Avoiding firearm myths

[Piousflea84]

Re: Dramatic Gun Cock:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DramaticGunCock
(see "Real Life" section)

The sound of a gun being cocked is so widely recognized, and impossible to mistake for anything else, that it can be used *on purpose* as an auditory threat. There have been multiple examples of police officers convincing a suspected to surrender by dramatically cocking their weapon. So as ridiculous as it seems in a "Boondock Saints" style execution, the dramatic gun cock has a use in real life.

In my main fictional universe, all of the laser sidearms have the ability to "cock" themselves by extending cooling fins and venting a small amount of coolant. This makes a sharp "click-hissss" noise that lets people know they're being threatened.
***

Re: Walking Closer And Closer While Aiming:

I seem to remember a decent # of '90s action films where this trope was inverted... the bad guy walks closer and closer to the good guy while pointing a gun at him, until the good guy snatches the gun right out of his hand. (or sometimes it's the bad guy grabbing the gun; in either case, it's quite obvious that the gun-wielder made a mistake)

Mythbusters did an episode on gun-vs-knife combat, and one of the "Fight Science" shows did a more detailed analysis of gun-vs-unarmed and gun-vs-knife. Human reaction time is slow enough that it takes 200-300ms to pull a trigger... In that much time, a trained martial artist can lunge toward you and knock your gun away from surprisingly far away. US police manuals say that an officer with a handgun shouldn't get any closer than 20ft (6.1m) to a combative opponent. In human-vs-creature combat one would think that soldiers would be trained to stay *even further* away... and yet, idiots with guns are always walking right next to dinosaurs, aliens, demons and other beasts that proceed to eat them.

***

My pet peeve with Hollywood gunshot wounds is that they are usually either instant kills (dropping someone to the floor if not throwing them across the room) or harmless flesh wounds. In real life, most life-threatening traumas (whether gunshot, blunt or penetrating) exist somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. People, and animals, may live for minutes to hours after a fatal wound, often feeling relatively "okay" before they suddenly collapse.

An average-sized handgun round (9mm Parabellum) is more likely to injure than kill if you don't hit the head or the heart. Remember that time a few years ago where a lawyer was shot 7 times on live TV, and walks away after the gun-wielding psycho runs out of ammo? That was a 9mm handgun. Now, the lawyer was immediately rushed to the hospital and survived; if he was out in the Wild West he would probably have died of internal bleeding after several hours. But several hours is more than enough time to shoot back, or even beat the other guy to death with your own hands if you are sufficiently strong.

Of course, the Prime Directive Of Hollywood Fatality makes it so that a 9mm handgun round is 100% instantly fatal to mooks and minions, 90% fatal to supporting characters but they will live just long enough to give a monologue, and barely slows down main protagonists or villains (especially if they are Jet Li).

This is a very closely related pet peeve to the fact that a single karate chop will insta-KO any nameless character, while having minimal effect on major named characters.

 

[Nick B]

To be honest, it depends where you are hit. A 9mm round (particularly flat or hollow point) creates a pressure wave inside your body, rupturing organs etc and more often than not, it is that which kills you rather than actually hitting a vital organ. So gunshots to the chest cavity or abdomen are quite devestating to your internal organs at close range.
Small calibre guns (like the aforementioned .22) are really for show/dissuading a situation from occurring as you would need to be right up close, and pretty lucky, to kill someone with one.

 

[Vertigo]

When I was in the army and we used 9mm Brownings we were always taught to fire two rapid shots at a time, as a single hit was considered so unlikely to stop your opponent.

 

[J D Foster]

When I was in the army and we used 9mm Brownings we were always taught to fire two rapid shots at a time, as a single hit was considered so unlikely to stop your opponent.

I bet it wouldn't make them happy though eh

Aiming always gets me. I was in a rifle club for a couple of years and the difference between aiming whilst standing, crouching or prone is so significant. Then there is the difference between using iron sights and telescopic sights.

There's also the buck of the gun to, a little .22 rifle is fine, you get used to it quickly, its almost nothing, then I went clay pigeon shooting and fired and was amazed how much the gun bucked.

