Hit by a bullet

I guess it depends on the velocity and weight of the slug. Also maybe where it hits in relation to the target's center-of-mass. You are right, flipping a dude head over heels through a window sounds over the top.

I think the thing is "hydrostatic shock," which if I understand is the study of what happens when you get hit by a bullet. I have to admit, beyond knowing the term, I don't know much about it.

That's a good question. Now I'm going to have to look this stuff up.

Size of the slug, composition material, and velocity of the bullet are going to have a tremendous effect on how much a body moves when hit. Where the body is hit will also have an effect (greater mass will absorb the impact better than lesser mass).

I've never seen a body hit, but, if you hit an aluminum can or even a two-liter plastic soda bottle filled with water with a slug from something like a Colt 44 (or even a .22), there are some interesting reactions from the targets - flips, jumps up and back, etc. whereas a solid target with absorbing capability will just sit there unaffected. Puma

ETA: I'm pretty sure there are some comprehensive ballistics studies available on line.

A fast killing shot (Brain, heart or spine) with a small caliber projectile, the body will usually crumple.

A wounding shot will cause a reflex in a person. Watch an American baseball player react when hit with a, 90 - 100 MPH, pitched baseball. The ball is larger than a lead slug, but the size makes up for the difference.

Velocity of the projectile makes a difference, as well a the resistance to whatever the projectile hits.

The entrance hole will be smaller than the exit, and blood tends to spray.

A close-range shotgun blast will leave a grizzly sight -- the pellets start spreading upon leaving the muzzle and usually do not exit a body unless it's the gun is fire extremely close.
Cannon fire was usually solid projectiles of greater dimensions.

An artillery round is meant to explode. If it explodes near a group has been known to toss some with it's shock wave, and maybe reduce one or two bodies to a fine red mist with it's shrapnel and debris kicked up by it's shock wave.

I confess, I have no idea. Good question.

I'm thinking though that Hollywood gets "it wrong" quite often...and intentionally. In some cases they have too, because real life can be quite dull. Admit it someone getting hit by a bullet and going backwards crashing through a huge window is more interesting than if he simply fell to the floor.

What JDubee said.

Most of the body's reaction to being shot is pure reflex. The round simply does not have enough mass and energy to overcome a body's mass and inertia in the few microseconds of impact and energy release. It really is a matter of energy - and not ft-lbs of impact force, but rather Joules of energy delivery. You can see this directly with ballistic impact gel experiments. The gel just doesn't move, which is a good thing because it allows for detailed examination of bullet tracks and effects, even when its only 20 or 30 or 50 lbs weight or so.

Shoot a dead pig or cow carcass and theres no movement. Shoot a live human or a deer or other animal and the reaction is much different.

There are probably some videos on Youtube or elsewhere on the net of animal hunts that might show you what types of reactions a living body would have to being shot. Puma

FOTSGreg said:

What JDubee said.

Most of the body's reaction to being shot is pure reflex. The round simply does not have enough mass and energy to overcome a body's mass and inertia in the few microseconds of impact and energy release. It really is a matter of energy - and not ft-lbs of impact force, but rather Joules of energy delivery. You can see this directly with ballistic impact gel experiments. The gel just doesn't move, which is a good thing because it allows for detailed examination of bullet tracks and effects, even when its only 20 or 30 or 50 lbs weight or so.

Shoot a dead pig or cow carcass and theres no movement. Shoot a live human or a deer or other animal and the reaction is much different.

Click to expand...

Were typical 19th century cartridges lower velocity as compared with modern ones? Does that make a difference in terms of lethality and stopping power?

I recall the Army had to upgrade their 1890s-era pistols to the M1911 Colt firing .45 ACP to deal with fanatical Moro warriors. I read about a shoot-out between Arizona Rangers and outlaws, where most of the participants had Winchester or Savage lever-action repeaters. One guy had a Spanish Mauser which made short work of the cover the outlaws were using.

I guess I'm wondering if it's realistic to show that injuries in a gun battle with late 19th century cartridge arms are less lethal and incapacitating.

The 1890s upgrade, as I recall, was due to the fact that the USArmy and Marines were using Webley .38 caliber revolvers which were notoriously underpowered and the Moro wrapped themselves in bands of wet leather and allowed it to dry significantly before battle. Leather makes decent armor against the Webley .38, but .44 Remington Army or .38 Navy Colt would have dropped people in their tracks. Even the legendary Colt .45 Peacemaker would have made a better sidearm.

Before smokeless powder guns had lower muzzle velocities and therefore stopping power due to the fact that the entire powder charge did not burn on discharging. Significant amounts of unburned or still burning powder were ejected along with the bullet causing a great deal of smoke.

