Ragdolls = In .... Realistic wounds ???

[BMFer 1]

I have read that the damage a .50 bmg does to a human varies greatly with what it hits on its way through. Gunnery Sargeant Hathcock noted while sniping with a browning M2 that sometimes his targets would get up afterward and continue on and sometimes it would create terrible wounds. It's been a while but IIRC the difference was attributed to whether or not it hit bone or not.

This forum has such discussions all the time and the information presented is never new. I would suggest searching the forums for old discussions if you are actually interested in this kind of ballistic behaviour.

Yes hitting a bone would be a major factor in the damage done by a round. When the hit occurs both the bone and the bullet would explode into fragments and tear threw whatever is left behind it causing extensive organ damage or taking off a arm or a leg.

So you've got nothing really going on for the first ten whatevers... centimeters or inches or whatever... then the bullet turns and you have a temporary cavity four whatevers in diameter, then the bullet exits. Doesn't look like anything special to me. Even if that is in inches, it's still not very impressive. And, if if is in inches then all that temporary cavitation is happening outside of the back of the average human body in the first place, meaning that such a cavity would never be formed. Maybe if you shot a fat guy, that bullet would cause some bruising to his back fat.

The ballistics gel doesnt take into account organs and bones anything that fragments the bullet will cause more damage. Even with the ballistics gel example it shows you would have about a 2-3 inch exit wound in your back and I dont know about you but that doesnt sound like much fun to me.

[rye1 21]

Well that's only one source Max. If multiple sources, who were reasonably reputable, had the same results I would be more profound to find out why.

Some say it is not true, and only tested in 10-20% gel with no official or scientific standards met.

If it hit something infront of the target (from a wall to body armour) then the damage you see further down the tract would happen on impact, as well as fragmentation, slow-down and spalling and other secondary missiles. It looks small but it will create a very nasty exit wound due to just the sheer size of the round itself, nevermind any kind of yaw or tumbling within.

Remember distance and velocity, the test shot was taken from very up close - I think 10-20m which does not allow time for anything. It's too fast to do much except penetrate - so as it penetrates it creates a smaller cavity due to velocity, and an enterance and exit wound which have the potential to be less lethal as it's just a through-and-through injury.

And BMFer is right, when an organ is hit the damage is intensified suddenly. No hole is a small hole when it's gone through an organ. It creates a bigger cavity, changes internal blood pressure (and other organ and cavity pressures) suddenly.

If we took external sources and non-scientific ones such as reports and pictures on the ground, animal hunting photography then we'd get a clearer message of animal-human-reality ratios of what a .50 can do. I've seen some photos... you would not like to be anywhere down range when that thing is in town.

[max power 21]

Yes hitting a bone would be a major factor in the damage done by a round. When the hit occurs both the bone and the bullet would explode into fragments and tear threw whatever is left behind it causing extensive organ damage or taking off a arm or a leg.

The ballistics gel doesnt take into account organs and bones anything that fragments the bullet will cause more damage. Even with the ballistics gel example it shows you would have about a 2-3 inch exit wound in your back and I dont know about you but that doesnt sound like much fun to me.

No, it shows a temporary cavity of that size. The hole in the back of the ballistics gel would be .50 caliber in diameter, or slightly keyholed.

Well that's only one source Max. If multiple sources, who were reasonably reputable, had the same results I would be more profound to find out why.

Some say it is not true, and only tested in 10-20% gel with no official or scientific standards met.

Just like most of the tests conducted in the world to date.

If it hit something infront of the target (from a wall to body armour) then the damage you see further down the tract would happen on impact, as well as fragmentation, slow-down and spalling and other secondary missiles. It looks small but it will create a very nasty exit wound due to just the sheer size of the round itself, nevermind any kind of yaw or tumbling within.

I'm pretty sure .50 cal don't usually tumble within the human body. And what are we talking about here? The wounding ballistics of a .50 cal or a .50 call that hits all kind of other shit, then hits someone?

Remember distance and velocity, the test shot was taken from very up close - I think 10-20m which does not allow time for anything. It's too fast to do much except penetrate - so as it penetrates it creates a smaller cavity due to velocity, and an enterance and exit wound which have the potential to be less lethal as it's just a through-and-through injury.

The .50 cal doesn't lose much velocity over distance.

And BMFer is right, when an organ is hit the damage is intensified suddenly. No hole is a small hole when it's gone through an organ. It creates a bigger cavity, changes internal blood pressure (and other organ and cavity pressures) suddenly.

I hope you didn't take what I was saying to mean that perforating someone wasn't serious... Because that's the proposition you seem to be arguing against. But, within the reasoning of your argument that hitting organs is dangerous, the same can be said for getting stabbed with a stick.

If we took external sources and non-scientific ones such as reports and pictures on the ground, animal hunting photography then we'd get a clearer message of animal-human-reality ratios of what a .50 can do. I've seen some photos... you would not like to be anywhere down range when that thing is in town.

