Florida warning shot bill passed. (The Wild West down here)

[Rhino]

Ever see the Mythbusters episode of that? Fun one. I do wish they'd done more calibers, though. My boy loves Mythbusters, so we watch old episodes of that quite a bit... then watch it again... and again...

I watched part of it. My son has probably seen it half a dozen times. If you've ever watched the show Forensic Files, they actually had an episode with a case very similar to the Highlands Park incident where they actually had to test the theory to prove a murder. It was a hunting rifle fired at about a 30 degree angle from a couple hundred yards away, and they had to duplicate the shot to document velocities, kinetic force, impact damage, etc. They even accounted for weather on the night in question. I used to watch those shows all the time.

 

[JustTheFacts]

A bullet shot straight up in the air is no more a danger than any other small falling object such as a marble. It isn't much of a threat, so up in the air is pretty much a safe place to fire it, unless you do so at a really low angle.

Low angle bad. Bullet continue spinning and keep speed and much energy.

Straight up is less dangerous. A marble at terminal velocity is probably slower than a lead bullet because of the density and the tumbling bullet would carry more energy, but I wouldn't want to be hit by either. Not "safe"

Totally better to be hit by a vertically fired bullet on the way down than a 22 short.

 

[wolf_fire]

I've gotten reports that there are some doubters as to the 300-700 fps speed of a bullet shot into the air.

So, I'm re-submitting the link that was in my post hoping they'll take this expert's reasoning, which is the reason I provided the link in the first place.

From a legal expert who's job it is to explain highly scientific aspects of a legal case in ways that can be understood by the court:
The falling bullet: myths, legends and terminal velocity | Forensic Outreach

In this link you will find several things:
- It is near impossible to fire your gun completely straight into the air at a 90 degree angle
- A US Army firearm's expert tested bullets dropping after being fired into the air and found .30 caliber bullets would drop on average at 300 feet per second (don't take my word, the expert found this out)
- Any gun fired into the air at an angle and not straight up will have a better chance of keeping its rotation and therefore keep its velocity much better than one falling straight down.

Since many guns shoot a round at 900 fps or higher, a falling bullet at 1/3 the speed is well within reason when you take into account air resistance and the bullet reaching terminal velocity.

 

[farsidefan1]

THAT is great data! I have always wondered about terminal velocity of returning bullets. I was told by someone who "knows every single thing" that a bullet returns at the same velocity as when it leaves the barrel. He probably lives on the moon with zero atmosphere so he was also correct. That would explain many of the things he was "sure" about. I blew him off at the time because I knew enough from parachuting to understand the effects of the atmosphere on falling "things" but is is good to see an understandable expression of the forces involved. A paint ball gun is very understandable data. Normally painful but rarely lethal ( an eye shot might do the trick).

 

[wolf_fire]

THAT is great data! I have always wondered about terminal velocity of returning bullets. I was told by someone who "knows every single thing" that a bullet returns at the same velocity as when it leaves the barrel. He probably lives on the moon with zero atmosphere so he was also correct. That would explain many of the things he was "sure" about. I blew him off at the time because I knew enough from parachuting to understand the effects of the atmosphere on falling "things" but is is good to see an understandable expression of the forces involved. A paint ball gun is very understandable data. Normally painful but rarely lethal ( an eye shot might do the trick).

Thanks.... in a first year physics course, falling objects are almost always dealt with in "ideal situations" that would include no air resistance. If this were the case, I'd agree with your friend that the bullet would have the exact same speed coming down as it did going up. However, as you and I know, air resistance plays an incredible factor in these situations.

 

[Rocketgeezer]

Good grief.

And then some

 

[JustTheFacts]

I've gotten reports that there are some doubters as to the 300-700 fps speed of a bullet shot into the air.

So, I'm re-submitting the link that was in my post hoping they'll take this expert's reasoning, which is the reason I provided the link in the first place.



In this link you will find several things:
- It is near impossible to fire your gun completely straight into the air at a 90 degree angle
- A US Army firearm's expert tested bullets dropping after being fired into the air and found .30 caliber bullets would drop on average at 300 feet per second (don't take my word, the expert found this out)
- Any gun fired into the air at an angle and not straight up will have a better chance of keeping its rotation and therefore keep its velocity much better than one falling straight down.

Since many guns shoot a round at 900 fps or higher, a falling bullet at 1/3 the speed is well within reason when you take into account air resistance and the bullet reaching terminal velocity.

Yeah, we read your link, did you? Here's the telling quote:

"Major General Julian Hatch, a U.S. Army firearms expert, did extensive testing on ballistics and falling projectiles in the 20′s. He calculated that .30 caliber rounds will reach terminal velocities of 300 feet per second (90 m/s) on descent, and determined that, while most bullets will leave a small dent in the ground when they land, that same bullet travelling between 200 to 330 feet per second can still penetrate human skin."

