While were in a ballistics frame of mind...

Discussion in 'Weapons, Equipment & Rations' started by Flagrantviolator, Sep 7, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Is their any truth to the story that a near miss with. 50 by the head will kill a target due to hydrostatic shock? Or that a .50 to the hand will be liklier to kill a target than say 7.62? Always wondered.
  2. Flag, on the other thread where you asked this same question, I posted a link to a Youtube video. A guy firing a .5" rifle cops a ricochet that smacks his ear defenders (and probably filled his pants as well) but does not injure him.

    Now I have no idea how to calculate the percentage velocity of a ricochet, but as the muzzle velocity is in the region of 850 metres per second it will still be pretty fast, yet the dude is shaken but unbowed.
  3. Would it not be shockwave/air pressure, rather than hydrostatic shock?
  4. Yeah, I guess it would be air pressure (or vaccuum). I don't recall asking this before. Apologies. Link?
  5. Think of it like this:
    How much energy is transferred when something doesn't hit you?

    Pretty obvious really. I've no idea why this myth persists.

  6. Going forward from that, how did Concorde break greenhouse windows?
  7. Sonic boom?
  8. Wouldn't have figured you for the Wah, mucus. Nevermind.
  9. MY apols, thought it was you:


  10. Most Bundeswehr soldiers truly believe that a near miss with an ultra high velocity round will kill them!I´m not joking,they´re told this crap to make them duck that bit lower whilst training and this total load of b*llocks has become a ´fact´for them.

    And who fires UHV rounds anyway?And if soldiers survive hits in the arm or leg with a HV round why would a miss then be fatal?It´s a training myth that´s been let loose and most Krauts still believe it;Believe me I live near Mittenwald (home of the Gebirgsjäger) and even their SNCOs still teach this crap. :evil:
  11. Clarifying, the myth is for a near miss to the head, and an impact to the hand.
    Trauma and bloodloss could be fatal from any wound, i guess, but i would have no idea if the air pressure in a shockwave from a big, fast round would have any effect on brain tissue from a near miss.
  12. On a related ballistics/.50 cal point; i) does anyone know if they use standard .50 cal ammunition in the Barrett sniper rifles, or do they get higher quality stuff, and ii) is it true that they used .50 cal in Korea in indirect fire to target road junctions and the like, because a falling .50 cal has such a high terminal velocity that it will still do serious damage, unlike most small arm rounds?
  13. Dunno. But I can't believe 50 would be effective indirect fire.
  14. Just watched the video for the 50 cal ricochet. I suspect that the return speed is a tiny fraction of the muzzle velocity. For one thing it sounds from the whine you can here on the footage, that what comes back at the guy has a substantial off-axis spin which would cause a lot of drag. not only that, the time taken for the return flight is several times longer than the outward journey, and thats not taking into account the 'speed of sound' effects which would make the outward journey seem longer.

    To sum up, that video, although interesting, is not really evidence against the 'lethal shock wave' hypothesis.

    If we are going to be scientific about this, we sould round up some chavs (or politicians - according to preference) and fire various calibers toward them so they pass at set distances from their heads. this distance should then be reduced on subsequent attempts until the desired effect is achieved. To be truly effective, this should be done many times to prove the point.


    In the interests of full disclosure, I am a civvie engineer, so my experience, other than on a theoretical level, is basically nil!
  15. Unsure re the indirect 0.5" fire in Korea, though the beaten zone achieved with a HMG is much smaller than that of a GPMG making it ineffective as a suppressive weapon, instead making it more of a point weapon....though i am speaking about a modern 0.5" fitted into the soft mount, so i could be talking bollocks massively on a tangent. However, even if Browning 0.5" back then was creating a sufficient beaten zone to deny en use of key junctions fifty cal ammo is not light - 100 rounds weighing 16Kg, so to effectively deny road junctions with the use of 0.5" would require a substantial tonnage of ammunition!
    Re the Barrett question, it was initially used with standard BMG 0.5" ammo much like an L96 COULD fire delinked 7.62mm 4B1T (snipers i know, i know!)...however, this is not good for the weapon or for accuracy down range, and there are a variety of other 12.7mm ammo types available. Favourite for puttng through HMG probably the Raufoss "naval" multipurpose round, couldnt say what is round of choice for Barrett.