You don't hunt animals with fmj rounds :p Soft nosed lead bullets are probably what you're viewing.

Like I said before none of this stuff is new to the forums in the slightest.

http://www.rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html

Edited March 23, 2012 by Max Power

[BMFer 1]

No, it shows a temporary cavity of that size. The hole in the back of the ballistics gel would be .50 caliber in diameter, or slightly keyholed.

Just like most of the tests conducted in the world to date.

I'm pretty sure .50 cal don't usually tumble within the human body. And what are we talking about here? The wounding ballistics of a .50 cal or a .50 call that hits all kind of other shit, then hits someone?

The .50 cal doesn't lose much velocity over distance.

I hope you didn't take what I was saying to mean that perforating someone wasn't serious... Because that's the proposition you seem to be arguing against. But, within the reasoning of your argument that hitting organs is dangerous, the same can be said for getting stabbed with a stick.

You don't hunt animals with fmj rounds :p Soft nosed lead bullets are probably what you're viewing.

Like I said before none of this stuff is new to the forums in the slightest.

http://www.rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html

That research is very old (1987) and in the studies they never used very high caliber bullets and it still sounded like they didnt take into account bones and various angles. Also this wound still looks pritty brutal even though its not .50 http://www.rkba.org/research/fackler/figure2.gif I would like to see some up to date studies with modern guns tested.

Edited March 24, 2012 by BMFer

[max power 21]

My whole point is that, based on Rye's ballistics gelatin showing a temporary cavity, that an exit wound on real people can not be predicted from that. I believe that my first statement in this exchange was referencing Gunnery Sargeant Hatchock's experience sniping with a browning M2, stating exactly what you're stating. But, large temporary cavities do not really indicate massive wounds or even massive trauma.

In the paper they reference many tests on animals talking about bones, and they reference the remote wounded effects the temporary cavity on bones specifically.

Yes, that image of the .223 does look nasty, but that is also a close range shot without other factors like bones. That fragmentation becomes a lot less likely (like, it won't happen) even at 100 meters when shot from a the 14" barrel of an m4. Also, the rear wall of the skin is said to count for a further 4 inches of penetration because of its elasticity, so any fragment that does not penetrate 4 inches of flesh-like material will not come out the other side in the form of an exit wound. Also, I should point out that that cavitation is due to a fluke in the 5.56 bullet design, and achieving that kind of wounding pattern on purpose through purposeful projectile design has been somewhat elusive.

Like I said we've been through this before.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Max Power

[rye1 21]

The temporary cavity is X the amount of the permanent one, so yes it does indicate that. 1/16th I think. Can't remember now.

[max power 21]

The temporary cavity is X the amount of the permanent one, so yes it does indicate that. 1/16th I think. Can't remember now.

Then at its narrower 'bulge', your picture indicates a 0.094 cm projectile. :p At the larger bulge, is indicates a 0.25cm projectile. Or maybe it's inches?

The paper I referenced cites 11 to 12.5 sphere diameters at 1000 m/s, for a spherical projectile.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Max Power

[rye1 21]

Well this was the actual video of the brass fletcher test:

[Whirly 1]

Visual comparing the difference between full metal jacket and hollow point rounds when fired into ballistics gel using .50 rounds. Ballistic gel density is similar to human flesh.

7tArEtZLw4o

[rye1 21]

HP you see the almost immediate expansion. That is a shallower wound, ouch.

[Whirly 1]

I'm no ballistics expert, but I did see some 'chunks' fly off that ballistics gel.

[J-Guid 10]

Whirly, humans heads exploding like a watermelan too

[-Coulum- 35]

Whirly, humans heads exploding like a watermelan too

No not really.

There are plenty of videos showing 7.62 rounds totally exploding water melons but from the few videos I've seen of real people being hit by the 7.62 in the head the only indicator that they have been hit is the fact that they fall to the ground. Watermelons and human heads are made of different stuff. I'm guessing the biggest difference is the Skin and muscle on the face help prevent the head from exploding like water melon would.

[Whirly 1]

7.62mm to the head is going to be messy.

Lmu7yTVidig&feature=related

kGrq1oP37LI

[mr burns 132]

Already tried writing answers to the gore facts here twice, then it started feeling weird pretending to know more than others about humans being torn to pieces (or not) by small arms fire :confused:

in short: human head != watermelon/gelatine block

[dmarkwick 261]

T'aint gonna happen folks. You can post all the images of jelly & fruit you like :)

[BMFer 1]

No not really.

There are plenty of videos showing 7.62 rounds totally exploding water melons but from the few videos I've seen of real people being hit by the 7.62 in the head the only indicator that they have been hit is the fact that they fall to the ground. Watermelons and human heads are made of different stuff. I'm guessing the biggest difference is the Skin and muscle on the face help prevent the head from exploding like water melon would.

