Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Father of the double tap
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3
Snow_Fox
I'm not sure if I'm looking to open a discussion here or just share what I read recently but it seemed to be a RL person with definate ties to SR. since SR1's Street Samurai Catalogue most pistols have had a reactive trigger, allowing 2 shots in an action the infamous 'double tap' of an execution style shooting. But the source of this is interesting.

In WW2 the British Secret Service, MI6, was virtually wiped out in short order by the speed of Axis advances. While it regroup the governement formed the SOE, Special Operations Executive which was to co-ordinate resistance groups and sabotage behind enemy lines in WW2. There seems to have been a bit of a boys school prank element to their training. One mission put skin irritants into German army condoms in a bordello. Wilderness survival came from the Kng's game keeper on loan from royal estates. Codes were taught by Philby, a mathematics Don, and later proven himself to be a Soviet spy. Hand to hand combat was taught by a Scott named Fairbairn who was Policeman in the far east and an expert in the garott. (Interesting police technique)

In combat training his partner was another former member of the Shanghai police named Sykes. Orginially a sniper Sykes developed a unique style of pistol shooting. Most people, myself included, shoot pistols from the aimed position, that is arm extended and looking down the length of the weapon at a target up to 25 yards away. Shooting from the hip , dispite how it looks in movies, is incredibly inaccurate-yeah I've tried it. At 10 yards I'm lucky to hit the target board(unless using a laser sight then it's easy)

However Sykes observed that most pistol shoot outs occurred at no more than 4 yards. He developed a style of shooting from a crouched position with the gun angled from the hip. He stressed the importance of shooting first and accurately but at close range like that even a miss would result in a 'flinch' from the target at the noise.

He also stressed rapid fire, having observed that while being shot once was enough to knock the fight out of the average man, a person charged with adrenaline could keep going even with a bullet in him. This mean the shooter was trained to do the 'double tap' firing bullets in sets of two, the idea being that the 2nd hit would probably be enough to take down a target only 'stunned' by the first bullet. I know that in SR more than once it has been the 2nd hit from the reactive trigger that has taken down my target, not the first.

But all this was developed in the 1930's, without laser sights or smart links, but it was undeniably effective. Truly plus ca change, plus ca le meme chose.
Ancient History
Who are you, and what have you done with Snowy?
Summerstorm
Hm hm... yeah i read the book (pamphlet) of that man, i think.

Well.... what can i add to this bit of information... ummm.

Sometimes you need more than 2 shots. Bullets sometimes do strangely low damage. I read once about a man who wouldn't stop attacking (unarmed against two police officers) untill he had the eight round in the torso. That was 9mm. Also if movies and games are right: three shots is the golden number: quick 2 shots to stun, get his bloodpressure to drop rapidly, then close in fast: aim, headshot. Perfectly ok in SR as well: first IP two shots to get him on his knees (fill his monitor so he loses dice like hell), second: aim, called shot; BAM.

I also read about this "point-and-trigger" system, where (because you can intuitivly point VERY accurately and FAST at near objects) you trigger with your middle finger, and have the index parallel to the barrel. So pretty much for running a close-quarter gunkata *g*. Feasable? I guess it sounds ok.
Kovu Muphasa
I prefer the LAPD Tripple Tap
2 in the Chest eek.gif eek.gif
1 in the Head dead.gif
Then go for the billy club biggrin.gif
kzt
Some non-zero percentage of US WW2 military dead were found to have non-serious or no wounds. Essentially they decided they were going to die, and did. (sorry, can't find the reference right now, but it was a few percent).

I know someone who once shot a thug 11 times before said thug decided to stop trying to shoot him and collapsed. I've seen autopsy pictures of a guy who looked like he had a bizarre case of measles due to all the 9mm holes in him.

Real world people are very unpredictable. You need to shoot them as many time as it takes to make them stop doing things that justify you using deadly force on them. It doesn't matter if you are using a .22lr or a .45, if you need to shoot someone you need to be prepared to shoot them many times. Some people will be psychologically incapacitated by any trivial wound, others will take wounds that should make them DRT but keep trying to kill you anyway.
kjones
No kill like overkill.

