W
Without speed there is no energy, and without energy there is no speed. They go hand in hand
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
How Many Yards Until No Longer Lethal
- Thread starter Small Lady
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Small Lady
Well-Known Member
Everyone can agree with that for sure.
But the answer needed is how much energy.
Shooter's accuracy, bullet type, what is being shot, and a lot more things make that a tough one to answer.
When I read about old bullet designs vs modern, the difference is huge.
Then some people prefer a heavier bullet going slower, and others, like me, lighter but faster.
What a good discussion though, and thank you for getting involved.
Exactly
I've shot deer 
in the eye with an 06' and 22LR. Same Results, 22 is less messy thoughFunniest reply I've read so far!!So can we all agree that a 22 lr isn't lethal at 3000 yards, a 30-30 isn't at 6000 yards, a 7mm mag or prc isn't at 10,000 yards, and a 6.5 Creed isn't at 9 yards, because we all know they suck
Rflshootr
Well-Known Member
Is there a particular reason you're asking this question? Specifically, an adult male? Would something happen differently to an adult female?
Did someone get under your skin?
Last edited:
Hugnot
Well-Known Member
During the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Dec. 7, 1941. Admiral Kimmel, CINCPACFLT was looking at the disaster through a window when he was struck by a .50 caliber bullet that busted through the window and grazed his chest leaving a welt on his chest & a cut uniform. Not a lethal bullet, but the start of lethal conflict until August 1945.
Last edited:
PrecisionRx
Well-Known Member
200 years ago, when all we had was black powder, muskets, and low velocity ammunition, the answer was different. Reading through the list of men who died in the civil war you would see two designations. Killed in Action and Mortally Wounded. The Mortally Wounded list was 6-8 times longer than those Killed in Action.
S
shaughn
Guest
Using wound stats from a war, especially, one where the Generals had no real concept on the improved range and effectiveness of rifled barrels and the introduction of such in cannon an exploding shells in artillery, doesn't really address any questions of the arms and ammunition, just the tactics and the decisions of the leaders.
Very few wars are fought differently than the war their grandfather, dad fought in, change come at a high cost driven by technology and many times the tactics don't keep up.
Very few wars are fought differently than the war their grandfather, dad fought in, change come at a high cost driven by technology and many times the tactics don't keep up.
I think this is the false premise that leads so many astray. Not that your question is false, but the idea of how much energy, meaning ft/lbs, vs remaining momentum of the projectile design to reach or pass through vitals. As I have attempted to show earlier, even projectiles of what many consider "low" energy can and do routinely kill various game and people, and have done so for centuries.
When we consider the low energy impact numbers of black powder projectiles at distance, especially in the 36, 40, 44 and 45 PRB types, and how they have killed so much game through the centuries, one can see many, if not most, modern projectiles can be lethal at considerable distances. So much so that for most, they will strike the ground long before they have lost their potential to be lethal.
Being able to strike that distant target and in the right area is another topic.
I don't know the pretext for the question. But whatever the maximum range for a particular projectile should be considered it's maximum lethality. Just from a scientific viewpoint, even if the bullet's forward momentum is halted the bullet's downward force would be enough to penetrate uncovered flesh. Bullets are deadly far beyond there point of effective range. Again, I don't understand the pretext for the question but one thing should always be in our minds. What could this bullet hit if I miss my mark. You should always be aware of where your bullet could potentially land. I would consider a bullet's maximum range it's maximum point of lethality, where humans are concerned. That can be determined by simply plugging all the variables into a ballistics calculator.