Then there is a moving target and a still target. at prone, I got ok, my rifle club entered me in a couple of competitions... at Clay pigeon shooting I couldn't not hit a moving target to save my life.

When I went to the states I had the opportunity to shoot with a police man who trained SWAT teams, and fired an automatic weapon. I guess I spent about 5-10 mins loading the clip, then in a matter of seconds they were all fired. That thing rode right up into the air, the first few sprays of rounds, but once I understood that, I was able to get it accurate enough to hit a human sized shape. That said he had me stood very close to the target.

When I was shooting prone we used to do it at 25 yards, once I go the opportunity to shoot outside at 50 yards... whole different game, the aim changes, there is a little thing called wind (never crossed my mind before shooting that wind could effect it).

You see in films, people who have never shot, pick up a gun and make a shot that a marksman would find hard. Then in other films you see people who are professionals firing automatic weapons and missing everything.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Always use single shot unless you have multiple preloaded magazines or a belt. Automatic fire is just to make people keep their heads down. You need single shot to aim. Films/TV are very unrealistic in ammo use. Even many cowboy films have amazing revolvers, which in real life are very inaccurate indeed compared to a modern pistol.

 

[KyleAW]

Always use single shot unless you have multiple preloaded magazines or a belt. Automatic fire is just to make people keep their heads down. You need single shot to aim. Films/TV are very unrealistic in ammo use. Even many cowboy films have amazing revolvers, which in real life are very inaccurate indeed compared to a modern pistol.

One very good reason why duels did not always go to the first shooter. Aim and know your gun over 'snapshot'.

 

[WaylanderToo]

There's also the buck of the gun to, a little .22 rifle is fine, you get used to it quickly, its almost nothing, then I went clay pigeon shooting and fired and was amazed how much the gun bucked.

Then there is a moving target and a still target. at prone, I got ok, my rifle club entered me in a couple of competitions... at Clay pigeon shooting I couldn't not hit a moving target to save my life.

this ^^^ a few years ago I had some fun with a pump action.... good Lord the kick-back was something else. Also loading takes a LOT longer than you see in the movies . The other thing that surprised me was, when firing a 'Tommy-gun', just how often it would jam

 

[Ray McCarthy]

One very good reason why duels did not always go to the first shooter

Another more interesting reason (for cowboy duels, not European single shot duelling pistols) that has been tested:
Who ever decides to draw first is making a conscious action. With practice, responding to the movement of the other person starting to draw can become an unconscious reaction, which is faster!

 

[KyleAW]

Also @Ray McCarthy, there is the issue that the first to draw was considered the one to break the law. It's tricky to try and draw second, aim and shoot an inaccurate pistol accurately

 

[Nick B]

'cover me!' also doesnt mean spray all your ammunition in the enemies general direction. I dont have the link as I'm at work, but there is a decent page dedicated to talking about firefights, suppression and so on written by an ex US marine. Interesting stuff and good research if you write much in that direction.

 

[Toby Frost]

This is just a quick question. If a barrel of gunpowder gets wet, can it be dried out again and used?

 

[WaylanderToo]

This is just a quick question. If a barrel of gunpowder gets wet, can it be dried out again and used?

sure - just dry it over a nice warm fire....

sorry couldn't resist... in all honesty I that is quite an interesting Q. I would imagine that it can be reused given all the G/P used in ships in those times?

 

[Vertigo]

This is just a quick question. If a barrel of gunpowder gets wet, can it be dried out again and used?

My understanding is that it depends on the type of powder and the amount of 'wetness.' I think you can have either 'black powder' and 'smokeless powder.' I believe the former uses a water soluble oxidiser - potassium nitrate - so if black powder gets thoroughly wetted it will wash away the oxidiser and will no longer work. Smokeless powder, on the other hand, is, I believe, completely non soluble in water and would be unaffected. However, if either powder only gets damp I think the biggest problem is caking and when that happens it tends to burn slowly rather than explosively.