I recall reading in this book that during the Phillipine-American War, the Americans had to start using higher caliber weapons, because the Filipinos didn't realize that you're supposed to fall down and die when you get shot.
kzt
I've read that it turned out that .45s were not much more effective than .38s for stopping drugged up Moro fanatics, but people don't like to talk about that.
kzt
I saw a comment on a blog yesterday where an instructor mentioned a student of his, who worked as a bouncer, got shot twice with a .25 in a fight. The head shot ricocheted off his forehead, the one to the center of his chest needed tweezers to remove a few hours later. The idiot with the .25 apparently got a severe beatdown...
Dahrken
QUOTE (Summerstorm @ Feb 20 2010, 05:54 AM) *
Hm hm... yeah i read the book (pamphlet) of that man, i think.

He wrote several (link HERE).

In a similar kind, there is the classical "Kill or get Killed" by Aplegate. It's more diversified, touching unarmed as well as armed and firearms combat. Nice reading, showing well that a serious fight is a brutish, nasty thing far from the glamourous/aesthetic spin some action movies put on it.

As for double tap, most of my characters have been partial to the "shoot 'til they drop, then one more in the head so they stay down" tactic.
Synner667
Interesting stuff...
wanderer_king
The .45 is better at stopping drugged up/adrenaline/psychos than the .38, but that has to do with the stopping power at shorter ranges physically knocking you on your ass... the 9mm and 5.56 nato are just crap... give me .308 any day of the week.
Hagga
QUOTE (Summerstorm @ Feb 20 2010, 04:54 AM) *
Hm hm... yeah i read the book (pamphlet) of that man, i think.

Well.... what can i add to this bit of information... ummm.

Sometimes you need more than 2 shots. Bullets sometimes do strangely low damage. I read once about a man who wouldn't stop attacking (unarmed against two police officers) untill he had the eight round in the torso.

Have you ever run into someone on angel dust? Because that sounds just like it. Dusters are terrifying.

QUOTE (kzt @ Feb 20 2010, 07:30 AM) *
I've read that it turned out that .45s were not much more effective than .38s for stopping drugged up Moro fanatics, but people don't like to talk about that.

Yeah, that. I've read a .38 took five shots to the skull to take down someone on PCP. Not sure if it's true, but my own experiences suggest it might be.
kjones
QUOTE (Hagga @ Feb 20 2010, 11:11 AM) *
Yeah, that. I've read a .38 took five shots to the skull to take down someone on PCP. Not sure if it's true, but my own experiences suggest it might be.


From when you shot someone in the head five times, or when you were shot in the head five times yourself?

It's hard to get good statistics on "How many shots does it take to kill someone?" Sites like this one seem to indicate that about as many people are injured by guns as are killed by them every year - but that doesn't say anything about the severity of the injuries (or the amount of dakka involved in the deaths).

Now I'm curious - is there any group that tracks those kinds of statistics? My Google-fu is not up to the challenge...
kzt
QUOTE (wanderer_king @ Feb 20 2010, 06:20 AM) *
The .45 is better at stopping drugged up/adrenaline/psychos than the .38, but that has to do with the stopping power at shorter ranges physically knocking you on your ass... the 9mm and 5.56 nato are just crap... give me .308 any day of the week.

Conservation of momentum says if it doesn't knock you down when you shoot it it won't knock down the person who gets hit. If it doesn't require shooting prone, a ring mount or hydraulics to move the turret it isn't going to have "knock down power".
kzt
QUOTE (kjones @ Feb 20 2010, 09:50 AM) *
It's hard to get good statistics on "How many shots does it take to kill someone?" Sites like this one seem to indicate that about as many people are injured by guns as are killed by them every year - but that doesn't say anything about the severity of the injuries (or the amount of dakka involved in the deaths).

Now I'm curious - is there any group that tracks those kinds of statistics? My Google-fu is not up to the challenge...

There are some in the trauma literature, if you have access to medical journals.

For example, in the study I have open right now, 4.6% of the 35 personnel who received a gun shot wound in a US Army brigade during the surge in Iraq were KIA (died before reaching a level 2 treatment facility), 4.8% later died of wounds. 13 of 35 were returned to duty from the aid center, 20 were medically evacuated out of theater but recovered.

Others I vaguely remember are that the chances of being killed by a single pistol bullet is under 20% in the US if you get medical attention.
crizh
Fairbairn and Sykes were an interesting pair of nutters.

