a few questions about speedy projectiles since i don't wanna get shot:
what do you feel when you get shot?
what does a bullet (9mm, 7.92, 14.5, whatever) do to your (torso, leg, whatever)?
what does a bullet (or quick sucession of bullets) sound like as it(they) fly overhead?
hope i'm not being disrespectful to thy vets...
bullet effects
Moderator: sniper1shot
-
Dragunov
- Associate
- Posts: 784
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 7:55 pm
- Location: Ottawa, The True North Strong And Free (and rather cold)
bullet effects
When Stalin says "Dance" a wise man dances.- Nikita Kruschev
-
Christoph Awender
- Patron
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 3:09 am
- Location: Austria
- Contact:
Well,
Depending on the individual person, situation and wound(s) pain can be very different. A large percentage of severely wounded patients do not feel pain at all in the time immediately after the incident (caused by several "chemical" procedures in the body). Thinking about a car accident last month on the highway where the codriver approached me on his two under the knee amputated legs.
So how much pain and what kind of is a cooperation of several factors wich would be too much to explain in further detail here.
\Christoph
Pain in emergency medicine is categorized into several adjectives to describe it. A Bullet wound (in some cases depending on the body region) is usually described as sharp and hot pain.what do you feel when you get shot?
Depending on the individual person, situation and wound(s) pain can be very different. A large percentage of severely wounded patients do not feel pain at all in the time immediately after the incident (caused by several "chemical" procedures in the body). Thinking about a car accident last month on the highway where the codriver approached me on his two under the knee amputated legs.
So how much pain and what kind of is a cooperation of several factors wich would be too much to explain in further detail here.
Every type of bullet does make different wounds on every type of body region it hits. As basic understanding it can be said that body parts which are mainly filled with air like the upper chest will take less damage than organs which are very volumenous and contain much fluids. The later will usually "explode" and take much damage when hit by a projectile. Muscles etc.. are another chapter but again to explain everything would be too much here.what does a bullet (9mm, 7.92, 14.5, whatever) do to your (torso, leg, whatever)?
\Christoph
-
phylo_roadking
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
Also, a lot of the damage caused apart from the actual "puncture" is due to two other factors:-
1/hydrostatic shock, or rather....transfer of energy from the fast-moving projectile to the non-moving body. takes the form of a "ripple" or shockwave pasing into the bodyfrom the point of impact. THIS can rupture internal organs well away from the initial puncture wound, and break bones. In regards to this, its full "imapct" is controled by several factors - the size of the bullet - a big, heavy one carries more force to be transferred, a high-velocity bullet can cary more to be transmitted to...but if sharp enough and not tumbling CAN pass through without transference because its moving TOO fast. A tumbling or blunt headed bullet transfers more at the point of impact, hence the killing force of a non-fragmentary "dum dum" type, OR the tumbling effect of a lighter modern 5.56mm round, it might go in one side and out the other ok, but on its way the tumbling effect damages/rips more around it.
Hence a light .22 or 6mm round has less force and a smaller point of impact - and less damage apart from what it actually punctures/hits....but an American Civil War Minie round, that nasty oblong bullet, did more damage than a musket ball of equivalent size and explosive force behind it - because it was far heavier AND tumbled. This led to the terrible battlefield amputations of the ACW, not because they had no other way - but because a guy hit in an extremity with a Minie round often found ALL the bones in the rest of the limb shattered....
2/ a bullet entering the body burns its way through charring tissue AND pulverizes soft tissue AND carried clothing material, fibres etc. into the wound. This dead necrotic flesh and dirty foreign matter needs to be cleaned away or "debrided" ASAP or infection sets in. Even modern antibiotics can have very great trouble with such infections; they used to be invariably fatal.
