Muscle twitch probably yeah, but I don't expect them to stumble backwards or do anything after that twitch other then drop as one guy said "Like a bag of groceries"
Death falls
- Thread starter Ossius
- Start date
Muscle twitch probably yeah, but I don't expect them to stumble backwards or do anything after that twitch other then drop as one guy said "Like a bag of groceries"
Don't know about 8 mil Mauser, but I know that British .303 and 7.62R make a hell of a mess in ballistics gel in full metal jacket.
It seems to depend more often than not on the caliber rather than the kinetic energy, with full metal jacket. Easy example is .45 ACP and 9x19. .45 craters, and 9x19 goes through without too much fighting, but they both have similar kinetic energy.
I've read some things that seem to suggest that death from gunfire is not as instantaneous as the movies have lead us to believe. E.g. generally you're going to be worried about incapacitating someone through causing blood loss, which is slow, else disrupting a major organ, both of which generally require cavitation. The reason I say this in part is that there are a lot of reports that suggest that people are taking multiple 5.56 FMJ as though they were not even shot, and 5.56, when it's within fragmenting range is devastating to soft tissue.
7.92 Mauser Ball has a very long projectile so yawing can be quite violent. .303 British actually has a unique design to it and can sometimes undergo core/jacket seperation, creating much larger wounds as you've seen.
But 7.62R... what I've seen of standard Ball 7.62R is that it performs like 7.62mm M80, right down to the distance it begins yawing. Of course, there are Heavy, Light, and even Sniper ammunition types for FMJ - Heavy Ball is extremely long, and Sniper ammo has an air pocket in the tip like 5.45mm. What I've seen is the 148gr Light Ball. And, performing like 7.62mm M80, means it gets the job done 90% of the time.
I'm not understanding what you mean by ".45 craters" - maybe you mean it doesn't penetrate through? Actually from the .45 FMJ that I've seen .45 penetrates further than similar energy 9mm since it has more momentum.
.45 ACP 230gr FMJ penetration: 19.1" - 20.4"
9mm 115gr FMJ penetration: 17.2" - 17.5"
Also, the "one-shot stop" percentage for a torso hit with both .45 FMJ and 9mm FMJ is well-established as ~63% for both. There is a vast number of shootings with those types of ammo and so the number is more accurately defined, and it's strange that they're both so similar - clearly the real strength of .45 is in 230gr JHP's not in FMJ, which is why the Army chose 9mm over .45 recently - so you can pack more ammo into a magazine with no lethality loss.
Yes what you've read is quite right, for example I know that even with total heart destruction it can take between 7 and 15 seconds to actually die, regardless of if you are or are not incapacitated. Usually I question how in movies the Super-Hero can go through totally stealth and kill an enemy Soldier with a single 9mm to the belly from his suppressed Pistol - without the guy even screaming. Gotta love movies. Usually bullets that do not destroy anything vital in their path (that path includes yawing and fragmentation) will not kill, but they may still incapacitate reliably, and only a few vital organs can cause instantaneous death (ex. some areas of brain.)
Last edited:
Just to follow up.
Guns are made to wound rather than kill.
Yes killing an enemy decreases their number by 1 (and costs 6 planks and a shovel), but wounding a soldier costs more in term of logistics and medical dedication. Never mind the non-physical suppression of the enemy and decrease in morale of the enemy when everyone is badly wounded and keep screaming.
('Nichts neues am westen' -No news of the western front- showed it very effectively with a wounded soldier lying in front of the trench screaming for three days).
And to reply to the one my quote quoted (yes, weird sentence).
Yes you live around 11 seconds when decapacitated (spelling?) so why would you die instantaniously when your heart is crushed by a bullet?
Anything other than your heart (except for the head) wil probably bleed you out and most of the time will take much more time, probably up to an hour when core functions of the heart and mind still operating.
As someone said when interviewd by Discovery (paraphrased, and I don't remember his name) 'The human body is so fragile, but so damn strong at the same time'.
Long enough for a reply...
Wow. I'm speechless.....
Care to provide any citations for your comments? Or are you expressing an opinion?
You do you know why full metal jacketed bullets are used in warfare instead of hollow point or soft core bullets, don't you?
Some of the messages in this thread are just too much to bear.......