They were both pushing 60 when they were drafted into train the fledgling commandos during WW2. One of them, Sykes I think, was a black-belt in Ju-jitsu and they formulated the brutal close combat techniques that the commandos used. I would imagine it is very similar to Krav Maga, mechanically.

They used to do this stunt where they were introduced to the new recruits in the lodge they were first brought to by coming down the big sweeping stairs and then these two old men would trip and fall all the way down them to demonstrate the usefulness of being able to fall properly.

They also invented the 'Fairbairn-Sykes' pattern fighting knife that the Commandos used for silent assassinations. Nasty, brutal and efficient.

Oh, and that whole pop-up targets thing. I think they used it first in Singapore and developed it fully in Scotland for the Commandos. All the FBI and LEO training stuff you see with the pop-up targets? Fairbairn and Sykes.

Nutters.
Wounded Ronin
I wonder if Sykes would have advocated bump-firing a 1911 from the hip.
Snow_Fox
Fairbairn was the jujitsu expert hand to hand combat and nasty weapons. Sykes was the firearms expert. Between them they were a two man encyclopedia of dirty tricks. They developed the Fairbairn-Sykes dagger commonly thought of to be the commando knife a model of which I've used as a personel athame for nearly 20 years.

I didn't know they were nearly 60. The pics I've seen make both look like late middle aged fraggers but that would mean they were in their prime in the late 19th Century, the height of Victoriana, fair play, jolly good etc. learning some really dark and dirty tricks.

As for the bullet used, they apparently did conduct tests to compare what was most likely to stop a man, large caliber or high velocity-apparently they could not find a noticible difference-I'm pretty sure we don't want to know how, this was the 1930's not Myth Busters- so focused on the double tap to bring down a target.

Sykes wrote several books. I'm looking out for them. From what I've read he would have agreed pretty much with the shooting philosophy of Wyatt Earp that was basically, take you time, don't rush the shot, but do it fast.
QUOTE (Ancient History @ Feb 19 2010, 11:29 PM) *
Who are you, and what have you done with Snowy?

I don't get it? historical facts, slightly off on a tangent, gun related, sounds like me.

Heck, I deleted a whole paragraph on a certain officer seconded from the Royal Navy intelligence section. A man of proven talent he was sent to orgnaize the somewhat chaotic systems at the SOE's Baker Street HQ near Regent's park. He was so good he was then seconded to the OSS, the newly formed American spy service to help them organize. He wrote their charterand it was considered so good, that after the war it was taken, almost verbatum, as the charter of the new cold war spy service, the Central Intelligence Agency.
Ancient History
Snowdonia Foxx, Hexshooter.
Nows7
This cat sounds interesting. If it's slow at work tonight i'll be heading to the google to check it out myself. Thanks for the tip.

QUOTE (kzt @ Feb 20 2010, 08:08 PM) *
There are some in the trauma literature, if you have access to medical journals.

For example, in the study I have open right now, 4.6% of the 35 personnel who received a gun shot wound in a US Army brigade during the surge in Iraq were KIA (died before reaching a level 2 treatment facility), 4.8% later died of wounds. 13 of 35 were returned to duty from the aid center, 20 were medically evacuated out of theater but recovered.

Others I vaguely remember are that the chances of being killed by a single pistol bullet is under 20% in the US if you get medical attention.


That's because http://ermc.amedd.army.mil/landstuhl/index.cfm is danm good. The one thing I miss about being in the Army is working there.
Draco18s
QUOTE (kzt @ Feb 20 2010, 01:56 PM) *
Conservation of momentum says if it doesn't knock you down when you shoot it it won't knock down the person who gets hit. If it doesn't require shooting prone, a ring mount or hydraulics to move the turret it isn't going to have "knock down power".


While correct, you do have to take into account shock. If someone literally locks up when they get shot (as in all of their muscles tighten) they'll likely going to fall over as their own forward momentum (from walking) isn't being averted by placing their next foot down.

Never seen feighting goats have you?
Snow_Fox
I agree, and since we're drifting into myth busters here, tat was one of their earlier and worst shows- the shooting knock down I mean, not the goats. They argued that Newton's law that for every action their is an opposite and equal reaction meansthat the force to knock down a person hit by a bullet means there would have to be enough force in the recoil to knock down the shooter.

