Falling Bullets

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

In reference to: Falling Bullets

So. . .I was browsing through some of the classic columns and it surprised me to see that Cecil neglected to address some key points about how lethal falling bullets can be.

It’s been my understanding that if a bullet is indeed fired perpendicular to the pull of gravity that it will go straight up (not figuring in wind here. . .) and come straight back down reaching terminal velocity due to wind resistance. However, what was not covered in the column was that the VAST majority of bullets fired into the air do not meet these narrow criteria. In most cases they’re fired slightly off angle and are able to maintain a ballistic trajectory. Now, I’m no physicist, but I thought that generally if an object in motion were to follow a ballistic trajectory that the object is able to maintain quite a bit of it’s speed on the return trip despite wind resistance.

I always understood that it was this factor that accounted for the majority of “falling bullet” deaths.

2

I can’t see any reason that a bullet fired at a fairly high angle would have a significantly higher speed than a bullet fired vertically. Is that what you’re saying?

3

MythBusters addressed this one, and confirmed what you are saying: a bullet fired directly up will go very high, but when it starts to fall it will “wobble” due to wind resistance, and reach a top speed that might cause a concussion but is probably not lethal.

Bullets fired at angles between the horizontal and vertical, however, will follow a ballistic trajectory–due to their aerodynamic shape, they avoid the “wobble” that a bullet fired directly up (and that therefore begins to fall with its un-aerodynamic end down) experiences, and can hit the ground at lethal velocity.

I think that on the actual MythBusters segment they were not able to make a bullet hit the ground at a lethal velocity, but didn’t deny that under ideal circumstances it could happen–because there are documented cases of it happening.

4

exactly-that’s what I meant-

5

from cecil’s column:

but that guy talks too much anyway

6

Wait, you mean Mythbusters didn’t label something impossible just because they weren’t able to do it on the show themselves? Was this Adam and Jamie, or did they have gust hosts for that episode, because that really doesn’t sound like them.

7

(bolding mine)
Sometimes, the typo is more appropriate than the intended word. :smiley:

8

they can rate it busted, confirmed, or plausible. and if they didnt take things to extremes it would make for some boring television, you can always count on something getting blown up in every episode. then american chopper comes on, which incidently, is the leading cause for domestic violence. boredom that is, i read it on reuters.