Last edited:
I believe the Hague conventions say something along the lines of Hollow points are deemed to cause unnecesary suffering, same with explosive ammunition of UNDER a certain weight.
The reasoning with that is that Full-Metal Jacket ammunition does the job most of the time; it is not overkill, and FMJ ammunition still provides better probability of surviving recovery.
However I believe what he was saying was something I've heard before, although I don't believe it's true - regarding 5.56mm. I've heard people say that the original design was to make a round that wounded instead of killed, for the logistical drain on the enemy. Obviously, though, at short ranges, 5.56mm FMJ produces larger wounds than 7.62mm FMJ and so it is overkill, and at longer ranges it fails to incapacitate, meaning that despite multiple hits enemy combatants are still hostile. If the goal of 5.56mm was to cause greater logistic drain, it absolutely failed.
Last edited:
You'll probably find that the "goal" of a lot of the early assault rifle rounds was to maximize the weight to effectiveness ratio, not how good it is at merely wounding enemies. Discovering the advantages of faster, better designed, often smaller rounds was likely a side-effect of that goal.
What I prefer to say is the human body is incredibly weak but unbelievably resilient.
Very little can ruin your day and yet alas, what some people can endure...
Wow. I'm speechless.....
Well, it does ring some truth that there are weapons out there designed to injure rather than kill. The majority of these weapons, however, are landmines. Designed to blow off a leg or a good chunk of you. The strategy was well described, you have to have 2 guys get the one guy off the field. It creates a hassle for everybody.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume3/number1/TABLE2-1.PDF[url]http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume3/number1/TABLE2-1.PDF[/URL]
http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume3/number1/TABLE2-2.PDF[url]http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume3/number1/TABLE2-2.PDF[/URL]
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2...gun-statistics-and-why-theyre-a-load-of-crap/[url]http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/one-shot-stop-handgun-statistics-and-why-theyre-a-load-of-crap/[/URL]
http://greent.com/40Page/general/oss.htm[url]http://greent.com/40Page/general/oss.htm[/URL]
#1: where are you getting this data from
#2: what methodology are they using
Your claims, weighed against eachother:
#1: 'the "one-shot stop" percentage for a torso hit with both .45 FMJ and 9mm FMJ is well-established as ~63% for both.'
#2: ' Usually bullets that do not destroy anything vital in their path (that path includes yawing and fragmentation) will not kill, but they may still incapacitate reliably, and only a few vital organs can cause instantaneous death'
Wow. I'm speechless.....
Care to provide any citations for your comments? Or are you expressing an opinion?
You do you know why full metal jacketed bullets are used in warfare instead of hollow point or soft core bullets, don't you?
Some of the messages in this thread are just too much to bear.......
About your second point: As Panzer Jager 43 says: the hollow point is about the hague conventions. And that's the reason FMJ is used in warfare (aside from horrible armour penetration of hollow points afaik).
I know they didn't decide in a meeting that they would go for wounding rather than killing. I think (yes opinion
) it was more of a fortunate side-effect of wounding of weapons at the time.I was more talking about exit wounds of 7mm or higher (full penetration = rather simple wound) and a bit about wounding of artillery and frag fragments.
Just to follow up.
Guns are made to wound rather than kill.
Yes killing an enemy decreases their number by 1 (and costs 6 planks and a shovel), but wounding a soldier costs more in term of logistics and medical dedication. Never mind the non-physical suppression of the enemy and decrease in morale of the enemy when everyone is badly wounded and keep screaming.
('Nichts neues am westen' -No news of the western front- showed it very effectively with a wounded soldier lying in front of the trench screaming for three days).
And to reply to the one my quote quoted (yes, weird sentence).
Yes you live around 11 seconds when decapacitated (spelling?) so why would you die instantaniously when your heart is crushed by a bullet?
Anything other than your heart (except for the head) wil probably bleed you out and most of the time will take much more time, probably up to an hour when core functions of the heart and mind still operating.
As someone said when interviewd by Discovery (paraphrased, and I don't remember his name) 'The human body is so fragile, but so damn strong at the same time'.
Long enough for a reply...
It also ties up everyone when their buddy is screaming in pain and not just lying there dead instantly. Now they have to help him out and shoot back too.