This shouldn't be an indicator of lower lethality, however. Bullets were often of significantly higher caliber than what we see commonly today. Minie balls of the civil war era were in the range of .50-.75 caliber, the Spencer, as I recall, was .50 caliber, and, as mentioned above, handgun calibers were generally larger.

I don't think you've really fired a gun until you've fired a .67 caliber muzzle loading flintlock pistol. Theres so much recoil in that thing and so much smoke produced it's almost unbelievable.

I thought it was .69 caliber. That's what my flintlock pistol is. Really something to shoot. Puma

Puma, it could've been. The owner got it from Daisy Gunworks as a kit and that's just what I remember him saying it was. Yeah, its something to shoot all right. Can't hit the broadside of a barn at anything over 25 ft, but damn, it'd put the fear of god into anything downrange.

For real gun enthusiasts there's another book that you ought to look into that I believe is called "The Evolution of the Gun". I'll have to pull my copy out of storage to find the author. Mine is a collector's reprint of the original. Very dry reading, but very interesting from a historical perspective.

FOTSGreg said:

The 1890s upgrade, as I recall, was due to the fact that the USArmy and Marines were using Webley .38 caliber revolvers which were notoriously underpowered and the Moro wrapped themselves in bands of wet leather and allowed it to dry significantly before battle. Leather makes decent armor against the Webley .38, but .44 Remington Army or .38 Navy Colt would have dropped people in their tracks. Even the legendary Colt .45 Peacemaker would have made a better sidearm.

Before smokeless powder guns had lower muzzle velocities and therefore stopping power due to the fact that the entire powder charge did not burn on discharging. Significant amounts of unburned or still burning powder were ejected along with the bullet causing a great deal of smoke.

This shouldn't be an indicator of lower lethality, however. Bullets were often of significantly higher caliber than what we see commonly today. Minie balls of the civil war era were in the range of .50-.75 caliber, the Spencer, as I recall, was .50 caliber, and, as mentioned above, handgun calibers were generally larger.

I don't think you've really fired a gun until you've fired a .67 caliber muzzle loading flintlock pistol. Theres so much recoil in that thing and so much smoke produced it's almost unbelievable.

Click to expand...

OK, thanks for the info. So the real issue, then or now, is whether you hit your man in the vitals or not.

I've fired a Navy Colt I built from a kit. Plenty of smoke & kick, but I can imagine a .67 flintlock goes off like a cannon.

I built my flintlock (and it is .69 caliber) from a CVA kit. I had to do a little adaptation where the tang goes into the stock because the opening in the stock was too large, plus a few other extras to make it "special". When I got it finished we took it out to the back of our property and loaded it up. As I stood in position getting ready to shoot it, I realized my husband was sneaking behind a tree to hide. Undaunted I held the monster out and pulled the trigger. The flash from the pan was awesome ... and then nothing, nothing, nothing - about to the point I figured it wasn't going to fire and BAM! It was a real thrill and quite an experience. I made a .69 caliber percussion after that and it wasn't anywhere near as awe inspiring. Puma

Puma said:

There are probably some videos on Youtube or elsewhere on the net of animal hunts that might show you what types of reactions a living body would have to being shot. Puma

Click to expand...

Actually, if that sort of thing doesn't give you the queasy legs, there's lots of video on Youtube and other places (like LiveLeak) of real life people getting shot in various circumstances. Some are grislier than others.

The first thing I thought of when reading your thread was a video from last week of a burglar getting shot by cops outside of a Carls Jr. I'd post a link to the video, but I'm not sure if the mods are cool with that sort of thing. It's not bloody or gruesome or anything, but essentially it's video of a man being killed. So, yeah.

But yes, usually the victim just falls down and collapses.

FOTSGreg said:

I don't think you've really fired a gun until you've fired a .67 caliber muzzle loading flintlock pistol. Theres so much recoil in that thing and so much smoke produced it's almost unbelievable.

Click to expand...

You should try some modern large caliber handguns. The big ones have one heck of a lot more recoil.

Amen on the recoil, James - 44 mag with an 8-3/8" barrel and factory loads - after the 5th shot I decided I wanted to save my hand/arm for other things and didn't fire the 6th round. But I was able to control it (I was determined). Puma

Dave Hardy said:

Were typical 19th century cartridges lower velocity as compared with modern ones? Does that make a difference in terms of lethality and stopping power?

I recall the Army had to upgrade their 1890s-era pistols to the M1911 Colt firing .45 ACP to deal with fanatical Moro warriors. I read about a shoot-out between Arizona Rangers and outlaws, where most of the participants had Winchester or Savage lever-action repeaters. One guy had a Spanish Mauser which made short work of the cover the outlaws were using.