1/hydrostatic shock, or rather....transfer of energy from the fast-moving projectile to the non-moving body. takes the form of a "ripple" or shockwave pasing into the bodyfrom the point of impact. THIS can rupture internal organs well away from the initial puncture wound, and break bones. In regards to this, its full "imapct" is controled by several factors - the size of the bullet - a big, heavy one carries more force to be transferred, a high-velocity bullet can cary more to be transmitted to...but if sharp enough and not tumbling CAN pass through without transference because its moving TOO fast. A tumbling or blunt headed bullet transfers more at the point of impact, hence the killing force of a non-fragmentary "dum dum" type, OR the tumbling effect of a lighter modern 5.56mm round, it might go in one side and out the other ok, but on its way the tumbling effect damages/rips more around it.
Hence a light .22 or 6mm round has less force and a smaller point of impact - and less damage apart from what it actually punctures/hits....but an American Civil War Minie round, that nasty oblong bullet, did more damage than a musket ball of equivalent size and explosive force behind it - because it was far heavier AND tumbled. This led to the terrible battlefield amputations of the ACW, not because they had no other way - but because a guy hit in an extremity with a Minie round often found ALL the bones in the rest of the limb shattered....
2/ a bullet entering the body burns its way through charring tissue AND pulverizes soft tissue AND carried clothing material, fibres etc. into the wound. This dead necrotic flesh and dirty foreign matter needs to be cleaned away or "debrided" ASAP or infection sets in. Even modern antibiotics can have very great trouble with such infections; they used to be invariably fatal.
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
-
Christoph Awender
- Patron
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 3:09 am
- Location: Austria
- Contact:
Well the "hydrostatic shock" theory is a pretty old one and solely kept up in military, arms related publications and theories. In modern emergency medicine it is obsolete and disproved.
When I was in the army I was also told that no matter where you get hit by our Stg.77 it will kill you because of this "hydrostatic shock". As I said above this theory is still living outside of modern medicine.
\Christoph
When I was in the army I was also told that no matter where you get hit by our Stg.77 it will kill you because of this "hydrostatic shock". As I said above this theory is still living outside of modern medicine.
\Christoph
-
phylo_roadking
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
Christoph, certainly the old saw about hitting anyone anywhere in the body with weapon A or B is rubbish, but still preached! "My weapon is better than yours"
Hydrostatic shock is indeed the old military/ballistic name given to it....rather than modern medicine, so its the one D. is most likely to come up against. Unfortunately, while modern medicine may disprove the theory...or rather the origin...the fact is these injuries still exist and always have LOL Any physicist will understand the transference of kinetic energy and it does happen. Nowadays what you find is gunshot trauma is usually multiple gunshot trauma LOL due to the modern prevalence and availability of automatic or semi-auto weapons in most "law abiding" countries", so there's less research done on the cause than on rapid stabilisation of the effects.
However - a while back I remember hearing that one course of research in the U.S. was an obscure spin-off of research into arctic warfare for the USMC. They looked into how Inuit survive extreme temps with the minimum of clothing, and wondered first about some sort of natural "antifreeze", something that would intravenously mimic the effect in big burly Marines of those extra layers of body fat the Inuit have. Research actually went on to find out a VERY cheap and practical way of doing it, which got ME through several winters' 10-hour days on the bike, but they came up with a benign fluid that seemsed to have a "fortifying" effect on body mass, including vastly reducing the effect of (non-existent) shock from bullet wounds....but sadly it wasn't THAT benign!!! LMAO
Hydrostatic shock is indeed the old military/ballistic name given to it....rather than modern medicine, so its the one D. is most likely to come up against. Unfortunately, while modern medicine may disprove the theory...or rather the origin...the fact is these injuries still exist and always have LOL Any physicist will understand the transference of kinetic energy and it does happen. Nowadays what you find is gunshot trauma is usually multiple gunshot trauma LOL due to the modern prevalence and availability of automatic or semi-auto weapons in most "law abiding" countries", so there's less research done on the cause than on rapid stabilisation of the effects.