This looks good on paper but doesn't allow for two things.
1) recoil- most weapons have a mechanism for absorbing recoil that will void part of the backward thrust semi-auto and full auto's use this to work their mechanisms. Even with a basic revolver your elbow bends, absorbing and redirecting part of the force.

2) preparing for it. You pull the trigger, you know it's going off, you are braced. If you're the target you don't know this is ocming. sure you know you're being shot at ubt you don't know when you'll be hit "they got me!" You can't brace for it and the shock and surprise contribute to your being off balance and down you go. Seriously, If you can brace for it you probably won't be knocked down, but unless you're Geroge Reeves or tied to a post who is going to just stand there facing the shooter waiting for the hit?
nezumi
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Feb 20 2010, 04:31 PM) *
While correct, you do have to take into account shock. If someone literally locks up when they get shot (as in all of their muscles tighten) they'll likely going to fall over as their own forward momentum (from walking) isn't being averted by placing their next foot down.


But if the cause is just human reaction, then the only difference between a .22 and a .45 is how likely the person is to notice it - not how how much damage the bullet actually causes. A shallow wound by birdshot should have more knock-down power than a 5.56, because it's more graphic, and hits more nerve cells, hurting more, but fails to reach the tender internals, while the 5.56 just rips everything up and goes on its merry way.
Snow_Fox
right, a modern high velocity round would pass through a body and only damage what it actuallt hit. By comparrison a soft lead musket ball, very low velocity has only limited penetrating power but it transfers a hell of a lot of kentic energy to the target.
kzt
QUOTE (Snow_Fox @ Feb 20 2010, 02:52 PM) *
2) preparing for it. You pull the trigger, you know it's going off, you are braced. If you're the target you don't know this is ocming. sure you know you're being shot at ubt you don't know when you'll be hit "they got me!" You can't brace for it and the shock and surprise contribute to your being off balance and down you go. Seriously, If you can brace for it you probably won't be knocked down, but unless you're Geroge Reeves or tied to a post who is going to just stand there facing the shooter waiting for the hit?

The example used was a crazed fanatic on drugs charging you. He had a LOT of momentum that you have to overcome. If the awesome power of the 1911 in genuine, all American .45ACP can reliably knock off his feet a 160 pound guy immune to pain running at you at with a machete more power to you, but I would suggest not counting on it.

There is a video somewhere I've seen of a guy standing on one leg wearing a level IV vest and getting shot with a FAL on the plate. He doesn't fall down.
Hagga
QUOTE (kjones @ Feb 20 2010, 04:50 PM) *
From when you shot someone in the head five times, or when you were shot in the head five times yourself?

It's hard to get good statistics on "How many shots does it take to kill someone?" Sites like this one seem to indicate that about as many people are injured by guns as are killed by them every year - but that doesn't say anything about the severity of the injuries (or the amount of dakka involved in the deaths).

Now I'm curious - is there any group that tracks those kinds of statistics? My Google-fu is not up to the challenge...

As in, attempting to off themselves.
FlakJacket
QUOTE (Kovu Muphasa @ Feb 20 2010, 05:21 AM) *
I prefer the LAPD Tripple Tap
2 in the Chest eek.gif eek.gif
1 in the Head dead.gif
Then go for the billy club biggrin.gif

Hah. IIRC the two in the chest and one in the head is called a Mozambique.
Snow_Fox
The traditional shot from the Soviets were two behind the right ear.
Orcus Blackweather
I have been interested in Fairburn and Sykes for several years. I was a Bond fan for my whole Childhood. All of the techniques do seem to jibe with the game mechanics, depending on how skewed your character generation is (A troll with .1 essence laughs at your 9mm).

I am also interested in Ballistic effects (Although only as an amateur, my math-fu sucks). I Like to reload my own rounds, and occasionally play with hot loads for my .44 mag. I have found that when you fire it, if you do not have the correct stance, it will rock you back a couple of feet. My father is 6' 4" 250 lbs, he fired his first shot in the wild west one hand style, and nearly fell down from shooting it. I can only imagine what would happen on the receiving end of a 240 grain hollow point traveling at 2200 fps.
AngelisStorm
Just some random bits:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgcLBc69l04
Proper form is important.

