He plays a good guy in Outlaw. Depends how you define good, but he go's vigilante and wipes the scum from the streets of England.
Gather a dozen or so of your friends around you, shoot a few rounds straight up into the air, wait a few seconds, then post pics of the results.Shem wrote:
If we are talking over hills, bullets drop at a non lethal termincal velocity, anyone hit would have a big headache thoughIlocano wrote:
Why not? Modern bullets just have a longer trajectory. Fire the same amount of bullets with the same spread as a volley of longbow arrows, with similar effect.jimmanycricket wrote:
Remember arrows can go over hills and stuff, bullets can't.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/Topics/Celebra … nfire.html
Not really. That happens if you fire them straight into the air. If you fire a gun and actually try to hit something, even firing at high angles, it can kill, easily.Shem wrote:
If we are talking over hills, bullets drop at a non lethal termincal velocity, anyone hit would have a big headache thoughIlocano wrote:
Why not? Modern bullets just have a longer trajectory. Fire the same amount of bullets with the same spread as a volley of longbow arrows, with similar effect.jimmanycricket wrote:
Remember arrows can go over hills and stuff, bullets can't.
If I threw a half inch of lead at someone it could kill them.jason85 wrote:
Not really. That happens if you fire them straight into the air. If you fire a gun and actually try to hit something, even firing at high angles, it can kill, easily.Shem wrote:
If we are talking over hills, bullets drop at a non lethal termincal velocity, anyone hit would have a big headache thoughIlocano wrote:
Why not? Modern bullets just have a longer trajectory. Fire the same amount of bullets with the same spread as a volley of longbow arrows, with similar effect.
LOL. A hard rock of similar size would do too, especially on a sling.jord wrote:
If I threw a half inch of lead at someone it could kill them.
i'm pretty sure the bullet is gonna come down at nearly the same speed as it goes up >>physics classjason85 wrote:
Not really. That happens if you fire them straight into the air. If you fire a gun and actually try to hit something, even firing at high angles, it can kill, easily.Shem wrote:
If we are talking over hills, bullets drop at a non lethal termincal velocity, anyone hit would have a big headache thoughIlocano wrote:
Why not? Modern bullets just have a longer trajectory. Fire the same amount of bullets with the same spread as a volley of longbow arrows, with similar effect.
Why do people think America is better than UK?Criminal wrote:
ahh didnt catch that.coke wrote:
I can read, just not the future... edit he made about there being no artyCriminal wrote:
cant you douche bags read...
he said neither sides have artillery which in the british case means their cannons and shit.
and im pretty sure m16s and m4s > muskets
so
go marines
sorry fine sir
and you know what... hell 100 marines could probably annihilate the entire british army of the present
I mean, yeah this country is a dump and all, but, think about it, why do many Americans hate Britain?
Is it because we owned you at one point?
Just why?
Wat????? I don't know anyone personally that hates the Brits... I especially love their women and their accents. Food and weather sucks though...Bf2-GeneralArnott wrote:
I mean, yeah this country is a dump and all, but, think about it, why do many Americans hate Britain?
Is it because we owned you at one point?
Just why?
OK, this is kinda silly.
To the ones that keep saying, "Well the British have 230K." You could only focus a fraction of your forces on the Marines front. If the Marines were in a well prepped fighting position, the FEBA(forward edge of battle area) would be out to the max effective range of the weapons you have.
Now, 100 Marines sounds like a short company, which would have 3 line platoons and 1 Weapons platoon.
Even with the organic weapons of a STANDARD Marine rife company you have (3)M240s, (3)SMAWs, (3)60mm Mortars. You would also have in the area of (36)M249s, (36)M203s, (90+)M16A4s.
Max effective range on the M240G is 1800m with tracer burn out at 900m.
Max effective M16A4 w/iron sights 550m, RCO(ACOG) you can push that out to about 8-900m.
Unless the British were robots, the mass amount of casualties they take before they even reached effective range of the brown bess, as quoted:
"Accuracy of the Brown Bess was, as with most other muskets, low, primarily due to the lack of sights and the use of undersized military ammunition meant for ease of loading. The effective range is often quoted as 100 yards (meters) but was often fired en masse at 50 m to inflict the greatest damage upon the enemy. The combination of large caliber of the projectile, the heavy weight of its lead construction contributed to its low effective range. Military tactics of the period stressed mass volleys and massed bayonet charges, instead of individual marksmanship. The large soft projectile could inflict a great deal of damage when accurate. The great length of the weapon allowed longer reach in bayonet engagements."