However - a while back I remember hearing that one course of research in the U.S. was an obscure spin-off of research into arctic warfare for the USMC. They looked into how Inuit survive extreme temps with the minimum of clothing, and wondered first about some sort of natural "antifreeze", something that would intravenously mimic the effect in big burly Marines of those extra layers of body fat the Inuit have. Research actually went on to find out a VERY cheap and practical way of doing it, which got ME through several winters' 10-hour days on the bike, but they came up with a benign fluid that seemsed to have a "fortifying" effect on body mass, including vastly reducing the effect of (non-existent) shock from bullet wounds....but sadly it wasn't THAT benign!!! LMAO
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
-
Christoph Awender
- Patron
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 3:09 am
- Location: Austria
- Contact:
No not really. No serious studies show such "distant" injuries. Most I know are in german but there can also many be found in english....the fact is these injuries still exist and always have
One example:
http://www.btammolabs.com/fackler/shock_wave_myth.pdf
\Christoph
-
phylo_roadking
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
Christoph, actually most agree that the injuries ARE there....just disagree over the how While Hydrostatic shock is now more a marketing term than anything else, its still agreed that the damge from bullets depends on the degree of temporary or permanent "cavitation" thats caused.....the differences in which depend on the factors discussed.
D., thats the big open spaces a bullet causes, for want of a better term. "temporary cavitation" is the ripping/tearing a bullet does as it enters the body, the path it cuts, and the damage it does....but a high velocity round passing through can actually do quite a little damage because it "passes"! The actual path it cuts is the only destructive damage, bone/muscles/soft tissue organs will be more affected by a sort of "bruising" action! This is most often caused by whats known as "overpenetration", where a high-velocity round can pass stright thru the body and unless it hits and cleaves a path through a vital organ will really only do cut damage!
What REALLY does the bad damage - what IS the bad damage in effect - is "permanent" cavitation. A much lower-velocity round hitting the body and tumbling, pulverising tisue as it goes rather than just cutting. Lower-velocity....and also "blunter" rounds, such as fragmentation rounds and dum dums, which spread their impact and penetration quite literally through a much bigger part of the body, can mash rather than cut tissue, including vital organs.
Its permanent cavitation, Christoph, that still creates the huge wounds and multiple organ and bone traumas I was referring to - BUT the fine line between temporary and permanent is VERY fine; it depends on velocity, straight path or not of the bullet, weight of the bullet, kinetic energy, whether or not the bullet will fragment, etc. etc.
Thus you can have modern "Glaser" rounds that will do more damage from the impact, acting like a stungun rather than doing either temporary or permanent cavitation - because the bullets breaks up on contact into tiny fragments of core and jacket...thus you can have a full pistol round that is more like buckshot when it pentrates the skin surface! Compare this with the Minie "ball" of the American Civil War, which wasn't actually a "ball" at all in the musket sense, but a lead oblong about the size of your thumb!....and not fully rounded at the penetrative end either. So you had MASSIVE permanent cavitation compared to a normal musket ball. which being round...couldn't by definition "tumble"! It did its damage from being simply a VERY heavy round compared to modern pointy rifle bullets, so more "blunt trauma" but nowhere near as much as the Minie ball.
This has in turn lead to the WHOLE modern argument of "overpenetration" and full-power rounds versus lighter, lower-velocity, "tumbling" rounds - which one does the more damage in warfare and thus the more "kills" or permanent removal to a rear area. D., thats whey you see SO many pics on ALL sides of the twisted dirty rag round an arm or leg - the "overpenetration" factor of a K98 or Lee Enfield round just slices on through, the only guaranteed longterm dange being from infection if not caught in time.
Oh, before I forget - pistol and 9mm rounds! They skirt that VERY fine edge between doing temporary or permanent cavitation; they're lower velocity so can tumble BUT of course they're smaller and lighter! BUT as we're talking automatic fire, more chance of multiple hits simply doing more of less damage - if you see what I mean! So hit a guy with a burst from your MP40.....three rounds might perforate the poor bugger and not hit anything vital, but the fourth might hit a vital organ just by the luck of the draw! If not, his turn to fire if he's still on his feet.....!
