Those heavy duty bullet stopping woolley overcoats of yesteryear!! (pics)

[Tomasso]

The raw energy may be there, but the practical ability to transfer that energy into movement doesn't exist.

I have been told by an experienced combat soldier, who has hit other combatants and been hit himself, that a bullet knocking someone clean off their feet is pure Hollywood. He was shot in the shoulder and he said it felt like a punch. The force spun him around causing him to lose his balance and hit the ground but it didn't lift him off his feet.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

What a very strange thread.

Beating towards the guns is actually pretty safe, so long as noone shoots at a low flying bird. (and hey, if someone does shoot at a daisy cutter, it's only the peasants you're going to hit, so who cares?)

bk

 

[Micawber]

From a my cultural perspective I would reply that walking people into guns almost implicitly violates basic gun safety rules. Also, if you have a 2 foot dog do the pointing and/or flushing you can shoot at a bird that takes off skimming the brush in perfect safety. Not all birds flush high by genetics and a fist-sized target jinking nap of the earth through the weeds is a harder target to get up on than a nice high riser.

But that's this side of the pond I guess, different traditions.

Indeed but what you describe would be described as walked up shooting here.

The United Kingdom has a long tradition of driven gamebird shooting. Granted not all birds fly high but it is beholden on the sporting gun over here to only take sporting high birds and thus is not shooting into the beating line. As in all sports accidents can occur but the safety record amongst British sportsmen is high.

A brief description can be found on the British Association For Shooting & Conservation website.

BASC code of good shooting practice.

Another brief description here

Finally...

"If a sportsman true you’d be
Listen carefully to me. . .

Never, never let your gun
Pointed be at anyone.
That it may unloaded be
Matters not the least to me.

When a hedge or fence you cross
Though of time it cause a loss
From your gun the cartridge take
For the greater safety’s sake.

If twixt you and neighboring gun
Bird shall fly or beast may run
Let this maxim ere be thine
“Follow not across the line.”

Stops and beaters oft unseen
Lurk behind some leafy screen.
Calm and steady always be
“Never shoot where you can’t see.”

You may kill or you may miss
But at all times think this:
“All the pheasants ever bred
Won’t repay for one man dead.”

Written by Mark Beaufoy of Coombe House, Shaftesbury, Dorset, England, in 1902, on presenting his eldest son, Henry Mark, with his first gun.

 

[carebear]

Finally...

"If a sportsman true you’d be
Listen carefully to me. . .

Never, never let your gun
Pointed be at anyone.
That it may unloaded be
Matters not the least to me.

When a hedge or fence you cross
Though of time it cause a loss
From your gun the cartridge take
For the greater safety’s sake.

If twixt you and neighboring gun
Bird shall fly or beast may run
Let this maxim ere be thine
“Follow not across the line.”

Stops and beaters oft unseen
Lurk behind some leafy screen.
Calm and steady always be
“Never shoot where you can’t see.”

You may kill or you may miss
But at all times think this:
“All the pheasants ever bred
Won’t repay for one man dead.”

Written by Mark Beaufoy of Coombe House, Shaftesbury, Dorset, England, in 1902, on presenting his eldest son, Henry Mark, with his first gun.

Thank you for the info. It is indeed a different tradition. I daresay it probably was more common here earlier in our history when there were more elites with the budget to hire the drivers. If you don't have the money to hire beaters, you pretty much are left with you and a dog.

I really like that poem and fully intend on stealing it. (with proper attribution of course)

 

[Alan Eardley]

Stalking the red grouse...

I find hilarious the description from an Orvis clothing advertisement for a waistcoat that they claim is ideal for, '...stalking the Red Grouse in the shadow of the Munros, Scotland's highest mountains.' How many inaccuracies can they fit into one sentence?

Alan

 

[carebear]

I find hilarious the description from an Orvis clothing advertisement for a waistcoat that they claim is ideal for, '...stalking the Red Grouse in the shadow of the Munros, Scotland's highest mountains.' How many inaccuracies can they fit into one sentence?

Alan

Are the grouse not red? lol

 

[Micawber]

I find hilarious the description from an Orvis clothing advertisement for a waistcoat that they claim is ideal for, '...stalking the Red Grouse in the shadow of the Munros, Scotland's highest mountains.' How many inaccuracies can they fit into one sentence?

