]

I subscribed to a handgun magazine for a couple of years and it got so ridiculous that I dropped that one too when a well know writer said that if you shoot a bullet straight up that it will hit the ground with the same energy :-D  :-D

....Van

Van'

You  may not like this......but because we're talking about handgun velocities, not 7 mm STW velocities, the writer was correct.     The laws of fluid dynamics and gravity interplay to prevent a high-powered magnum from hitting planet earth with the same velocity if we shoot it straight upward, but the rather slow velocity of a handgun allows it to happen.

A college physics professor would actually agree with the writer.

Sorry 'bout that....

SS'

[Daveinthebush]

Funny that in this conversation that not much has been said concerning hydrostatic shock.  It has to come into some play depending on where the animal is hit.  After all much of an animal is basically water and as the shockwave bounces around the insides causes some damage.  I think everyone has shot a gallon jug full of water with various calibers.  It is easily seen which bullets and calibers create a bigger shockwave.

[riddleofsteel]

I found these berbs on falling bullets.

"Firing handguns into the air is commonplace in some parts of the world and causes injuries with a disproportionate number of fatalities. For a typical modern 7.62 millimetre calibre bullet fired vertically from a rifle, the bullet will have a velocity of about 840 metres per second as it leaves the muzzle and will reach a height of about 2400 metres in some 17 seconds. It will then take another 40 seconds or so to return to the ground, usually at a relatively low speed which approximates to the terminal velocity. This part of the bullet's trajectory will normally be flown base first since the bullet is actually more stable in rearward than in forward flight.

Even with a truly vertical launch, the bullet can move some distance sideways. It will spend about 8 seconds at between 2300 and 2400 metres and at a vertical velocity of less than 40 metres per second. In this time it is particularly susceptible to lateral movement by the wind. It will return to the ground at a speed of some 70 metres per second. This sounds quite low but, because of the predominance of cranial injuries, the proportion of deaths and serious injury as a proportion of the number of gunshot wounds is surprisingly high.
 
As might be expected, measurements are rather difficult and the above values come from a computer model of the flight.



Different bullet types behave in different ways. A .22LR bullet reaches a maximum altitude of 1179 metres and a terminal velocity of either 60 metres per second or 43 metres per second depending upon whether the bullet falls base first or tumbles. A .44 magnum bullet will reach an altitude of 1377 metres and a terminal velocity of 76 metres per second falling base first. A .30-06 bullet will reach an altitude of 3080 metres with a terminal velocity of 99 metres per second. The total flight time for the .22LR is between 30 and 36 seconds, while for the .30-06, it is about 58 seconds. The velocities of the bullets as they leave the rifle muzzle are much higher than their falling velocities. A .22LR has a muzzle velocity of 383 metres per second and the .30-06 has a muzzle velocity of 823 metres per second.

According to tests undertaken by Browning at the beginning of the century and recently by L .C. Haag, the bullet velocity required for skin penetration is between 45 and 60 metres per second which is within the velocity range of falling bullets. Of course, skin penetration is not required in order to cause serious or fatal injury and any responsible person will never fire bullets into the air in this manner.

The questioner may like to read "Falling bullets: terminal velocities and penetration studies", by L. C. Haag, Wound Ballistics Conference, April 1994, Sacramento, California.





John W. Hicks in his book The Theory of the Rifle and Rifle Shooting describes experiments made in 1909 by a Major Hardcastle who fired .303 rifle rounds vertically into the air on the River Stour at Manningtree. His boatman, probably a theorist unaware of the winds aloft, insisted on wearing a copy of Kelly's Directory on his head. However, no bullets landed within 100 yards, some up to a quarter of a mile away and others were lost altogether.

Julian S. Hatcher records a similar experiment in Florida immediately after the First World War. A 0.30 calibre machine gun was set up on a 10 feet square stage in a sea inlet where the water was very calm so that the returning bullets could be seen to splash down. A sheet of armour above the stage protected the experimenters. The gun was then adjusted to centre the groups of returning bullets onto the stage.

Of over 500 bullets fired into the air, only 4 hit the stage at the end of their return journey. The bullets fired in each burst fell in groups of about 25 yards across.