D., thats the big open spaces a bullet causes, for want of a better term. "temporary cavitation" is the ripping/tearing a bullet does as it enters the body, the path it cuts, and the damage it does....but a high velocity round passing through can actually do quite a little damage because it "passes"! The actual path it cuts is the only destructive damage, bone/muscles/soft tissue organs will be more affected by a sort of "bruising" action! This is most often caused by whats known as "overpenetration", where a high-velocity round can pass stright thru the body and unless it hits and cleaves a path through a vital organ will really only do cut damage!
What REALLY does the bad damage - what IS the bad damage in effect - is "permanent" cavitation. A much lower-velocity round hitting the body and tumbling, pulverising tisue as it goes rather than just cutting. Lower-velocity....and also "blunter" rounds, such as fragmentation rounds and dum dums, which spread their impact and penetration quite literally through a much bigger part of the body, can mash rather than cut tissue, including vital organs.
Its permanent cavitation, Christoph, that still creates the huge wounds and multiple organ and bone traumas I was referring to - BUT the fine line between temporary and permanent is VERY fine; it depends on velocity, straight path or not of the bullet, weight of the bullet, kinetic energy, whether or not the bullet will fragment, etc. etc.
Thus you can have modern "Glaser" rounds that will do more damage from the impact, acting like a stungun rather than doing either temporary or permanent cavitation - because the bullets breaks up on contact into tiny fragments of core and jacket...thus you can have a full pistol round that is more like buckshot when it pentrates the skin surface! Compare this with the Minie "ball" of the American Civil War, which wasn't actually a "ball" at all in the musket sense, but a lead oblong about the size of your thumb!....and not fully rounded at the penetrative end either. So you had MASSIVE permanent cavitation compared to a normal musket ball. which being round...couldn't by definition "tumble"! It did its damage from being simply a VERY heavy round compared to modern pointy rifle bullets, so more "blunt trauma" but nowhere near as much as the Minie ball.
This has in turn lead to the WHOLE modern argument of "overpenetration" and full-power rounds versus lighter, lower-velocity, "tumbling" rounds - which one does the more damage in warfare and thus the more "kills" or permanent removal to a rear area. D., thats whey you see SO many pics on ALL sides of the twisted dirty rag round an arm or leg - the "overpenetration" factor of a K98 or Lee Enfield round just slices on through, the only guaranteed longterm dange being from infection if not caught in time.
Oh, before I forget - pistol and 9mm rounds! They skirt that VERY fine edge between doing temporary or permanent cavitation; they're lower velocity so can tumble BUT of course they're smaller and lighter! BUT as we're talking automatic fire, more chance of multiple hits simply doing more of less damage - if you see what I mean! So hit a guy with a burst from your MP40.....three rounds might perforate the poor bugger and not hit anything vital, but the fourth might hit a vital organ just by the luck of the draw! If not, his turn to fire if he's still on his feet.....!
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
Avete,
The effect of a bullet hitting the body has far too many variables to really say what damage is done or how it feels. The angle, range, velocity and calibur of the bullet all are factors. There are even small things such as what the body part was doing when it was hit.
Just speaking from personal experience, I have seen a .303 round pass through a the head of a deer and have had trouble finding the entry wound. From about the same range and angle, I have seen a 6.5mm Mauser round pass through the head of a deer leaving a hole that you could push an egg though.
As far as sensation, I know a Vietnam vet who was shot in the bicep by an AK47. He said it "felt like I had been hit really hard with a framing hammer."
Valete,
-Spandau
The effect of a bullet hitting the body has far too many variables to really say what damage is done or how it feels. The angle, range, velocity and calibur of the bullet all are factors. There are even small things such as what the body part was doing when it was hit.
Just speaking from personal experience, I have seen a .303 round pass through a the head of a deer and have had trouble finding the entry wound. From about the same range and angle, I have seen a 6.5mm Mauser round pass through the head of a deer leaving a hole that you could push an egg though.
As far as sensation, I know a Vietnam vet who was shot in the bicep by an AK47. He said it "felt like I had been hit really hard with a framing hammer."