Alan

The ad writers are obviously a clued up bunch lol

 

[geo]

Anyway, I know I 've seen this worked out on my old favorite gunboards by actual rocket scientists. So I must have misstated. The raw energy may be there, but the practical ability to transfer that energy into movement doesn't exist. The round's surface area is too small and penetrative and the surface it impacts too yielding.

That's right, the kinetic energy of a 20 grammes bullet traveling at 278 m/s would move a perfectly rigid 80 kg body 1m on a frictionless surface. The human body is different, because altgough a bullet is stopped by the body, and the whole of the bullet's kinetic energy is transferred to the body, the body itself is not rigit, being 70% water, and deforms, therefore absorbing a great deal of the kinetic energy of the bullet, which spreads as a shock wave through the tissue.

 

[Alan Eardley]

Wonderful stuff inertia...

The maths would work OK in a airless environment without gravity. Unfortunately, in most places where people get to shoot guns, ol' Newton and his law holds sway. If you've ever fired a test round into a block of ballistic gel you will see the cause of the hydrostatic shock effect (as in water in the human body) clearly, and note how the gel gradually dissipates the kinetic energy of the round as it penetrates. The gel block will always deform, but rarely shift (even with a heavy round fired point blank) yet you can usually push it off the table table with one hand. Yep, bullets work because they're sharp and pointy.

 

[Alan Eardley]

One out of three ain't bad

Are the grouse not red? lol

Matthew,

At least they got that right!

Alan

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Munros are Scotland's highest mountains. Sort of. A poor use of the English language on the part of Orvis, i'll grant you, but they're correct about everything except the stalking ...

bk

 

[FreddieVonRost]

Munros are Scotland's highest mountains. Sort of. A poor use of the English language on the part of Orvis, i'll grant you, but they're correct about everything except the stalking ...

bk

I suppose: "walked up" or "shooting over pointers" does not quite have the same ring to it as: stalking.

 

[FreddieVonRost]

Pedantry

Dear Micawber,

Hope you are enjoying the season. Soon it will be February and it will be back to pidgeon shooting again.

This may be very pedantic but:

Originally Posted by FreddieVonRost

From a my cultural perspective I would reply that walking people into guns almost implicitly violates basic gun safety rules. Also, if you have a 2 foot dog do the pointing and/or flushing you can shoot at a bird that takes off skimming the brush in perfect safety. Not all birds flush high by genetics and a fist-sized target jinking nap of the earth through the weeds is a harder target to get up on than a nice high riser.

But that's this side of the pond I guess, different traditions.

was actually posted by carebear.

On another note, I must dig out my volume of Big Shoots and scan some of the images which make fascinating Edwardian Shooting Fashion viewing.

Below thirty feet sir? Casserole for luncheon again.

 

[Alan Eardley]

Munros are Scotland's highest mountains. Sort of. A poor use of the English language on the part of Orvis, i'll grant you, but they're correct about everything except the stalking ...

bk

Baron,

'Shadow of THE Munros?' I think that's more than a poor use of English. I think it's a mistake. Munros (a categorisation rather than a specific mountain range) are scattered over a large area of Scotland. How can they all cast a shadow over a single 'grouse stalker'? Saying 'One of the Munros' or even, 'Some of the Munros' would be OK, but I think that copywriter just doesn't know his or her ground.

Alan

 

[FreddieVonRost]

Baron,

'Shadow of THE Munros?' I think that's more than a poor use of English. I think it's a mistake. Munros (a categorisation rather than a specific mountain range) are scattered over a large area of Scotland. How can they all cast a shadow over a single grouse stalker? Saying 'One of the Munros' or even, 'Some of the Munros' would be OK, but I think that copywriter just doesn't know his or her ground.

Alan

Not too dissimilar to some of the Barbour catalogues I have seen. Always useful for that old favourite: spot the mistake. So far I have managed to find guns carried in slips stock down, models with fingers on triggers or ambiguous handling images.

The problem I think is that the world of advertising is rather far removed from the world of field sports. This is of course irrelevant for townies but such mistakes are glaringly obvious to those in the know.

 

[Tomasso]

The problem I think is that the world of advertising is rather far removed from the world of field sports. This is of course irrelevant for townies but such mistakes are glaringly obvious to those in the know.

