interesting tidbit about the .45-70 GOVT round (DODGING A BULLET)

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - interesting tidbit about the .45-70 GOVT round (DODGING A BULLET)

Posted: 3/21/2006 6:22:12 PM EDT

from wikipedia:

The trajectory of the bullets is very steep. This was not a problem in the Old West as most shooters were then keen judges of distance and trajectory. Most modern shooters are not so skilled. In the Old West, it was said that a man about 400m away, if he saw the puff of white smoke from the rifle, had time to get out of the way of the bullet--not out of the question, as its time of flight would be 1.1 seconds (405 grain bullet at 1500 feet per second, ballistic coefficient of .21).

i wonder if theres anyone who has successfully done this and literally DODGED A BULLET

Posted: 3/21/2006 6:27:55 PM EDT

[#1]

Im not willing to try. I guess if you didnt see the smoke you are unlucky.

Posted: 3/21/2006 6:29:07 PM EDT

[#2]

How do you know you're not dodging into the bullet if the guy shooting at you is a lousy shot?

Posted: 3/21/2006 6:29:32 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
from wikipedia:

The trajectory of the bullets is very steep. This was not a problem in the Old West as most shooters were then keen judges of distance and trajectory. Most modern shooters are not so skilled. In the Old West, it was said that a man about 400m away, if he saw the puff of white smoke from the rifle, had time to get out of the way of the bullet--not out of the question, as its time of flight would be 1.1 seconds (405 grain bullet at 1500 feet per second, ballistic coefficient of .21).

i wonder if theres anyone who has successfully done this and literally DODGED A BULLET

What if you dodge yourself into the path of a near miss?

Posted: 3/21/2006 6:34:03 PM EDT

[#4]

We need O_P to test this with you as the target.

Posted: 3/21/2006 6:35:18 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
We need O_P to test this with you as the target.

how about i hide behind a berm with the target on top of a stick, and use a periscope to watch the shooter and move the target when i see the smoke

Posted: 3/21/2006 6:35:57 PM EDT

[#6]

Posted: 3/21/2006 6:36:00 PM EDT

[#7]

Average reaction time is about a second and a half... (.75 to see action, .75 to begin reaction)

I'm gonna say "yea right" for this one.

Posted: 3/21/2006 6:37:43 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Average reaction time is about a second and a half... (.75 to see action, .75 to begin reaction)

I'm gonna say "yea right" for this one.

thats a really slow reaction time. go find a reaction speed test somewhere online where you have to click on a button when a light changes color, i guarantee that it will take much less than .75 sec for you to see that the color has changed and less than .75 seconds to begin your reaction of clicking the button.

Posted: 3/21/2006 6:38:22 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
We need O_P to test this with you as the target.

how about i hide behind a berm with the target on top of a stick, and use a periscope to watch the shooter and move the target when i see the smoke

We'll compromise and let you do it like this.

Posted: 3/21/2006 6:39:11 PM EDT

[#10]

You have to factor in the margin of error for the shooter using iron sights. I would certainly be possible for someone alert and ready to dodge the bullet as he saw the smoke. More than likely the shooter missed and the target moved as well, thus returning to his friends telling them of his "dodging a bullet". Just my take on the issue.

Posted: 3/21/2006 6:39:11 PM EDT

[#11]

Sounds like I need to try to recall my Wikipedia login and edit more BS from a gun article.

Probably written by a reenactor believing every tall tale from the old fat guy at the "rendezvous."

My beef isn't so much with the dodging (yo can "dodge" a M16 at 600 meters - if you know where the round is going) as the "beck in the day people could judge distance better, romantic hyperbolic BULLSHIT.

Posted: 3/21/2006 6:41:26 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
the "beck in the day people could judge distance better, romantic hyperbolic BULLSHIT.

seems reasonable to me. back then, people didn't hunt for fun, people hunted to get enough food to SURVIVE. i dare say that back then the average shooter probably took marksmanship a little more seriously than many of the elmer fudds of today.

Posted: 3/21/2006 6:43:02 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Sounds like I need to try to recall my Wikipedia login and edit more BS from a gun article.

Probably written by a reenactor believing every tall tale from the old fat guy at the "rendezvous."

My beef isn't so much with the dodging (yo can "dodge" a M16 at 600 meters - if you know where the round is going) as the "beck in the day people could judge distance better, romantic hyperbolic BULLSHIT.

While you're at it please correct the part about the Indians "just living in harmony with nature." That one has always grated on my nerves.

Posted: 3/21/2006 6:43:47 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
the "beck in the day people could judge distance better, romantic hyperbolic BULLSHIT.

seems reasonable to me. back then, people didn't hunt for fun, people hunted to get enough food to SURVIVE. i dare say that back then the average shooter probably took marksmanship a little more seriously than many of the elmer fudds of today.

History--learn it.

Posted: 3/21/2006 6:48:22 PM EDT

[#15]

Normal recation times for seeing and reacting are around 16ms

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - interesting tidbit about the .45-70 GOVT round (DODGING A BULLET)

General » General Discussion

Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us