Valete,
-Spandau
If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze into you.
-
phylo_roadking
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
S., hence the debate about using high-velocity rounds for hunting, you're more likely to have a wounded animal left to suffer than be killed outright. And with "overpenetration" wounds being often so non-traumatic, a LOT of hunters would simply think they'd missed completely instead of tracking out and finishing the job.
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
-
Dragunov
- Associate
- Posts: 784
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 7:55 pm
- Location: Ottawa, The True North Strong And Free (and rather cold)
so, .45 kicks hard and .303 doesn't? unless you have it dulled down (and accuracy therefore reduced... right?)
don't forget the fragmentation effect of the dum dums (who came up with that name anyways?)
and you're the ballistcs expert here right, phylo?
so, what does a flying bullet sound like? movies/video games always have them as a 'whoosh' but wouldn't there be a sonic 'crack'?
and a head shot doesn't result in a head explosion, right?
don't forget the fragmentation effect of the dum dums (who came up with that name anyways?)
and you're the ballistcs expert here right, phylo?
so, what does a flying bullet sound like? movies/video games always have them as a 'whoosh' but wouldn't there be a sonic 'crack'?
and a head shot doesn't result in a head explosion, right?
When Stalin says "Dance" a wise man dances.- Nikita Kruschev
-
Christoph Awender
- Patron
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 3:09 am
- Location: Austria
- Contact:
Well phyloroadking many words bending the definitions don´t make the theory more right. The "shockwave" theory has also nothing to do with larger bullets, tumbling bullets etc.. causing larger wounds. That is a clear fact that different ballistical factors cause different sized wounds and cause more damage to involved tissue and organs.
It is a matter of fact (proofen in many studies) that projectiles do not cause distant injuries to organs, blood vessels and bones that you described in your first post. Definitions like permanent and temporary cavitation are relevant for the immediate area of impact but not for distant organs etc..
Everyone reading some studies from reliable sources can read that it is a myth. Did you read the article I linked to?
I cannot refer you to the publications we have for training our paramedics and surgeons but in the internet you will also find a lot about this myth.
FBI Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness
U.S. Department of Justice
Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness
Special Agent UREY W. PATRICK
FIREARMS TRAINING UNIT
FBI ACADEMY
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA
July 14, 1989
Suicidal head shots are a frequent incident I come to in my job as paramedic. You see all kind of variations of wounds. From no obvious wounds except the entry point to large exit damages with as good as nothing left of the interior. As I said above there are many factors which influence the damage done to the head and all kind of injury patterns are possible.
\Christoph
It is a matter of fact (proofen in many studies) that projectiles do not cause distant injuries to organs, blood vessels and bones that you described in your first post. Definitions like permanent and temporary cavitation are relevant for the immediate area of impact but not for distant organs etc..
Everyone reading some studies from reliable sources can read that it is a myth. Did you read the article I linked to?
I cannot refer you to the publications we have for training our paramedics and surgeons but in the internet you will also find a lot about this myth.
FBI Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness
U.S. Department of Justice
Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness
Special Agent UREY W. PATRICK
FIREARMS TRAINING UNIT
FBI ACADEMY
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA
July 14, 1989
These so called studies are further promoted as being
somehow better and more valid than the work being done
by trained researchers, surgeons and forensic labs. They
disparage laboratory stuff, claiming that the "street"
is the real laboratory and their collection of results
from the street is the real measure of caliber
effectiveness, as interpreted by them, of course. Yet
their data from the street is collected haphazardly,
lacking scientific method and controls, with no
noticeable attempt to verify the less than reliable
accounts of the participants with actual investigative
or forensic reports. Cases are subjectively selected
(how many are not included because they do not fit the
assumptions made?). The numbers of cases cited are
statistically meaningless, and the underlying
assumptions upon which the collection of information and
its interpretation are based are themselves based on
myths such as knock-down power, energy transfer,
hydrostatic shock, or the temporary cavity methodology
of flawed work such as RII.