With men marching shoulder to shoulder in a straight line you could close your eyes and hit someone. The British would be marching, not running,
exposing him to the fire for long ass time.
They would break and run, the panic from the first wave running would cause the successive rank and file to run also.
Now if they were mindless meat puppets...
The British would overwhelm, but after taking horrific losses.
Oh to the ass who says a modren bullet cannot reach behind cover,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plunging_fire
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … 9/appb.htm
We do this with machine guns all day long. Fancy Hats VS. 7.62x51mm Ball.... you do the math.
To the ones that keep saying, "Well the British have 230K." You could only focus a fraction of your forces on the Marines front. If the Marines were in a well prepped fighting position, the FEBA(forward edge of battle area) would be out to the max effective range of the weapons you have.
Now, 100 Marines sounds like a short company, which would have 3 line platoons and 1 Weapons platoon.
Even with the organic weapons of a STANDARD Marine rife company you have (3)M240s, (3)SMAWs, (3)60mm Mortars. You would also have in the area of (36)M249s, (36)M203s, (90+)M16A4s.
Max effective range on the M240G is 1800m with tracer burn out at 900m.
Max effective M16A4 w/iron sights 550m, RCO(ACOG) you can push that out to about 8-900m.
Unless the British were robots, the mass amount of casualties they take before they even reached effective range of the brown bess, as quoted:
"Accuracy of the Brown Bess was, as with most other muskets, low, primarily due to the lack of sights and the use of undersized military ammunition meant for ease of loading. The effective range is often quoted as 100 yards (meters) but was often fired en masse at 50 m to inflict the greatest damage upon the enemy. The combination of large caliber of the projectile, the heavy weight of its lead construction contributed to its low effective range. Military tactics of the period stressed mass volleys and massed bayonet charges, instead of individual marksmanship. The large soft projectile could inflict a great deal of damage when accurate. The great length of the weapon allowed longer reach in bayonet engagements."
With men marching shoulder to shoulder in a straight line you could close your eyes and hit someone. The British would be marching, not running,
exposing him to the fire for long ass time.
They would break and run, the panic from the first wave running would cause the successive rank and file to run also.
Now if they were mindless meat puppets...
The British would overwhelm, but after taking horrific losses.
Oh to the ass who says a modren bullet cannot reach behind cover,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plunging_fire
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … 9/appb.htm
We do this with machine guns all day long. Fancy Hats VS. 7.62x51mm Ball.... you do the math.
Nopeargo4 wrote:
i'm pretty sure the bullet is gonna come down at nearly the same speed as it goes up >>physics classjason85 wrote:
Not really. That happens if you fire them straight into the air. If you fire a gun and actually try to hit something, even firing at high angles, it can kill, easily.Shem wrote:
If we are talking over hills, bullets drop at a non lethal termincal velocity, anyone hit would have a big headache though
A bullet comes down a LOT slower than it goes up..
It is launched up, but it only falls down, so not only is it liable to not be falling straight down, but it is also moving a lot slower
I believe it can kill still, but only if it hits the right spots
definitely nothing i would want to test though
The only reason it would come down slower is a) air resistance and b) terminal velocity (ie. air resistance).Blehm98 wrote:
Nopeargo4 wrote:
i'm pretty sure the bullet is gonna come down at nearly the same speed as it goes up >>physics classjason85 wrote:
Not really. That happens if you fire them straight into the air. If you fire a gun and actually try to hit something, even firing at high angles, it can kill, easily.
A bullet comes down a LOT slower than it goes up..
It is launched up, but it only falls down, so not only is it liable to not be falling straight down, but it is also moving a lot slower
I believe it can kill still, but only if it hits the right spots
definitely nothing i would want to test though
Because it is 'launched up' (which everything that goes up is) it would travel higher and have more time to accelerate back to the ground. In vacuum (or in theory) the initial velocity will be equal but opposite to the return velocity.
I' say more like 350m IS and 550m ACOG at the most and since you'll probably fighting in a open plain, you're screwed with the 5.56 if the windspeeds go up.SgtHeihn wrote:
Max effective M16A4 w/iron sights 550m, RCO(ACOG) you can push that out to about 8-900m.
1. They wouldn' break so easily,.. seeing the first lines fall is what they were trained to expect.SgtHeihn wrote:
With men marching shoulder to shoulder in a straight line you could close your eyes and hit someone. The British would be marching, not running,
exposing him to the fire for long ass time.
They would break and run, the panic from the first wave running would cause the successive rank and file to run also.