The bullets rose to approximately 9000 feet before falling back. With a total flight time of about a minute, the wind has a noticeable effect on the return point."

[riddleofsteel]

and another;

"We frequently get questions about firing bullets vertically into the air. The most frequent question is, "Will bullets fired into the air return to the earth at the same speed they left the gun?" Other questions asked are; "How far does the bullet travel when fired vertically and how long does it take to come down, or does the falling bullet have enough energy to be lethal should it strike someone on the ground?"

Some have tried vertical shooting, but very few have had any luck hearing the bullet come back and strike the ground. When a bullet is fired vertically it immediately begins to slow down because of the effects of gravity and air drag on the bullet. The bullet deceleration continues until at some point the bullet momentarily stops and then it begins to fall back toward earth. A well-balanced bullet will fall base first. Depending on bullet design, some bullets may tumble on their way down and others may turn over and come down point first.

The bullet speed will increase until it reaches its terminal velocity. The bullet reaches terminal velocity when the air drag equals the pull of gravity or stating it another way, the bullet weight and drag are balanced. Once this velocity is achieved the bullet will fall no faster.

In 1920 the U.S. Army Ordnance conducted a series of experiments to try and determine the velocity of falling bullets. The tests were performed from a platform in the middle of a lake near Miami, Florida. The platform was ten feet square and a thin sheet of armor plate was placed over the men firing the gun. The gun was held in a fixture that would allow the gun to be adjusted to bring the shots close to the platform. It was surmised that the sound of the falling bullets could be heard when they hit the water or the platform. They fired .30 caliber, 150 gr., Spitzer point bullets, at a velocity of 2,700 f.p.s. Using the bullet ballistic coefficient and elapsed time from firing until the bullet struck the water, they calculated that the bullet traveled 9,000 feet in 18 seconds and fell to earth in 31 seconds for a total time of 49 seconds.

As a comparison, the .30 caliber bullet fired in a vacuum at 2,700 f.p.s. would rise nearly 21.5 miles and require 84 seconds to make the ascent and another 84 seconds to make its descent. It would return with the same velocity that it left the gun. This gives you some idea of what air resistance or drag does to a bullet in flight.

Wind can have a dramatic effect on where a vertically fired bullet lands. A 5 mile per hour wind will displace the 150 gr. bullet about 365 ft based on the time it takes the bullet to make the round trip to earth. In addition the wind at ground level may be blowing in an entirely different direction than it is at 9,000 feet. It is no wonder that it is so difficult to determine where a falling bullet will land.

Out of the more than 500 shots fired from the test platform only 4 falling bullets struck the platform and one fell in the boat near the platform. One of the bullets striking the platform left a 1/16 inch deep mark in the soft pine board. The bullet struck base first.

Based on the results of these tests it was concluded that the bullet return velocity was about 300 f.p.s. For the 150 gr. bullet this corresponds to an energy of 30 foot pounds. Earlier the Army had determined that, on the average, it required 60 foot pounds of energy to produce a disabling wound. Based on this information, a falling 150 gr. service bullet would not be lethal, although it could produce a serious wound.

Many other experiments have been made to find the amount of air drag on a .30 caliber bullet at various velocities and it was found that the drag at 320 f.p.s. balances the weight of the .021 lb. (150 gr.) bullet and terminal velocity is achieved. For larger calibers the bullet terminal velocity is higher since the bullet weight is greater in relation to the diameter. Major Julian Hatcher in his book Hatcher’s Notebook estimates that a 12 inch shell weighing 1000 pounds and fired straight up would return with a speed of 1,300 to 1,400 feet per second and over 28 million foot pounds of striking energy."

[Van/TX]

safetysheriff,  you might want to do some research :wink: Basically you could catch a .357 bullet that had been shot straight up and come down with your hand.  Oh, it would hurt but it wouldn't be going 1200 fps.....Van

[Graybeard]

Been a real long time since I studied physics. But as I recall terminal velocity is 160 fps. Unless accelerated by an outside force nothing can fall to earth faster than terminal velocity. So any bullet fired upward such that it reaches maximum altitude and then falls downward should not be able to go faster than 160 fps. Now if it is fired with some lateral vector to it this can vary as it then might not ever reach a point in it's trajectory where all motion is temporarily stopped and then begin a descent.