DumDum was the City (or was it a military camp?) in India where this kind of bullet was first introduced.don't forget the fragmentation effect of the dum dums (who came up with that name anyways?)
Well, head explosion is a pretty undefined term. Several factors influence the damage to the brain and skull. The brain together with the liver would be two of the organs which suffer large damage because of what they consist of. Important factors are again the point of entry, caliber, type of ammo.and a head shot doesn't result in a head explosion, right?
Suicidal head shots are a frequent incident I come to in my job as paramedic. You see all kind of variations of wounds. From no obvious wounds except the entry point to large exit damages with as good as nothing left of the interior. As I said above there are many factors which influence the damage done to the head and all kind of injury patterns are possible.
\Christoph
Listen to this:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/video ... 00,00.html#
to hear and see rounds coming in past the camera's position. Lots of outgoing as well, mind. I'll leave you to guess the calibre of the incoming rounds
http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/video ... 00,00.html#
to hear and see rounds coming in past the camera's position. Lots of outgoing as well, mind. I'll leave you to guess the calibre of the incoming rounds
All armies can be divided into two parts:
1. Infantry;
2. Support arms.
1. Infantry;
2. Support arms.
-
phylo_roadking
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
Christoph,
What I WILL say is that coroners' courts and the High Courts in the UK at least still accept "hydrostatic shock" as a valid scientific principle, I spent a year in my working career preparing scientific evidence for court use in our local Forensic Science Laboratory here in the 1980s. Friends still in the "trade" including several coroners still use the term, as while it MAY have been discounted as a reason for the traumas they were seeing, nothing else has been established to put in its place that explains everything.
If you read my second longer post you'll note i don't actually relate the hydrostatic shock theory to all the other factors,The "shockwave" theory has also nothing to do with larger bullets, tumbling bullets etc.. causing larger wounds. That is a clear fact that different ballistical factors cause different sized wounds and cause more damage to involved tissue and organs
What I was saying wasn't twisting the facts....I WAS saying if you reread that the major traumas you dismiss ARE present, and while one scientific reason for them is in the process of being discounted - and the "jury" is actually still out on that - nothing has as yet been put firmly in its place to explain the major and distributed traumas present from gunshots. Permanent cavitation can be HUGE, depending on all those other factors, and similarly with Temporary cavitation - but the problem with the latter is quite simply that a LOT of very temporary damage..."disappears" in the semse that tissue tears mend, swelling goes down, internal bruising vanishes. The classic scientific example here for the effects of temporary cavitation is one of Bobby Kennedy's bodyguards who took a .22 bullet through the spine from Sirhan Sirhan, and was taken to hospital paralysed from the shoulder blades down. The man was up and walking in seven hours, having apparently made a MIRACULOUS recovery; what had happened was the bruising effect from the bullet's path had only caused pressure on the guy's spinal column which receeded.most agree that the injuries ARE there....just disagree over the how While Hydrostatic shock is now more a marketing term than anything else, its still agreed that the damge from bullets depends on the degree of temporary or permanent "cavitation" thats caused.....the differences in which depend on the factors discussed.
What I WILL say is that coroners' courts and the High Courts in the UK at least still accept "hydrostatic shock" as a valid scientific principle, I spent a year in my working career preparing scientific evidence for court use in our local Forensic Science Laboratory here in the 1980s. Friends still in the "trade" including several coroners still use the term, as while it MAY have been discounted as a reason for the traumas they were seeing, nothing else has been established to put in its place that explains everything.
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
Dragunov
An AK round or Russian MG makes a sharp crack as it goes overhead - a ballistic effect having to do with breaking the sound barrier. I've heard its the same with other rounds that exceed the sound barrier.
Bullets act in surprising ways - on average a 7.62 / 3.03 is enough to drop a man like a sack of potatoes. Pistols are the small change of it and even dirty harry would be lucky to drop a man with one shot - pistols are something we carry for the last ditch as a confidence builder.
