Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: arrows & bullets
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 11:36:56 +0100
>> But that doesn't matter -- as long as you punch through the plate the arrow
>> will go into the flesh of whoever is wearing it. Object achieved.
>
>Except you need a wound that will not just break skin but dissuade the wearer
>of the plate from further offensive action. Bodkin arrows (I knew I'd remember
>the name) were lethal against chain but not particularly good against plate.
>That's why archers switched to shooting for the horses with broadheads.

Tell me, if a rifle round tends to go in a staight line through flesh (I'm
not talking 5.56mm here, I mean 7.62mm-class), what's the real difference
between a hit from an arrow and such a round? The arrow punches through the
plate armor, deforming its tip (= larger surface area = more damage). It
then sticks into the wearer's flesh, and doesn't come out on the other side
-- all energy transferred into target. The rifle round also flies through
the plate (much higher velocity so much higher kinetic energy), also
deforming its tip and then flies into the target. There it tears through the
flesh, causing a wound. Possibly it even flies out the other side of the
target, so it doesn't give up all its energy. I don't see why an arrow hit
would be so much less severe than a rifle hit.


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It's like, you people, you need heroes. But if I'd agree to
the job, you'd kill me... --Bono, U2
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?
Message no. 2
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: arrows & bullets
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 15:48:07 -0500
On Wed, 15 Mar 1995, Gurth wrote: [why do arrows do less damage than
bullets?]

OK, your thinking was close, but close doesn't count here. An
arrowhead really doesn't deform all that much after impact with the
body. The speeds that it is travelling at don't yield enough kinetic
energy to be tranferred into material deformation. A bullet, however,
deforms plenty. Take your basic hollow-point round. If you've ever seen
what one looks like after being dug out of ballistic jell, it looks like
a little lead mushroom. Very ugly. Due to the hydrodynamic properties
asscoiated with its shape, the deformed bullet transfers much of its
energy *radially* as opposed to linearly. That results in lots-o'-damage.
Also, an arrowhead is sitting on the end of a long wooden shaft,
which pretty much guarantees that once the arrow hits, it will continue
in a roughly straight line throught the body. Bullets are generally
short, and there is nothing but inertia to keep them going straight. And
inertia is often not enough once the bullet starts to deform and carom
off bones here and there. So often times, the path of a bullet is not
necessarily a straight line. This in turn leads to even more tissue damage.
Finally, and arrowhead is moderately sharp, and will cut its way
through the tissue. A bullet, especially when deformed, is very blunt,
and has to *push* its way through the tissues, generally chewing its way
through in a wholly unpleasant manner. Ouch.
Hope this clears it up...

Marc
Message no. 3
From: Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: arrows & bullets
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 01:41:06 GMT
> Tell me, if a rifle round tends to go in a staight line through flesh (I'm
> not talking 5.56mm here, I mean 7.62mm-class), what's the real difference
> between a hit from an arrow and such a round? The arrow punches through the
> plate armor, deforming its tip (= larger surface area = more damage). It
> then sticks into the wearer's flesh, and doesn't come out on the other side
> -- all energy transferred into target. The rifle round also flies through
> the plate (much higher velocity so much higher kinetic energy), also
> deforming its tip and then flies into the target. There it tears through the
> flesh, causing a wound. Possibly it even flies out the other side of the
> target, so it doesn't give up all its energy. I don't see why an arrow hit
> would be so much less severe than a rifle hit.

I thought I replied to this, but Demon Internet's e-mail has gone totally
gaga and this was held up - Thursday to Sunday nothing, and I don't know
if my mail has been getting out.

An arrow cuts a narrow straight wound track. Incised wound, minimal energy
transfer to tissues around the track, and most of the energy dissipation is
as friction where the shaft is being pulled through flesh. The deformation of
the tip is marginal at arrow impact velocity.

A 7.62mm rifle bullet has about ten to twenty times the kinetic energy and
hits at 700-800 metres per second. The wounding pattern is laceration rather
than incision. Also, the bullet's velocity creates a sonic 'bow wave' (only
way to describe it quickly) that dilates the tissue into a large 'temporary
cavity' about 6 to 10 times the bullet diameter: stretching and tearing flesh.
If that happens in solid tissue (e.g. liver) you're dead: soft tissue such
as the intestines are relatively immune, yielding and stretching with less
damage.
Unfortunately the temporary cavity collapses and expands several times with
extreme speed...creating a 'pumping' action sucking in air, skin flakes,
clothing, dirt, bacteria. Into an area of torn, damaged tissue. Can you say
"gangrene"?
Meanwhile the bullet is more stable travelling base-first in a dense medium
like flesh. It yaws sideways, still spinning, creating even more laceration
and damage. It may break up, but is more likely to exit base-first.

This may be abbreviated if the wound track is short, such as through an arm.
Also, hitting bone, for instance, will usually tumble the bullet early with
drastic results (not to mention secondary fragmentation from the bone).

Basically a rifle bullet will do far more damage to you than an arrow under
almost any concievable circumstance, unless the arrow has a charge of
high explosive inside it or is coated with some extremely noxious substance
(when you look at the infection potential of high-velocity rifle wounds, it
had better be _very_ nasty to beat that). And all of the above assumes the
rifle is firing standard spitzer FMJ ammo. Use Loffelspitzers or softpoints,
and things get absolutely brutal.

It comes down to being stabbed with a knife, or being skewered and having a
length of razor wire dragged through the hole thus made.

(I don't believe I just typed that. Sorry...)

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better or
for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about arrows & bullets, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!