Also I can't remember which big gun it is, but off the top of my head I think it's the .357 mag. Anyway, apparently it was developed because .45s were "to large" to be comfortable for many police officers, but .38s were not even kinda doing it against organized crime. (Wimpy police officers; they complained about the .357s to.)
Snow_Fox
Magnums were developed for big game hunters at the end of the 19th century. .357 magnums can fire 38 specials no problem. although they do more damage, I find the magnum rounds, having more umph, tends to be more acurate with al onger range. This is subjective on my part but hey, if i'm right it would explain why, forexample street cops had 38specials while highway cops have magnums. It has nothing to do with take down in these cases but range-a highway cop is far morel ikely to be involved in long distance shooting.
Kovu Muphasa
If you want real stoping power theyn did make a .600 Nitro Revolver
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (Snow_Fox @ Feb 21 2010, 03:20 PM) *
The traditional shot from the Soviets were two behind the right ear.


In Soviet Russia, double tap executes you!
Creel
On the subject of knockdown power and conservation of energy...

There's a large amount of recoil comp going into the design of firearms these days. It absorbs some of the kinetic energy and diverts it into many springs and mechanisms to cycle the action, and the rest is directed upward (usually, depends on grip).

On the receiving end there are none of those competing forces to deflect the kinetic transfer. to add to that the bullets are designed to expand to much larger size thereby maximizing energy transfer over a broader area and minimizing penetration.

In short, there is in fact more direct energy transfer into the recieving mass.


Also, as a firearms instructor we teach "keep firing until they are no longer a threat".
Synner667
QUOTE (Creel @ Feb 23 2010, 08:03 PM) *
On the subject of knockdown power and conservation of energy...

There's a large amount of recoil comp going into the design of firearms these days. It absorbs some of the kinetic energy and diverts it into many springs and mechanisms to cycle the action, and the rest is directed upward (usually, depends on grip).

On the recieving end there are none of those competing forces to deflect the kinetic transfer. to add to that the bullets are designed to expand to much larger size thereby maximizing energy transfer over a broader area and minimizing penetration.

In short, there is in fact more direct energy transfer into the recieving mass.


Also, as a firearms instructor we teach "keep firing until they are no longer a threat".

This transfer of kinetic energy is [at least] one of the reasons why slug throwers still get used in Traveller, rather than everyone relying on beam weapons - there's little defence against a piece of metal travelling at subsonic speeds.
Snow_Fox
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Feb 22 2010, 09:08 PM) *
In Soviet Russia, double tap executes you!

Yeah, that's what I meant
forgarn
QUOTE (kzt @ Feb 20 2010, 01:56 PM) *
Conservation of momentum says if it doesn't knock you down when you shoot it it won't knock down the person who gets hit. If it doesn't require shooting prone, a ring mount or hydraulics to move the turret it isn't going to have "knock down power".


Having been in the military and being an avid hunter, I have to disagree. I have shot the 9mm and the 5.56mm (I agree they are crap) as well as the 7.62MM/.308 and an 8mm. None of them knock me down, however the .308 and the 8mm sure do a number on an elk or deer.
Snow_Fox
check my earlier post on the physics of a recoil and why those people calling for a equal and opposite reaction miss the point
Wounded Ronin
Not to mention that it can be very easy or very hard to knock someone down depending on things like balance and momentum.
crizh
QUOTE (Snow_Fox @ Feb 28 2010, 06:35 PM) *
check my earlier post on the physics of a recoil and why those people calling for a equal and opposite reaction miss the point


Impulse.

This is the thing most folks don't get. Yes the system firing the round must absorb exactly the same amount of energy as the target but the Impulse can be shaped to spread that energy out over time and space in such a way that the human body can easily compensate for.

There are obviously limits, you probably can't deliver more energy per second with a slug-thrower than you can with a hay-maker but with a single shot weapon this shouldn't be a serious problem.

One thing I have often wondered about high velocity projectiles is whether or not body armour actually does more harm than good.

I remember reading a study of gun-shot wounds in Korea and Vietnam which suggested that very high energy rounds that did not pass through vital organs did relatively little damage because they did not start to tumble until after exiting the target. Slower projectiles that started to tumble immediately caused massive exit wounds and the corridor of damaged internal tissue was substantially larger.

