When someone shoots up, the bullet comes falling at a rate capable

>>32969412
yes and yes

File: 1400869609599.jpg (97KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 720x960px

Yes, fired at angle the bullet will still retain its spin and continue to be stabilized. Which increases its terminal velocity. The really impressive shots are the one's that go through the fleshy part of the top of the shoulder into the heart.

>>32969412
Technically, if you could shoot a boolit straight up, gravity would negate its velocity and it would be relatively harmless when falling back down. Problem is, you really can't shoot it straight up, and it will still retain its horizontal momentum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFP3npxlJVk

Dozens of people die every year from "celebratory" gunfire. Mostly in shithole countries in the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Terminal velocity of a 9mm in free fall is around 300 feet/sec which is certainly lethal if it connects with the top of someone's head. Rifle bullets being even heavier and more aerodynamic are extremely dangerous in freefall and have killed people through the rooves of cars.

No shit. There's plenty of instances of this in Puerto Rico on New Years and even more in the States.

People who shoot into the air deserve to get beaten.

>>32969659
No, it would still keep its initial KE, it would just gain PE from the force of gravity.

>>32969412
My cousin actually had someone in her unit who took a hit from falling Iraqi celebratory gunfire. Guy even got a Purple Heart for it.

>>32971567
>Purple Heart
>accidentally shot in the gut
This is why no one respects the military anymore.

>>32969659
Jesus Christ did you go to Detroit Public Schools?

You can kill people from throwing pennies off the empire state building.

>>32973093
Behold! Proof that underage vermin browse /k/!

>>32973157
You needed proof? Did you not see the air shit thread in the catalog?

>>32969921
>comment section

Jesus Christ... but good video anyhow.

>>32969412
Your questions are poorly worded, so I'm going to assume what you meant.

If you mean "Has someone fired a gun into the air and accidentally killed someone that way?" then yes, that's happened before.

>>32971561
>>32973080
>what is terminal velocity

>>32973093
No you can't, not enough KE due to air resistance. Myth busters shot one vertically out of rifle ( the fall test already failed) and it barely cracked the skull without penetrating

>>32969412
>>32969412


didnt mythbusters do a segment on this exact thing?

they took a BB / Pellet gun and shot it into the desert clay, and it went.... lets say 1 inch into the dirt.

then they shot a actual gun into the air and managed to find the impact point on the ground, and the bullet and it didnt go as deep...

So i think they concluded if a gun is fired DIRECTLY up (no angle) it cant kill....

BUT i may be imagining that from some fucking drunken fever dream i dunno....

>>32973629
A thing that exists. Congrats, you retained something from HS physics.

>>32974897
No, their test proved they're still quite lethal, and that you can't shoot 'straight up' due to imperfect human perception and wind among other things.

>>32969454
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon's_law_(Arizona)

>>32975102
>and
you are being misleading

you should say the tests prove they are lethal BECAUSE you cant shoot straight up. If you could shoot straight up they would be harmless, its just not something thats realistically possible to do.

So yes, the terminal velocity of a bullet is probably non lethal, but its almost impossible to shoot a bullet in such a way that it loses all its momentum and then falls down only accelerating to terminal velocity.

>>32975172
Hatcher preformed testing and found shoting straight up was fairly easy with a good mount. He also fouind that even heavy bullets were not much of a health hazard.
Plunging fire with machine guns and rifle volley was a widely used tactic and the subject of much study as to the effectiveness of falling bullets.

>>32975172
>>32974897
Why the fuck didn't Mythbusters test the "PERFECTLY straight up" scenario by dumping a box of 9mm out of a helicopter from the right height?

Zero horizontal velocity, just gravity and air resistance. That would have settled it.

>>32971561
It would lose kinetic energy at a higher rate than it gains potential energy because we are not in a vacuum so energy is lost via parasite drag. Even so, it will reach the same terminal velocity no matter how high you managed to shoot it depending mainly on the drag coefficient buy also the atmospheric density. The problem is that if the bullet remains stable and comes down nose first the drag coefficient will be small and therefore terminal velocity can easily still be lethal, even through barriers.

You will see some newbie physics kids claiming terminal velocity can never actually be reached because of math and the equation ends with infinity. These basic bitchs are wrong because in reality as atmospheric density increases at a much much faster rate than the force of gravity as you approach the earths surface. In reality the terminal velocity of an object decreases as something falls to earth and assuming it was already close to such a speed an object is above its real terminal velocity and decelerating the closer it gets to the ground. Think something coming into the atmosphere from space.

>>32975240
>plunging fire
is not shooting straight up, its retaining a ballistic arc and conserving a good deal of its energy

>>32975276
If i recall they tested the terminal velocity of a falling bullet in a little wind tube test and then calculated its energy.