I guess I'm wondering if it's realistic to show that injuries in a gun battle with late 19th century cartridge arms are less lethal and incapacitating.

Click to expand...

Velocity is mostly a matter of the difference between black powder and smokeless powder. The .45 Colt, using black powder, had a muzzle velocity no higher than 1,000 fps. Shorter barrels gave lower velocities.

You could only cram so much black powder into the case.

Using smokeless powder, that same cartridge can reach 1,500 fps. You can hand load a .45 Colt to reach higher velocities than a .44 Magnum.

But for the most part, velocity is more abut range and penetration than lethality. The faster the bullet, the better the trajectory and the greater the penetration at long range.

Solid lead bullets were incredibly lethal. Just look at the Civil war. A large caliber, soft lead bullet does incredible damage to the human body. There is no controlled expansion, as with a modern hollow point, and a hit on an arm or leg bone means losing that arm or leg. You really have to see the damage to believe it.

But soft lead has two huge disadvantages. 1. It has no penetration power on anything other than flesh and bone. If it has to go through anything solid to reach the body, it not only flattens, it can disintegrate. This means it also will not penetrate even ordinary soft body armor, let alone something like class three. 2. It can't be used at really high velocity because the friction of the air will melt it.

Cast lead is something else entirely, but that's another story entirely.

Anyway, bullets do not send people flying trough the air. Reflex muscle action can make a body appear to come off its feet, but never to the extent you see in silly movies. I saw a man hit in the center of the chest with a 12 ga. slug, and he did come off his feet, but only because of the sudden contraction and release of his leg muscles. It wasn't at all spectacular, though the damage that slug did was.

I've also seen a man down and dead instantly from a single 9mm round, and another man who was hit in the abdomen with a load of 12 ga. )) buck, probably the most lethal load out there, who not only didn't die, he never went down, and never lost consciousness. All nine buckshot exited, and did considerable damage on the way through, but he lived.

Anyway, you never know how a man will react to being hit by a bullet. Bullet placement is critical in making a kill, but only two spots on the body guarantee an instant collapse. One is a solid spinal cord hit, and the other is the brain stem.

Humans are individuals. A bullet that kills one person instantly may not kill another person at all. Even a heart or brain shot is not always fatal. This is why you keep shooting until the person is no longer a threat. You never count someone as dead until you bury him.

I've been shot twice, though neither hit was terribly serious. I took a bullet through the calf, and it felt like I'd been hit by a rock. I went down, but came back up running. I didn't know I;d actually been shot until after I reach cover.

Another time I took some shotgun pellets between the family jewels and my hipbone. That time I knew I'd been hit, but I didn't react at all. It felt like several hot needles going in, but the pain wasn't severe, and the pellets did no damage that mattered.

We had a man not far from here who was shot in the head with a .22, and didn't even realize it had happened. He fell, thought he'd bumped his head, and stopped the bit of blood he found with a wet washrag. He went to the doctor several days later, complaining about a bad headache. The doctor found the bullet hole, and all were, to say the least, very surprised.

Jamesaritchie, I've fired a lot of modern handguns including a .357 and .44 Magnum, but none of the really big "hand cannons". The .44 Magnum was quite enough, thank you. I understand the .50 Desert Eagle has to be felt to be believed.

I just love the old handguns. Those flintlock pistols with the flash, delay, kaboom, and smoke are just so darned much fun to shoot - and that .69 flintlock pistol's recoil is really impressive (I kind of a short guy and at the time I must've weighed all of about 125 lbs).

FOTSGreg said:

Jamesaritchie, I've fired a lot of modern handguns including a .357 and .44 Magnum, but none of the really big "hand cannons". The .44 Magnum was quite enough, thank you. I understand the .50 Desert Eagle has to be felt to be believed.

I just love the old handguns. Those flintlock pistols with the flash, delay, kaboom, and smoke are just so darned much fun to shoot - and that .69 flintlock pistol's recoil is really impressive (I kind of a short guy and at the time I must've weighed all of about 125 lbs).

Click to expand...

The S&W .500 is almost ridiculous, in its smaller versions. But the .44 Magnum is bad enough.

But I like the old handguns, as well. And the old rifles. Many of the old rifles have more apparent recoil than anything you can pick up today, largely because of design. A steel butt plate just flat hurts. You should fire a 4-bore with a steel butt plate.

Anyway, I carry a modern handgun, and I use modern rifles, modern weapons of all types, but primarily because they simply do a much better job for self-defense.

My love, however, is for almost anything pre-1900. I love the old flintlocks and cap locks, particular the Kentucky rifles and pistols, and the Hawken.

I also love all the cowboy era weapons. They're just plain fun to shoot, and fun to hunt with.