It has made me suspect that high calibre rounds that penetrate body armour will have slowed enough to start tumbling inside the target when they otherwise would not have, thus substantially increasing the damage the target suffers rather than decreasing it.
Critias
How'd I manage to miss this thread this long?

For those wanting to see first hand just how awesome Fairbairn was, you can flip through his hand to hand combat manual, "GET TOUGH," here (I figured I'd put it on the first knife fighting page): GET TOUGH!
Saint Sithney
QUOTE (forgarn @ Feb 24 2010, 06:42 AM) *
Having been in the military and being an avid hunter, I have to disagree. I have shot the 9mm and the 5.56mm (I agree they are crap) as well as the 7.62MM/.308 and an 8mm. None of them knock me down, however the .308 and the 8mm sure do a number on an elk or deer.


A boxer's strongest punch transfers about 300 Joules of force.
A .50 BMG round delivers around 15,000 to 20,000 joules of force on on target.

I've heard that being shot with a 9mm with a standard class 3 armor hurts about as much as being hit full swing with a ball peen hammer.
Sengir
QUOTE (Snow_Fox @ Feb 20 2010, 10:52 PM) *
This looks good on paper but doesn't allow for two things.
1) recoil- most weapons have a mechanism for absorbing recoil that will void part of the backward thrust semi-auto and full auto's use this to work their mechanisms. Even with a basic revolver your elbow bends, absorbing and redirecting part of the force.

Unless you are firing at a massive steel block, energy transfer to the target is also anything but instantaneous or complete. Actually, even a steel block will deform when hit by a bullet, and the deformation of the bullet will also eat up energy.

But as you said, knocking over a person does not only have to do with physics. If you hit someone on the head with a newspaper he might also stuble and fall, but not due to kinetic energy or terminal ballistics wink.gif
Creel
QUOTE (crizh @ Mar 1 2010, 08:11 AM) *
Impulse.

This is the thing most folks don't get. Yes the system firing the round must absorb exactly the same amount of energy as the target but the Impulse can be shaped to spread that energy out over time and space in such a way that the human body can easily compensate for.

There are obviously limits, you probably can't deliver more energy per second with a slug-thrower than you can with a hay-maker but with a single shot weapon this shouldn't be a serious problem.

One thing I have often wondered about high velocity projectiles is whether or not body armour actually does more harm than good.

I remember reading a study of gun-shot wounds in Korea and Vietnam which suggested that very high energy rounds that did not pass through vital organs did relatively little damage because they did not start to tumble until after exiting the target. Slower projectiles that started to tumble immediately caused massive exit wounds and the corridor of damaged internal tissue was substantially larger.

It has made me suspect that high calibre rounds that penetrate body armour will have slowed enough to start tumbling inside the target when they otherwise would not have, thus substantially increasing the damage the target suffers rather than decreasing it.



Small Caliber is far more likely to penetrate armor than large. But it's not penetration that causes the most damage. It's getting hit by a piece of Kevlar traveling 2,000fps +

Edit: fixed
crizh
QUOTE (Creel @ Mar 1 2010, 08:35 PM) *
Small Caliber is far more likely to penetrate armor than small. But it's not penetration that causes the most damage. It's getting hit by a piece of Kevlar traveling 2,000fps +


I don't know which of those words you got wrong so I truthfully haven't the faintest idea what you are trying to say there.
Creel
QUOTE (crizh @ Mar 1 2010, 02:55 PM) *
I don't know which of those words you got wrong so I truthfully haven't the faintest idea what you are trying to say there.


Apologies, it's fixed now.

Point is that Armor is still a very happy thing. Armor is very good at stopping bullets. The damage sustained by taking hits while wearing it is far more likely to be blunt force trauma resulting from the impact (i.e. broken ribs puncturing lungs) than actual penetration of the armor. You've got a point in that hydrostatic shock and tumbling could potential cause more damage if penetration is an issue, but I'd still rather be wearing armor than not. If a round penetrates while you're in armor it may do more damage than it would have otherwise for the reasons you've named. If you aren't in armor the round will penetrate, and it's little friends too.
crizh
Sorry, not being an actual expert (not much chance to get your hands on firearms in the UK) I made a noob error above.