So the best "evidence" you have presented is the "calculation" a man no one has ever heard of until now who did his work back when your grandparents were a gleam in their parents' eyes? That was almost a century ago and it was a calculation, not any kind of measurement.

And yes, we agree - this applies to vertically fired bullets, not those fired at 30 or 60 degrees.

And lawyers have an agenda. It's often to make money on what they can make a jury believe. You may be on that jury some day and they want to disseminate that information no matter how outdated it might be.

 

[Rhino]

I'm not going to comment on the question of calculated vs. measured, but when he did it has no relevance that I can see. Unless someone can demonstrate that 30 caliber bullets have changed enough since the 1920s to substantially alter what would be their terminal velocity, then there's nothing to indicate that a study done in the 1920s would be outdated.

 

[S&W645]

Well good for you, I can only guess your one that likes to spout off about knowing this or that law in a specific state, when in all probability it wont mean a rats ass to nobody cause they will never be there, if I go into a state that does not have reciprocity, I lock my gun in the trunk, I don't and would not ever fire a warning shot, if my gun is pulled and fired it will hit what I intended it to hit......................oh one other thing while your checking laws for specific states that you may travel through, be mindfull that the LEO that stops you for a minor traffic infraction may not know the law and you may go to jail anyhow

I do travel between Ohio and Florida and do have to know the gun laws. If I am driving, all the states I travel through accept my Florida license. If I go by Amtrak's Autotrain, the gun has to stay home. Why? Because one state I would go thru has proven it is so anti gun that they will harass someone just for having a license to carry and Florida plates. One bad apple does spoil a barrel even if they do offer an apology later.

And yes Rocket, many people know more of the laws than the cops do. Which is one reason why I did not apply for employment with the local PD. They were so dumb at the time that even the chief didn't know the speed limit on one of his main roads. Funny thing about that is that two years later he had to swear me in as a State employee.

 

[JustTheFacts]

I'm not going to comment on the question of calculated vs. measured, but when he did it has no relevance that I can see. Unless someone can demonstrate that 30 caliber bullets have changed enough since the 1920s to substantially alter what would be their terminal velocity, then there's nothing to indicate that a study done in the 1920s would be outdated.

Where's the original 'study?' All I saw was an article quoting a calculation supposedly made in the infancy of rocketry right after WWI.

Calculations with limited knowledge are highly questionable and everyone really should be citing better information than that. 90 years have passed. There isn't anything more current than that??

 

[JustTheFacts]

The Mythbusters have their lawyers too. They pretty much said that the myth was busted, but were probably required to ultimately conclude that it was questionable mainly because they didn't want to be sued if somebody did something stupid.

Follow the money. Always think of the lawyers. That's how you get to the bottom of things.

 

[Rhino]

Where's the original 'study?' All I saw was an article quoting a calculation supposedly made in the infancy of rocketry right after WWI.

Calculations with limited knowledge are highly questionable and everyone really should be citing better information than that. 90 years have passed. There isn't anything more current than that??

I didn't post the link. I'm just saying a study on the terminal velocity of 30 caliber bullets doesn't become less valuable with age unless the 30 caliber bullets have changed. Being more current wouldn't change anything unless you have evidence of change in bullet design. However, Hatcher's Notebook, the study itself, was published in 1962, but the tests in question were performed at three locations from 1918 to 1920. It was written by Major General Julian S. Hatcher, a U.S. Army ordnance expert. You can download it here. Discussion of the tests in question begins on page 511. It should be noted that Hatcher himself did not conduct the tests. They calculated the terminal velocity by the time it took for the bullet to fall. It's also interesting to note that the bullets typically didn't fall point down.

 

[wolf_fire]

I didn't post the link. I'm just saying a study on the terminal velocity of 30 caliber bullets doesn't become less valuable with age unless the 30 caliber bullets have changed. Being more current wouldn't change anything unless you have evidence of change in bullet design. However, Hatcher's Notebook, the study itself, was published in 1962, but the tests in question were performed at three locations from 1918 to 1920. It was written by Major General Julian S. Hatcher, a U.S. Army ordnance expert. You can download it here. Discussion of the tests in question begins on page 511. It should be noted that Hatcher himself did not conduct the tests. They calculated the terminal velocity by the time it took for the bullet to fall. It's also interesting to note that the bullets typically didn't fall point down.

Thanks Rhino for your information to the topic.

For those who think because they don't know who Julian Hatcher is then his study must be bogus, then I would suggest you do your own research rather than use the straw man argument of "I haven't heard of this guy so he must not be important."

Julian Hatcher is the father of ballistics research. He is the first to come up empirically with a formula for "stopping power". In fact it is called the Hatcher Scale.