2. They might be confined to Imperial technology, they are not confined to imperial tactics. The human mind can adapt,..
You do know that people have actually died from this before right? As in they actually had to make a law that makes you a criminal to fire a gun into the air. And they weren't outside, they were relaxing at home probably sleeping, and they catch a bullet in the face or something. And it isn't some fluke accident either, I believe it has happened quite a few times.DrunkFace wrote:
The only reason it would come down slower is a) air resistance and b) terminal velocity (ie. air resistance).Blehm98 wrote:
Nopeargo4 wrote:
i'm pretty sure the bullet is gonna come down at nearly the same speed as it goes up >>physics class
A bullet comes down a LOT slower than it goes up..
It is launched up, but it only falls down, so not only is it liable to not be falling straight down, but it is also moving a lot slower
I believe it can kill still, but only if it hits the right spots
definitely nothing i would want to test though
Because it is 'launched up' (which everything that goes up is) it would travel higher and have more time to accelerate back to the ground. In vacuum (or in theory) the initial velocity will be equal but opposite to the return velocity.
The bullet only becomes non-lethal when it begins to tumble, which causes it to slow down in the air and hit on the side of the bullet as opposed to the normal end where you would would shoot someone. It happens because the velocity of the round changes when it is fired normally, even though at higher angles, because of aerodynamics, and that the round isn't tumbling, thus losing energy. Thing is, you'd have to shoot it almost perfectly straight up to get hat effect. Otherwise the round will follow its arched tragectory and land with enough force to put a hole in your ceiling and ruin your lifetime.
They showed this on Mythbusters.
Last edited by jason85 (2008-03-21 02:47:00)
You are correct, sir.argo4 wrote:
i'm pretty sure the bullet is gonna come down at nearly the same speed as it goes up >>physics classjason85 wrote:
Not really. That happens if you fire them straight into the air. If you fire a gun and actually try to hit something, even firing at high angles, it can kill, easily.Shem wrote:
If we are talking over hills, bullets drop at a non lethal termincal velocity, anyone hit would have a big headache though
It wouldn't. An arrow from a longbow would go straight through kevlar with no problem at all. It's a completely different type of impact.Mek-Izzle wrote:
Shit, reminded me of that scene in 300 where the Persians do a huge volley from like, thousands of men armed with bows. They used shields in the film, not sure how Kevlar would respond to that.jimmanycricket wrote:
Screw 1775, the medieval Britain could have wiped out 100 modern marines. Longbows + Cavalry = win
If they rushed with 1000 odd cavalry they would win straight off.
No, he isn't. The speed it goes up at bears little relation to the speed it comes down at. When it gets as high as it is going it will essentially be a body falling from rest quite high up. Due to the smallness it will have low air resistance and therefore have a high terminal velocity, so it's going to fall quickly. But the differences in applied forces mean that the 2 speeds are only related by the air resistance of the body.jason85 wrote:
You are correct, sir.argo4 wrote:
i'm pretty sure the bullet is gonna come down at nearly the same speed as it goes up >>physics classjason85 wrote:
Not really. That happens if you fire them straight into the air. If you fire a gun and actually try to hit something, even firing at high angles, it can kill, easily.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-03-21 03:09:18)
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6614|Graz, Austria
Hmmm...Bertster7 wrote:
It wouldn't. An arrow from a longbow would go straight through kevlar with no problem at all. It's a completely different type of impact.Mek-Izzle wrote:
Shit, reminded me of that scene in 300 where the Persians do a huge volley from like, thousands of men armed with bows. They used shields in the film, not sure how Kevlar would respond to that.jimmanycricket wrote:
Screw 1775, the medieval Britain could have wiped out 100 modern marines. Longbows + Cavalry = win
If they rushed with 1000 odd cavalry they would win straight off.No, he isn't. The speed it goes up at bears little relation to the speed it comes down at. When it gets as high as it is going it will essentially be a body falling from rest quite high up. Due to the smallness it will have low air resistance and therefore have a high terminal velocity, so it's going to fall quickly. But the differences in applied forces mean that the 2 speeds are only related by the air resistance of the body.jason85 wrote:
You are correct, sir.argo4 wrote:
i'm pretty sure the bullet is gonna come down at nearly the same speed as it goes up >>physics class
In a perfectly physical environment (no air resistance, frictions, etc.) it indeed would have the same speed that it was fired upwards.
I think the only variable that makes the downward travel a bit slower is the fact that the projectile fired from the gun travels more stable at first (rifled barrel --> rotation), while on the way down it'll tumble, thus has increased air resistance.