Not sure what your point is in posting this, but that's where my data for the ~63% claim was from. You can see the 115gr FMJ and 230gr FMJ (which are the military loadings for WW2) produce average 63% in those tables.
Your two last links are something I've read many times and take heed to - that One-Shot Stop statistics are, and will always be, fundamentally flawed.
However, when you have a LARGE number of shootings recorded, the data gathered from them builds up to a more defined and accurate number. It is still not the only way to determine a cartridge's effectiveness, as there is a lot of factors into wounding and incapacitation that are not taken into account in the statistic - but my point is, when there is A LOT of data, that the statistic also tells a story of it's own.
I am a believer in wound ballistics (such as the writings of Dr. Martin Fackler), not numbers, but I still take a gander at all theories behind firearm lethality. Even though kinetic energy, one-shot stops, and "knock-out" formulas are all false ways to determine true stopping power, they all still have SOME truth in them.
Last edited:
Statistics, the only method which is able to lie and tell the truth at the same time
Last edited:
It should be half animation, half ragdoll. Involuntary responce is to grab at the site of a severe injury. So some soldier is running along and takes a round to the leg, he'll lean over, probably drop his rifle and grab at the wound before falling down, probably on his head or shoulder. Failing that he'd probably stumble a step or two, then keel over on the side that's injured. About the only time someone would actually rag doll is if they took a shot to the brain, and only if it destroyed motor control. Case in point is the Kennedy assassination, and why swat snipers shoot for the triangle. Hitting certain parts of the brain causes involuntary muscle spasm. Kennedy's arms and hands clenched up under his chin, and Swat triangle shots are meant to cause a perp to fling his arms out to the sides instead of twitching and pulling the trigger.
I personally don't care that much about it, but if you're going for realism you need to put in post death actions rather than ragdolls. I.E. soldier rolling around on the ground grabbing his leg, yelling in agony, or the brain shot soldier twitching on the ground. Rarely do they fall down and go limp.
I personally don't care that much about it, but if you're going for realism you need to put in post death actions rather than ragdolls. I.E. soldier rolling around on the ground grabbing his leg, yelling in agony, or the brain shot soldier twitching on the ground. Rarely do they fall down and go limp.
You're probably not sure why I posted those statistics because you cherry picked them.
Go look at the chart again, and see if you can divine the purpose. The forum in which I mined those charts contained those two links and no explanation. OSS numbers OVER TIME. (I don't think OSS numbers are supposed to change over time.) When you have a larger change in OSS over time with the same caliber than you have between two different calibers and ammunition types, I think you can safely say that the entire exercise is baloney.
One of the most damning things I found out about those figures is that they are simply torso shots....I don't think we've had a discussion on human anatomy yet, but the human torso is comprised of the following bits and pieces:
Astonishingly, some of these places you can penetrate with a .22 LR and kill someone instantaneously, whereas in some of these places you can get with with a .45 ACP and live.
On those grounds and those grounds alone, those statistics are meaningless, and probably that is the mechanism I can divine caused the discrepancy in "OSS" figures over time. Incidentally, I can also use that mechanism to divine the discrepancy in "OSS" figures for the various different calibers and ammunition.
Last edited:
You can believe what you want to believe. But if you play 4000 game matches and win 2000 of them, your win-loss ratio is 50-50. Obviously when you're actually in the game, there are a lot of factors that may contribute to it, primarly the skill of your opponent, that will decide the outcome. As you've said, it's NOT just rolling the dice, it's rolling the dice on an angled platform, which both you and your opponent are moving around.
But by the time you've played 4000 games your skill level, and the average skill level of the opponent, has been defined. You can go on a freak streak and lose 20 games in a row, but over MORE time you would most likely (but NOT definitely) even that out.
As said above, with a good level of wisdom:
But by the time you've played 4000 games your skill level, and the average skill level of the opponent, has been defined. You can go on a freak streak and lose 20 games in a row, but over MORE time you would most likely (but NOT definitely) even that out.
As said above, with a good level of wisdom:
Statistics, the only method which is able to lie and tell the truth at the same time
Last edited:
wrong and stupid on so many levels. first of all, the person clearly said "gun" not weapons. secondly everyone knows that already, did you think you would impress anyone by bringing up this completely unrelated bit of fact like some wonderful piece of insight?
some people...
G