• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Texas Man Shot in Yard Sues nearby Gun Range

elixin77

elixin77

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
591
Location
Greenville, NC, ,
eye95 said:
The effective range of an AR-15 firing a .223 is 600 m, 0.6 km, or about 1/3 of a mile. Which rifle and cartridge would have an effective range of 1.2 mi (almost 2 km, almost 2000 m)?
Click to expand...

The Mossin-Nagant 1891/30 has iron sights up to 2km, so I'm going to assume the 91/30 has the *capabilities* of putting a bullet that far downrange.

As to whether it is effective, thats a whole other can of worms that I'm not jumping into :banana::banana:
 
Broondog

Broondog

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2009
Messages
368
Location
Ste. Gen County, MO, , USA
eye95 said:
Sometime back, the Mythbusters busted the myth that bullets shot straight up could kill someone on the way down. The problem was that wind resistance eventually caused the bullet to reach a terminal velocity which, ironically, was not terminal to human beings.

Now, on the way down, these bullets had the full effect of gravity helping them fall faster, so that terminal velocity would be more than the terminal velocity of a bullet shot at a 45 degree angle (which, theoretically, yields the greatest range). For this reason, after 1.2 miles, I cannot imagine a .22 bullet having sufficient velocity to do much damage at all.

IANA Ballistic Expert.
Click to expand...

i remember that show. IIRC they used a Garand and a Beretta 92.

i thought i heard it the other way around on the show. that the round fired straight up would not have enough gusto on the way down to do terminal damage. wasn't the 9mm found just inches below the surface of the desert? i don't remember how the 30.06 fared.

but, and only IIRC again, i thought they were told by a ballistics expert that if a round was fired up at an angle that it would achieve terminal velocity on the way down because it never stopped in flight and lost all of its momentum like the "straight up" round did. they couldn't test this since there would be now way to actually find the spent round.

maybe i heard the show wrong, maybe i didn't. but it was one that i just quickly checked out as i was trying to get to sleep one night.


just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
S

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
Broondog said:
i remember that show. IIRC they used a Garand and a Beretta 92.

i thought i heard it the other way around on the show. that the round fired straight up would not have enough gusto on the way down to do terminal damage. wasn't the 9mm found just inches below the surface of the desert? i don't remember how the 30.06 fared.

but, and only IIRC again, i thought they were told by a ballistics expert that if a round was fired up at an angle that it would achieve terminal velocity on the way down because it never stopped in flight and lost all of its momentum like the "straight up" round did. they couldn't test this since there would be now way to actually find the spent round.

maybe i heard the show wrong, maybe i didn't. but it was one that i just quickly checked out as i was trying to get to sleep one night.


just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...
Your correct. They had a difficult time getting the bullet to 'fall' straight down(spin provides no stabilization). Even a slight breeze, or the gun being slightly off perfectly vertical, will cause the bullet to tip over into an arc, maintaining spin stabilization on it's downward path.

In real life it would be very difficult to safely fire a bullet straight up, and attempting so can only be considered negligent if your in a populated(even lightly) area.
 
Last edited:
S

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
Grapeshot said:
I agree that the media did not specify the specific caliber, though typically .22 refers to a rim fire. While .222, .223, .224 et cetera are all technically .22 projectiles they are correctly identified by their proper nomenclature - yah, I know it is the media, lacking as it is. Grain weight of the projectiles are different too, allowing for some better ID.

Did you read what was between his place and the range? Trees - lots of them. There is obviously more to this than what we have read.
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/090310-Man-Shot-in-Yard-Sues-nearby-Gun-Range#disqus_thread
Click to expand...
The trees. Hitting even a few tiny twigs would destabilize and tumble any .22 cal, making it bleed off energy super fast. If you were shooting a .223 through a medium that would cause it to destablize in flight, I might be willing to stand at 1.2mi. (I agree no way I'd do it for an unobstructed flight path)
 
Last edited:
gsx1138

gsx1138

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
882
Location
Bremerton, Washington, United States
eye95 said:
Yeah, the odds of a .22 traveling 1.2 miles, and not hitting something else along the way are minuscule.

All else being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation. The simplest explanation is that someone a lot closer than 1.2 miles fired the shot.
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree with this. This seems like the most logical explanation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top