I've got a Mosin-Nagant 7.62mm bolt-action Romanian WW2 carbine (with folding bayonet and 4-round box magazine) that's got a metal buttplate. That sob kicks like a frikkin' mule.

I think my favorite gun of all to shoot is the .44 Remington Army percussion. A sweet gun. Not too much recoil. Nice balance. Good on the draw and point. Lots of noise and smoke in the during.

Honestly, I really didn't care all that much for the M1911 I fired. It had too much tendency to jam. Maybe it was just the gun I was shooting then, but I found I couldn't hardly get through a full 7-round clip without a jam.

I've had a Spencer for about 30 years. It's .52 caliber. I've never fired it, but everything seems to work.

My favorite gun to carry and fire is a Colt 1903 .32 pocket hammerless semi-automatic. Lightweight and cheap to shoot.

Jamesaritchie said:

Velocity is mostly a matter of the difference between black powder and smokeless powder. The .45 Colt, using black powder, had a muzzle velocity no higher than 1,000 fps. Shorter barrels gave lower velocities.

You could only cram so much black powder into the case.

Using smokeless powder, that same cartridge can reach 1,500 fps. You can hand load a .45 Colt to reach higher velocities than a .44 Magnum.

But for the most part, velocity is more abut range and penetration than lethality. The faster the bullet, the better the trajectory and the greater the penetration at long range.

Solid lead bullets were incredibly lethal. Just look at the Civil war. A large caliber, soft lead bullet does incredible damage to the human body. There is no controlled expansion, as with a modern hollow point, and a hit on an arm or leg bone means losing that arm or leg. You really have to see the damage to believe it.

But soft lead has two huge disadvantages. 1. It has no penetration power on anything other than flesh and bone. If it has to go through anything solid to reach the body, it not only flattens, it can disintegrate. This means it also will not penetrate even ordinary soft body armor, let alone something like class three. 2. It can't be used at really high velocity because the friction of the air will melt it.

Cast lead is something else entirely, but that's another story entirely.

Click to expand...

So that makes sense in the context of the Arizona Ranger shootout. Given that the combatants were taking cover behind smallish trees, the guys with .44-40s were at a disadvantage against the guy with a 7.92 Mauser. The man with the Mauser could flush out his targets. But once exposed, they are just as vulnerable to the .44-40 as to the Mauser rounds.

Jamesaritchie said:

Anyway, bullets do not send people flying trough the air. Reflex muscle action can make a body appear to come off its feet, but never to the extent you see in silly movies. I saw a man hit in the center of the chest with a 12 ga. slug, and he did come off his feet, but only because of the sudden contraction and release of his leg muscles. It wasn't at all spectacular, though the damage that slug did was.

I've also seen a man down and dead instantly from a single 9mm round, and another man who was hit in the abdomen with a load of 12 ga. )) buck, probably the most lethal load out there, who not only didn't die, he never went down, and never lost consciousness. All nine buckshot exited, and did considerable damage on the way through, but he lived.

Anyway, you never know how a man will react to being hit by a bullet. Bullet placement is critical in making a kill, but only two spots on the body guarantee an instant collapse. One is a solid spinal cord hit, and the other is the brain stem.

Humans are individuals. A bullet that kills one person instantly may not kill another person at all. Even a heart or brain shot is not always fatal. This is why you keep shooting until the person is no longer a threat. You never count someone as dead until you bury him.

I've been shot twice, though neither hit was terribly serious. I took a bullet through the calf, and it felt like I'd been hit by a rock. I went down, but came back up running. I didn't know I;d actually been shot until after I reach cover.

Another time I took some shotgun pellets between the family jewels and my hipbone. That time I knew I'd been hit, but I didn't react at all. It felt like several hot needles going in, but the pain wasn't severe, and the pellets did no damage that mattered.

We had a man not far from here who was shot in the head with a .22, and didn't even realize it had happened. He fell, thought he'd bumped his head, and stopped the bit of blood he found with a wet washrag. He went to the doctor several days later, complaining about a bad headache. The doctor found the bullet hole, and all were, to say the least, very surprised.

Click to expand...

I've fired .22, .357, .38 Special, 9mm Makarov, and SKS (7.62mm), but only at targets. I was a armed guard for a while, but never had occasion to draw my gun, let alone fire it.

I've heard a few stories about guys getting hit with a .22 and not realizing until things settled down. I never quite realized how much adrenaline can dampen the effect of even larger calibers. I guess a hit on a bone would make a very great difference, though obviously a .22 in the head has to hit bone.

When I'm writing battle scenes, the guys who get shot mostly just fall down. Every so often I'll put in some blood splatter for effect. I figure knowing as little as I do about actual gunfights, it's better to be simple.