I read an article once about a guy standing in his yard and he started hearing something hitting his roof. He went out and found several projectiles lying on the ground. He could hear shooting in the distance so he went to investigate. He found a bunch of guys shooting a 338 at a cardboard target located at the foot of a hill about 200 yards away but located in front of a pond about 50 ft behind the target. The bullets were ricocheting off the pond and landing in his yard in a residential area 2 miles away. Maximum effective range is a completely different context than maximum lethality. All guns should be considered lethal to their maximum range but should only be used for game or tactical situations to the point at which the bullet's impact of the designated target can be reasonably predicted with little room for error. A subsonic 9mm fired from a 4in pistol can accurately be fired at a man sized target at a hundred yards and it is lethal but most of us would not chose it as our first choice for that purpose. Again, what is the pretext for the question??? Make sure you know what you are shooting at, have the appropriate tool to do it and be safe. JMT
I read an article once about a guy standing in his yard and he started hearing something hitting his roof. He went out and found several projectiles lying on the ground. He could hear shooting in the distance so he went to investigate. He found a bunch of guys shooting a 338 at a cardboard target located at the foot of a hill about 200 yards away but located in front of a pond about 50 ft behind the target. The bullets were ricocheting off the pond and landing in his yard in a residential area 2 miles away. Maximum effective range is a completely different context than maximum lethality. All guns should be considered lethal to their maximum range but should only be used for game or tactical situations to the point at which the bullet's impact of the designated target can be reasonably predicted with little room for error. A subsonic 9mm fired from a 4in pistol can accurately be fired at a man sized target at a hundred yards and it is lethal but most of us would not chose it as our first choice for that purpose. Again, what is the pretext for the question???
Make sure you know what you are shooting at, have the appropriate tool to do it and be safe. JMT
Small Lady
Well-Known Member
Is there a particular reason you're asking this question? Specifically, an adult male? Would something happen differently to an adult female?
Did someone get under your skin?
Just planning for any future exboyfriends
Small Lady
Well-Known Member
I don't know the pretext for the question. But whatever the maximum range for a particular projectile should be considered it's maximum lethality. Just from a scientific viewpoint, even if the bullet's forward momentum is halted the bullet's downward force would be enough to penetrate uncovered flesh. Bullets are deadly far beyond there point of effective range. Again, I don't understand the pretext for the question but one thing should always be in our minds. What could this bullet hit if I miss my mark. You should always be aware of where your bullet could potentially land. I would consider a bullet's maximum range it's maximum point of lethality, where humans are concerned. That can be determined by simply plugging all the variables into a ballistics calculator.
I read an article once about a guy standing in his yard and he started hearing something hitting his roof. He went out and found several projectiles lying on the ground. He could hear shooting in the distance so he went to investigate. He found a bunch of guys shooting a 338 at a cardboard target located at the foot of a hill about 200 yards away but located in front of a pond about 50 ft behind the target. The bullets were ricocheting off the pond and landing in his yard in a residential area 2 miles away. Maximum effective range is a completely different context than maximum lethality. All guns should be considered lethal to their maximum range but should only be used for game or tactical situations to the point at which the bullet's impact of the designated target can be reasonably predicted with little room for error. A subsonic 9mm fired from a 4in pistol can accurately be fired at a man sized target at a hundred yards and it is lethal but most of us would not chose it as our first choice for that purpose. Again, what is the pretext for the question???
What got me wondering was a conversation with some coworkers, about a soldier, who claimed to have shot another soldier, from 2.36 miles away, which is over 4100 yards. Despite my own personal feelings that the story is completely fake, it got us asking, is it still deadly at 2.36 miles.
This thread quickly got derailed, and then had some pretty funny posts, some serious ones, but overall it answered my question. Yes it could still be lethal at 2.36 miles.
My cheap shot ( pun intended ) at the 6.5 creed, was because in the other thread about this miracle 2.36 mile shot, someone was having fun that it must have been a 6.5 Cr used to make the shot. Prompting me to be a smart a.. and say the cartridge is only lethal to 9 yards, if someone missed that I was joking.
Rflshootr
Well-Known Member
Remind me not to ask you out.Just planning for any future exboyfriends
The post #26 I think showed shots being made at 7070 yards I think. The projectiles were hitting with some authority, they are just a little bit bigger than an 22 lr, but just over miles hitting tue target