I agree. Most advertising that depicts any specific activity will come up short, in the area of authenticity, when critiqued by an aficionado of the activity. Same thing with cinema.[huh]

 

[Sunny]

The maths would work OK in a airless environment without gravity. Unfortunately, in most places where people get to shoot guns, ol' Newton and his law holds sway. If you've ever fired a test round into a block of ballistic gel you will see the cause of the hydrostatic shock effect (as in water in the human body) clearly, and note how the gel gradually dissipates the kinetic energy of the round as it penetrates. The gel block will always deform, but rarely shift (even with a heavy round fired point blank) yet you can usually push it off the table table with one hand. Yep, bullets work because they're sharp and pointy.

I'm not jumping into the physics discussion. I'd just like to respectively point out that the bullet in question was not sharp and pointy. If it was a ball, it certainly wasn't sharp. If it was a Minie "ball," it had a very blunted point. A Minie ball is the length of a rifle bullet I have (over an inch) but about .54 or .56 caliber. This is a very large, slow chunk of lead.
...__
../...\
./......\
|.......|
|.......|
|____ |
Maybe a little more rounded than that, but close. Ignore the dots - they're space fillers.
I have no idea if this would change any factors enough to be significant. But I hope that this particular bullet is being considered and not modern bullets.

 

[scotrace]

Fifty Cal

I would guess that few here have seen the video of 50 cal. sniper rounds being used in Pakistan?
I can understand the theory that a body would not be moved by impact. But I have also seen the video of several bodies flying at least 20 - 30 feet into the air, flipping arse-over-teacups. In bits too, I might add.

 

[geo]

If you've ever fired a test round into a block of ballistic gel you will see the cause of the hydrostatic shock effect (as in water in the human body) clearly, and note how the gel gradually dissipates the kinetic energy of the round as it penetrates

Right. A bullet has enough kinetic energy to move a body under ideal conditions, but in practice this energy is absorbed by the body being shot.

Yep, bullets work because they're sharp and pointy.

No. If the bullet is completely stoped by the body, the whole of the kinetic energy of the bullet is transferred to the body, causing maximum damage. If a bullet goes through the body, only a portion of the bullet's energy is transferred to the body, and the damage is limited to the parts that the bullet has actually pierced. Sharp and pointy bullets tend to go straight through. A sharp and pointy bullet (like a rifle bullet) has that shape to decrease its resistance to air when it's traveling, therefore increasing the bullet's speed and range. Pistol or revolver bullets have blunt rounded noses. In fact, bullets that are stoped by the body work better, so you will find that many police forces use soft nosed or hollow point bullets, which are blunt and actually have a hole at the tip, in order to make sure that the bulet expands and stops in the body.

I can understand the theory that a body would not be moved by impact

It depends on what's impacting the body. A normal rifle or revolver bullet's kinetic energy is absorbed by the body through deformation, but a 50 cal bullet has more kinetic energy that can be absorbed, and therefore the movement occurs on impact.

 

[carebear]

I'm not jumping into the physics discussion. I'd just like to respectively point out that the bullet in question was not sharp and pointy. If it was a ball, it certainly wasn't sharp. If it was a Minie "ball," it had a very blunted point. A Minie ball is the length of a rifle bullet I have (over an inch) but about .54 or .56 caliber. This is a very large, slow chunk of lead.
...__
../...\
./......\
|.......|
|.......|
|____ |
Maybe a little more rounded than that, but close. Ignore the dots - they're space fillers.
I have no idea if this would change any factors enough to be significant. But I hope that this particular bullet is being considered and not modern bullets.

"Pointy" is relative. What we're talking about is surface area and sectional density. Yes Minie balls have a small flat surface on the point but, overall, all their mass, and thus impact energy, is focused onto a very small piece of body, punching a hole. If it was the same 400 odd grains of lead pounded into a flat disk of say 3 inches and hit "flat on" it would, at the same velocity, deliver a non-penetrative slap, not a puncturing hole. It's pointy in relative terms. As you know, it is also the progenitor of the modern rifle bullet.

The .50 BMG ball round (the heavy machine gun round used in long-range precision rifles) is 668 grains, 1-1/2 times the mass of the 1 oz/440-ish grain 12 ga shotgun slug or blackpowder .50 bullets/balls we're discussing. It's moving at close to 3000 feet per second and has, what, 13000 ft/pds of energy? Due to its mass it retains more energy, longer.

That's moving into a whole nother realm of ballistics and I don't doubt it can move a body. Still, in general, it can be very hard to tell what is "movement due to impact energy" and "nerve generated convulsive body movement due to the pain/shock".

Typically it's the latter, reflexive jerking away from the (whether consciously felt or not) instantaneous burning pain and shock of impact.