Embarrassingly I was going to mention FN's 5.7mm round in my comments on Impulse.

To clarify, high velocity military rounds, 7.62 NATO for example, tend to over-penetration on soft targets. The wounds caused are often not fatal although they will be incapacitating.

Assuming a shot that doesn't strike something immediately fatal, head, heart, major arteries etc, neither small arms fire or rifle fire is likely to cause wounds that are beyond medical science. You will most likely live to fight another day.

Body armour might lead to a situation where you are able to survive small arms fire without requiring medical attention but almost any impact from a rifle shot is going to be fatal when it might otherwise have just hospitalized the target.

It's mostly speculation on my part. I don't imagine there is a lot of hard evidence one way or the other.
Creel
Body armor does not qualify as "soft targets". unarmored personnel are soft targets.

Had a downchecked Kevlar Vest lying around this summer. Grabbed several guns. .22lr, .38, .357, 9x19mm, 10mm, .45ACP, 7mm mauser(High powered rifle, .27ish), 7.62x54 (high powered rifle .30cal), .223 (high powered rifle very small caliber, about the same as 5.56 Nato)

Proceeded to shoot the living crap out of the vest.

Not one round penetrated fully.

Edit: No these weren't "AP" rounds. They were a mix of soft-point, FMJ round-nose, FMJ spear-point and JHP
Sengir
QUOTE (crizh @ Mar 1 2010, 10:27 PM) *
To clarify, high velocity military rounds, 7.62 NATO for example, tend to over-penetration on soft targets. The wounds caused are often not fatal although they will be incapacitating.

The question is not so much whether the bullet penetrates or not, the question is what it damages on the way. A round which shoots through the target but wrecks everything in its path (say, an assault cannon) is certainly more deadly than a simple lead bullet which (when using modern propellants) basically explodes on impact and won't go deeper than a few centimeters.

QUOTE
Assuming a shot that doesn't strike something immediately fatal, head, heart, major arteries etc, neither small arms fire or rifle fire is likely to cause wounds that are beyond medical science. You will most likely live to fight another day.

There are actually scenarios where this is preferrable. A dead soldier just requires a body bag, a wounded one ties up manpower and resources...

QUOTE
Body armour might lead to a situation where you are able to survive small arms fire without requiring medical attention but almost any impact from a rifle shot is going to be fatal when it might otherwise have just hospitalized the target.

A clear "depends". If the bullet got suffieciently slowed down and deformed while penetrating the armour, the wound would be nasty but the more vital parts inside the body remain unharmed. You are right, however, that once something with sufficient force penetrates the armour, the target would often fare better without it.
Classic example is the human skull, it does a good job of protecting our brain, but once the brain is swelling from an injury that complete encapsulation can be deadly, because the brain is squashed against the bone.



@Creel: Infantry with body armour are still soft targets...a 120mm DP round doesn't care much about that bit of Kevlar. wink.gif
Creel
QUOTE (Sengir @ Mar 1 2010, 04:37 PM) *
The question is not so much whether the bullet penetrates or not, the question is what it damages on the way. A round which shoots through the target but wrecks everything in its path (say, an assault cannon) is certainly more deadly than a simple lead bullet which (when using modern propellants) basically explodes on impact and won't go deeper than a few centimeters.


There are actually scenarios where this is preferrable. A dead soldier just requires a body bag, a wounded one ties up manpower and resources...


A clear "depends". If the bullet got suffieciently slowed down and deformed while penetrating the armour, the wound would be nasty but the more vital parts inside the body remain unharmed. You are right, however, that once something with sufficient force penetrates the armour, the target would often fare better without it.
Classic example is the human skull, it does a good job of protecting our brain, but once the brain is swelling from an injury that complete encapsulation can be deadly, because the brain is squashed against the bone.



@Creel: Infantry with body armour are still soft targets...a 120mm DP round doesn't care much about that bit of Kevlar. wink.gif


Yes, Artillery kills armored personnel. You bring brilliant insight, a man in a flak jacket is not equal to a hardened bunker.

Back to context
a man in military grade combat armor in 2010 (much less 2072), would not be considered a "soft target" if included in a survey of battlefield wounds in Vietnam.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012