Well, while movies horribly exaggerate, there’s a physical reason why the impact is more ‘traumatic’ in terms of energy infliction than the firing.
First, the energy of the round when firing is spread out along the whole gun - the contact with your body is the butt of the weapon (or grip), which is usually several square inches of surface - as compared to a few square millimeters with a bullet. Secondly, the bullet gradually accelerates up the barrel, dispersing the shock over time, where, when it hits, the deceleration is much more severe.
Well, a rare case indeed, I’d imagine. It’d be no different, and probably more severe, from being stabbed all the way through the head with a stiletto, if that makes it sound any more severe to you.
Oh, he hemmed and hawed and said something to the effect of, “Yeah, we aim for the chest 'cause it’s easy to hit, but I’ve heard of guys surviving shots to the head and that’s another reason not to aim there.”
He sort of tap-danced around the “75 percent” claim, saying that’s what his superiors had told him. I went easy on him, though, the poor guy. He did seem surprised that I had checked on his claims.
Certainly. No one is disputing that the energy (1/2mv^2) and damage done by the bullet is far more serious than the kickback of the gun. But the momentum (mv) of the two is the same, and it is the momentum of the bullet being transferred to the victim that would lead them to fly backwards at great speed, and usually into a plate glass window, as depicted in the movies. Shooting something simply does not cause it to keel over backwards, unless it is a human that has been taught by Hollywood to do so, and happens to have the presence of mind to behave properly. If said victim is drunk or stoned or merely irate and forgets all rules of civil behaviour for a gunshot victim, he or she can quite merrily continue doing whatever he or she was for several seconds after being shot, no matter what anyone says about the ``knock-down’’ power of the round, while waiting for the tissue damage caused by the energy of the bullet to slow them down. Unless the bullet severs the spinal cord, which puts a serious crimp on the transmission of nerve impulses and all that…
You have now established your reputation as a sharp cookie. His further attemps to impress you will be a) less verifiable or b) more accurate. I’d guess you impressed him.
Yeah, it’s that little hole that appears in the target.
Actually, this isn’t true.
Once a bullet leaves the barrel of a gun (and lets assume handguns here), it will no longer impart momentum back to the firer and the acceleration felt is from 0 to muzzle velocity over time t1. Once the bullet leaves the gun it decelerates, and will impact the target with an impact velocity, and decelerates from impact velocity to 0 over time t2.
Most handguns have a barrel length in the 4-6" range, whereas most handgun bullets will penetrate 8-12" or more. So the target is not only being struck with a projectile that’s moving slower, it’s taking longer to decelerate (t2 is greater than t1).
A rifle has a longer barrel, but rifle bullets aren’t likely to remain in the target - a 7.62 Nato round has the potential to penetrate 3 feet of tissue.
There’s two videotapes out there that I heartily recommend finding: “Deadly Weapons” and “Deadly Effects: What Bullets do to Bodies”. 'Deadly Weapons" has the film producer being shot point blank range with a 7.62 Nato round while wearing Level IV body armor. He was even shot while standing on one foot. Didn’t go anywhere.
“Deadly Effects” features an extensive interview with Dr Martin Fackler, who’s done a lot of research into bullets and how they inflict injury. Fascinating stuff.
You are correct about the surface area distribution part. When the bullet is fired, its energy is distributed throughout the butt/handle of the weapon. On the receiving end, roughly the same energy (reduced by drag, etc) is concentrated in the small area of the bullet. .
A rifle bullet could go clean through you without decelerating all that much and it would still be traumatic. Mostly because your insides are now “outsides”. Not to mention it probably fucking hurts a lot!
If said victim is drunk or stoned or merely irate and forgets all rules of civil behaviour for a gunshot victim, he or she can quite merrily continue doing whatever he or she was for several seconds after being shot, no matter what anyone says about the ``knock-down’’ power of the round
Sorry, haven’t figured out how to use the quote system yet. Interesting point on this story. When Dan Daly was defending a wall in China, the Chinese attackers were high on drugs. The book stated at that time they were instructed to aim for the gut as the pain would bring the victim down (center of gravity, less movement, etc.) but he found this did not work since the attackers felt no pain, thus continued on. Only instantly fatal shots would work.
Also read that the Japanese used wood bullets in WWII so that they could surround the enemy and not kill their own troops on the other side of the defenders since the wood bullet burned up within 500 yards.