I've seen a man hit in the shoulder from behind with a 5.56- the bullet lived up to its legend and came out around his left kidney. He was completely disabled immediately. Still - I wonder about that round - I guess it works...
I read an account in the Rhodie army magazine (The Assegai) of one our boys getting into a rare hand to hand struggle with a terr. he got to his 9mm browning and put ten or twelve shots in the guy who contined to struggle. He was finally put away when another fellow came up with a rifle and ended it. The key with a pistol is heart or brain stem for immediate dispatch.
For war I prefer nine mm simply because the only use I ever had for a pistol was to shoot fast to try and make bad guys duck so I could run away. Hence my love for hi cap magazines. If you plan on shooting and actually hitting anyone (I'm told it does happen on ocassion) I'd certanly recommend Glock or Colt in .45.
Another instance was a terr running nearly a mile with a 7.62 round through the calf. (bone wasn't broken but ghastly wound). Adrenline thing. Much more likely to get instant results with a rifle round though. I noticed with hits to the extemeties that the 7.62 seems to go in sort of sideways, maybe the metal jacketed rounds dance a little where hunting rounds mushroom.
Casualties in WW2 (allied) were devasting because of high rate of fire of German MGs. Germans on the other hand were not amused by the US browning .50.
I can speak to the fact that .50 is very intimidating to the enemy - I had a terrorist tell me, "I used to be a gananga but I love the government now!" Only took a five shot burst at the rock behind which he was hiding. An impact shot is devasting. One of our boys accidently killed a farmer's prize bull with one shot at 6 km. Round went high and the price was high too!
Any hit, anywhere - is immediate incapacitation with .50.
Phylo - I use glasers in my personal sidearm - partly because they are frangible and breakup when they hit things other than meat. The Neighbors you know.
cheers
Reb
An AK round or Russian MG makes a sharp crack as it goes overhead - a ballistic effect having to do with breaking the sound barrier. I've heard its the same with other rounds that exceed the sound barrier.
Bullets act in surprising ways - on average a 7.62 / 3.03 is enough to drop a man like a sack of potatoes. Pistols are the small change of it and even dirty harry would be lucky to drop a man with one shot - pistols are something we carry for the last ditch as a confidence builder.
I've seen a man hit in the shoulder from behind with a 5.56- the bullet lived up to its legend and came out around his left kidney. He was completely disabled immediately. Still - I wonder about that round - I guess it works...
I read an account in the Rhodie army magazine (The Assegai) of one our boys getting into a rare hand to hand struggle with a terr. he got to his 9mm browning and put ten or twelve shots in the guy who contined to struggle. He was finally put away when another fellow came up with a rifle and ended it. The key with a pistol is heart or brain stem for immediate dispatch.
For war I prefer nine mm simply because the only use I ever had for a pistol was to shoot fast to try and make bad guys duck so I could run away. Hence my love for hi cap magazines. If you plan on shooting and actually hitting anyone (I'm told it does happen on ocassion) I'd certanly recommend Glock or Colt in .45.
Another instance was a terr running nearly a mile with a 7.62 round through the calf. (bone wasn't broken but ghastly wound). Adrenline thing. Much more likely to get instant results with a rifle round though. I noticed with hits to the extemeties that the 7.62 seems to go in sort of sideways, maybe the metal jacketed rounds dance a little where hunting rounds mushroom.
Casualties in WW2 (allied) were devasting because of high rate of fire of German MGs. Germans on the other hand were not amused by the US browning .50.
I can speak to the fact that .50 is very intimidating to the enemy - I had a terrorist tell me, "I used to be a gananga but I love the government now!" Only took a five shot burst at the rock behind which he was hiding. An impact shot is devasting. One of our boys accidently killed a farmer's prize bull with one shot at 6 km. Round went high and the price was high too!
Any hit, anywhere - is immediate incapacitation with .50.Phylo - I use glasers in my personal sidearm - partly because they are frangible and breakup when they hit things other than meat. The Neighbors you know.
cheers
Reb