He has done extensive research in the field of ballistics and any data he got in in the study from falling bullets at the end of WWI would most certainly be useful data today. He also retired from the Army as a Major General working in Ordnance throughout his career. He even served as an engineering trouble shooter with Springfield Armory to resolve early problems with the M1 Garand.

Yeah, I'd take his word for it.

 

[JustTheFacts]

I didn't post the link. I'm just saying a study on the terminal velocity of 30 caliber bullets doesn't become less valuable with age unless the 30 caliber bullets have changed. Being more current wouldn't change anything unless you have evidence of change in bullet design. However, Hatcher's Notebook, the study itself, was published in 1962, but the tests in question were performed at three locations from 1918 to 1920. It was written by Major General Julian S. Hatcher, a U.S. Army ordnance expert. You can download it here. Discussion of the tests in question begins on page 511. It should be noted that Hatcher himself did not conduct the tests. They calculated the terminal velocity by the time it took for the bullet to fall. It's also interesting to note that the bullets typically didn't fall point down.

Good link. From pages 514-515:

"One of the (vertically fired) shots that hit the platform was a Service .30-'06, 150 grain flat based bullet, which came down base first, (as that bullet usually does), and bounced into the water after striking the edge of the lower platform. It left a mark about 1/16 inch deep in the soft pine board.

"Two more bullets struck in a pail of water beside the machine gun and left a barely perceptible dent in the bottom of the pail showing the bullet had landed on its side. One struck the edge of the thwart in the boat and left a shallow indent. The shape of this indent showed the bullet was at an angle of about 45 degrees from the vertical when it hit....

"It was concluded from these tests that the return velocity was about 300 feet per second. With the 150 grain bullet, this corresponds to an energy of 30 foot pounds. Previously the Army had decided that on the average, an energy of 60 foot pounds is required to produce a disabling wound. Thus Service bullets returning from extreme heights cannot be considered lethal by this standard."

So it'd give you a good bump on the head just like in the cartoons, but that's nowhere near lethal.

For comparison, a 40 grain Maxi-Mag from my NAA Black Widow is about 90 ft-lbs of energy - calculated using NAA's ballistics tests and an online ballistics calculator.

 

[S&W645]

Good link. From pages 514-515:

"One of the (vertically fired) shots that hit the platform was a Service .30-'06, 150 grain flat based bullet, which came down base first, (as that bullet usually does), and bounced into the water after striking the edge of the lower platform. It left a mark about 1/16 inch deep in the soft pine board.

"Two more bullets struck in a pail of water beside the machine gun and left a barely perceptible dent in the bottom of the pail showing the bullet had landed on its side. One struck the edge of the thwart in the boat and left a shallow indent. The shape of this indent showed the bullet was at an angle of about 45 degrees from the vertical when it hit....

"It was concluded from these tests that the return velocity was about 300 feet per second. With the 150 grain bullet, this corresponds to an energy of 30 foot pounds. Previously the Army had decided that on the average, an energy of 60 foot pounds is required to produce a disabling wound. Thus Service bullets returning from extreme heights cannot be considered lethal by this standard."

So it'd give you a good bump on the head just like in the cartoons, but that's nowhere near lethal.

For comparison, a 40 grain Maxi-Mag from my NAA Black Widow is about 90 ft-lbs of energy - calculated using NAA's ballistics tests and an online ballistics calculator.

And 30 ft-lbs from a .30-06 round is about as dead a round as you'd get. Even at a .30-06's maximum range when fired, it will be greater than that. At 500 yards, a .30-06 has 1362 ft-lbs of energy. And a .30-06 has a maximum range of over 3000 yards. This is for the same types of ammo as used in the tests mentioned. .30-06 military rounds had to be changed at one point because they were dangerous to use on 1000 yard ranges. The ranges weren't long enough to prevent escape of the bullets from the range area. That lead to the M2 Ball ammo seen today as used in 1903s, US Rifle M1, and some machine guns. At 100 yards, an AP .30-06 round will go thru a plate of 3/4" steel. At 200 ft/s how far into ballistics gel would one go.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Thanks Rhino for your information to the topic.

For those who think because they don't know who Julian Hatcher is then his study must be bogus, then I would suggest you do your own research rather than use the straw man argument of "I haven't heard of this guy so he must not be important."

Julian Hatcher is the father of ballistics research. He is the first to come up empirically with a formula for "stopping power". In fact it is called the Hatcher Scale.

He has done extensive research in the field of ballistics and any data he got in in the study from falling bullets at the end of WWI would most certainly be useful data today. He also retired from the Army as a Major General working in Ordnance throughout his career. He even served as an engineering trouble shooter with Springfield Armory to resolve early problems with the M1 Garand.

Yeah, I'd take his word for it.

If you read your quote of Rhino in post #53, you'll see that your hero Hatcher didn't even do the work. You didn't even read what you quoted, much less the original research until I quoted it (thanks for following me, by the way).