But that is a stupid hypothetical schoolboy attitude to physics. Friction and air resistance are of major importance in the real world. IF you ignored friction you wouldn't be able to walk, or drive a car or anything....globefish23 wrote:
Hmmm...Bertster7 wrote:
It wouldn't. An arrow from a longbow would go straight through kevlar with no problem at all. It's a completely different type of impact.Mek-Izzle wrote:
Shit, reminded me of that scene in 300 where the Persians do a huge volley from like, thousands of men armed with bows. They used shields in the film, not sure how Kevlar would respond to that.jimmanycricket wrote:
Screw 1775, the medieval Britain could have wiped out 100 modern marines. Longbows + Cavalry = win
If they rushed with 1000 odd cavalry they would win straight off.No, he isn't. The speed it goes up at bears little relation to the speed it comes down at. When it gets as high as it is going it will essentially be a body falling from rest quite high up. Due to the smallness it will have low air resistance and therefore have a high terminal velocity, so it's going to fall quickly. But the differences in applied forces mean that the 2 speeds are only related by the air resistance of the body.jason85 wrote:
You are correct, sir.
In a perfectly physical environment (no air resistance, frictions, etc.) it indeed would have the same speed that it was fired upwards.
I think the only variable that makes the downward travel a bit slower is the fact that the projectile fired from the gun travels more stable at first (rifled barrel --> rotation), while on the way down it'll tumble, thus has increased air resistance.
OK,Lai wrote:
I' say more like 350m IS and 550m ACOG at the most and since you'll probably fighting in a open plain, you're screwed with the 5.56 if the windspeeds go up.SgtHeihn wrote:
Max effective M16A4 w/iron sights 550m, RCO(ACOG) you can push that out to about 8-900m.1. They wouldn' break so easily,.. seeing the first lines fall is what they were trained to expect.SgtHeihn wrote:
With men marching shoulder to shoulder in a straight line you could close your eyes and hit someone. The British would be marching, not running,
exposing him to the fire for long ass time.
They would break and run, the panic from the first wave running would cause the successive rank and file to run also.
2. They might be confined to Imperial technology, they are not confined to imperial tactics. The human mind can adapt,..
1) I for one have shot the M16A4 w/iron sights and ACOG. Yes, you can reach out and touch someone that far with both. (Primary weapon 8yrs)
wind speed or not, men a packed SHOULDER TO SHOULDER!
2) This is not your one or two guys falling like in a movie, this is a jacketed, steel core bullet ripping through. They would not be trained in the type of carnage a modern machine gun(s) would do. Not to mention that they are getting NAILED at ranges 18 times greater than their own weapons!!
3) Once the first waves were slaughtered, the men would refuse to attack, you drop the officers and you have utter chaos.
Green Berets
Yep. You can't ignore air resistance, it's THE factor to consider in this scenario.Bertster7 wrote:
But that is a stupid hypothetical schoolboy attitude to physics. Friction and air resistance are of major importance in the real world. IF you ignored friction you wouldn't be able to walk, or drive a car or anything....globefish23 wrote:
Hmmm...Bertster7 wrote:
It wouldn't. An arrow from a longbow would go straight through kevlar with no problem at all. It's a completely different type of impact.Mek-Izzle wrote:
Shit, reminded me of that scene in 300 where the Persians do a huge volley from like, thousands of men armed with bows. They used shields in the film, not sure how Kevlar would respond to that.jimmanycricket wrote:
Screw 1775, the medieval Britain could have wiped out 100 modern marines. Longbows + Cavalry = win
If they rushed with 1000 odd cavalry they would win straight off.
No, he isn't. The speed it goes up at bears little relation to the speed it comes down at. When it gets as high as it is going it will essentially be a body falling from rest quite high up. Due to the smallness it will have low air resistance and therefore have a high terminal velocity, so it's going to fall quickly. But the differences in applied forces mean that the 2 speeds are only related by the air resistance of the body.
In a perfectly physical environment (no air resistance, frictions, etc.) it indeed would have the same speed that it was fired upwards.
I think the only variable that makes the downward travel a bit slower is the fact that the projectile fired from the gun travels more stable at first (rifled barrel --> rotation), while on the way down it'll tumble, thus has increased air resistance.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
Rambo tbhGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Green Berets
the real SF dudes are gods among men.
Aye. Strangely Green Berets used to be the main sf guys back in the 80's action movies, now they're seldom heard of. But that's a good thing to a sense, withdrawing from the media. GB's still whup ass though.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
the real SF dudes are gods among men.
Force recon is another SF that you don't hear much .... " The Rock " used them as background
True, also I watched that the other nightSEREMAKER wrote:
Force recon is another SF that you don't hear much .... " The Rock " used them as background