I still doubt the calculation and so should you. What makes you think it's reliable? A 1/16" dent in soft pine? You could easily do that kind of damage with your thick skull.

The falling bullet after being fired vertically won't kill you. For lower angles it definitely can.

 

[mdleow]

Newbie here. But I know enough to know you are responsible for every round you discharge. Under what circumstances would you want to fire off a warning shot? (And give the bad guy an opportunity to return fire, no thank you) At what are you going to fire off a warning shot? And at what point does some Ahole attorney sue you and cost you a fortune just because you "shoulda, coulda fired a warning shot" instead of a clean shooting, in self defense? IDK. I see trouble in this one. But we'll see how it gets applied.

 

[BluesStringer]

Newbie here. But I know enough to know you are responsible for every round you discharge. Under what circumstances would you want to fire off a warning shot? (And give the bad guy an opportunity to return fire, no thank you) At what are you going to fire off a warning shot? And at what point does some Ahole attorney sue you and cost you a fortune just because you "shoulda, coulda fired a warning shot" instead of a clean shooting, in self defense? IDK. I see trouble in this one. But we'll see how it gets applied.

Have you read the bill? If so, please point out where "warning shots" are even mentioned. Best of luck with that.

If you haven't read the bill and don't understand that the media has seized upon a false narrative (gee, that never happens, does it!) in order to sell newspapers and advertising, then you apparently don't know that you've been lied to. You have been lied to. Even the case that proponents cite as a rationale for passing the bill promulgates a false narrative. That would be the Marissa Alexander case, where she actually left the house in which her husband was abusing her and returned with a gun, firing three shots towards him, but missing all three. Her defense claimed that those were three "warning shots" and the false narrative was born. Alexander was convicted however, on FL's ban on "threat of deadly force" statute, which may well include the employment of warning shots in some unforeseeable, exceedingly rare set of circumstances, but which are not consistent with the facts of the Alexander case. She actually tried to shoot her husband, simply missed, and apparently thought claiming three shots as being a warning would get her off. Well, it didn't. She got a 20 year mandatory minimum sentence under the threat of force statute, and Angela Corey is trying to have that modified to 60 years, one 20 year mandatory minimum for each round fired.

Now, the reason I say the Alexander case gave birth to a false narrative is because her case does engender legitimate sympathy for an abused woman who reached the end of her rope and took actions to stop any further abuse from occurring......but her actions missed. The very first provision of the new bill says this:

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

Section 1.

(1) The Legislature finds that persons have been criminally prosecuted and have been sentenced to mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment pursuant to s. 775.087, Florida Statutes, for threatening to use force in a manner and under circumstances that would have been justifiable under chapter 776, Florida Statutes, had force actually been used.​

Ms. Alexander's case doesn't fit the purpose of the bill because under no theory of self defense law can a person escape the abuse, leave the location where the abuse was taking place, return with a weapon and just open fire. It is the mandatory minimums that proponents seek to repeal, because it hardly seems right that Alexander should get 20 or 60 years having not even injured her intended target, but her claim of having fired warning shots never had any credibility to begin with.

The new bill was written mostly to repeal the mandatory minimums, and to decriminalize the display of a weapon (brandishing) without actually using it, because displaying it was enough to stop the impending attack. If "warning shots" fall within that meme, so be it, but it is hardly a "warning shots bill" and the Alexander case hardly falls within the purview of legality even if in some rare cases, a warning shot case may be determined to be justified under the new law. Such a determination will remain exceedingly rare, if it ever happens at all, because very few people will ever think to fire a warning shot, at least not experienced and decently-trained gun-handlers/carriers. On the other hand, if circumstances are such that a warning shot stopped a deadly threat and no one was injured in such an incident, should the person who fired the warning shot be sentenced to 20 years on a mandatory minimum sentence? That is the conundrum that your legislators are attempting to address. Absolutely nothing in the bill is specifically about warning shots.

Blues

​

 

[Banjarmon]

If a person carries a chip on his shoulder and get ticked off easy....just maybe he should NOT carry a weapon at all. It is best to walk away if you can.
AMMO cost too much for a warning shot!!

 

[Rhino]

If a person carries a chip on his shoulder and get ticked off easy....just maybe he should NOT carry a weapon at all. It is best to walk away if you can.
AMMO cost too much for a warning shot!!

And just how on God's green earth do you associate a chip on the shoulder or a short temper with a warning shot? They're diametrically opposed. Anyone with a chip or a short temper would be far more likely to shoot to kill rather than fire a warning shot. Ammo is also cheaper that legal expenses. You're more likely to incur additional legal expenses by shooting someone than you are by firing a warning shot, so the cost factor would favor a warning shot. And if you let the cost of a bullet determine your self defense tactics, then maybe you shouldn't be carrying a gun.