A human head can and will explode somewhat like a watermelan when hit with a 7.62 but the differance is the skin of a human holds the peaces together alot better so even though the skull pops and the brain turns to mush the chunks of the head will still mostly hold themselfs together by hair and skin. Its not a pritty sight to see in RL but it is realistic and should be in A3.

[-Coulum- 35]

in short: human head != watermelon/gelatine block

Yeah this is what I am saying. No doubt a 7.62 or any bullet for tha matter is pretty devastating if taken to the head. But the fact is a head won't explode like those watermelons. The human head and a watermelon are actually quite different. Wather melons don't have skin or muscle holding them together which is quite strong and elastic. This would make it so when hit the head will hold itself together even if many bones are broken. A watermelons shell is not nearly as strong as a human skull and is much thicker than the human skull. This means that the human skull would be more likely to just break directly around the path of the bullet leaving a small clean hole rather than transfering the impact of the hit onto the rest of the skull like a watermelon.The brain is much more malleable then the inside of a watermelon. The watermelon is brittle in comparison to the soft flexible brain tissue. This means when a bullet passes through the brain, the brain will absorb much of the kinetic energy the round has and significantly decrease the force on the skull.

I am just saying that what happens to a watermelon is not what would happen to a head in the same situation. many people see a watermelon getting shot and exploding and think "wow that's exactly what would happen to a human head." But I serious doubt this is the case. Hell I can get a base ball bat and crack a watermelon clean in two, but I seriously doubt I could do this to a human head.

[sic-disaster 311]

Seems good to me, enough to show yet not over the top, which is important.

[Whirly 1]

But the fact is a head won't explode like those watermelons.

Fact is even a 5.56mm round can literally blow apart a head like a peice of fruit. Type "LiveLeak-dot-com red shirt shot dead in Bangkok Thailand - YouTube" into google.

[Messiah 2]

The fact that the conversation has gone so far into absurdity is rather telling. Gore up to the level of someone's head being evolved into the preverbial watermelon has no place in the ArmA series. Gore and wounds that add to the simulation is all well and dandy, and welcome to an extent, but you need to weight up between what adds to the game, and what is just pointless eye candy, not to mention something that pushes the game's rating into 18+ bracket, and cutting a key gaming demographic out of your final sales (in technicality).

Also consider your engagement ranges in ArmA. Half the stuff presented here bears no merit or useful addition to a game when a high proportion of the people you shoot are far beyond the scope of being able to assertain if they're anything more than dead or alive, let alone if his right ear lobe happened to turn into a 3am kebab. On a personal level I've never stopped to look at whatever enemy I may have shot to take notice if the bullet hole happens to be positioned exactly where I aimed, I couldn't care less, and neither do most of you. At the scale of the ArmA verse, its such a small and insignificant detail, one that after the first week of the pro-camp here playing 'shoot a cock' with their poor digital lab rats, is more than likely forgotten. Truely useful and important additions, such as the physics changes are fundamental and long lasting, unlike the lab rat's man sack.

[Whirly 1]

not to mention something that pushes the game's rating into 18+ bracket

mods have no effect on game ratings. The poll proves that the overwhelming majority want it, installing mods is optional, take it or leave it.

[antoineflemming 14]

The fact that the conversation has gone so far into absurdity is rather telling. Gore up to the level of someone's head being evolved into the preverbial watermelon has no place in the ArmA series. Gore and wounds that add to the simulation is all well and dandy, and welcome to an extent, but you need to weight up between what adds to the game, and what is just pointless eye candy, not to mention something that pushes the game's rating into 18+ bracket, and cutting a key gaming demographic out of your final sales (in technicality).

Also consider your engagement ranges in ArmA. Half the stuff presented here bears no merit or useful addition to a game when a high proportion of the people you shoot are far beyond the scope of being able to assertain if they're anything more than dead or alive, let alone if his right ear lobe happened to turn into a 3am kebab. On a personal level I've never stopped to look at whatever enemy I may have shot to take notice if the bullet hole happens to be positioned exactly where I aimed, I couldn't care less, and neither do most of you. At the scale of the ArmA verse, its such a small and insignificant detail, one that after the first week of the pro-camp here playing 'shoot a cock' with their poor digital lab rats, is more than likely forgotten. Truely useful and important additions, such as the physics changes are fundamental and long lasting, unlike the lab rat's man sack.

What's so wrong with only adults playing ArmA? COD is rated M in the U.S. And kids still play it. A rating doesn't really have any effect. So what if you cut out the under 18 demographic? Then they'll just have to wait til they're older, or get their parents to pay. And, sorry, but I don't consider gore eye candy. It's a realistic features that underscores realistic wounds. If they can get gore working in a realistic fashion, then I'd say that's an indicator that the wounding system is improved. If BIS can get gore working to where, if I shoot an enemy soldier in the head with a .50 cal, his head blows off, then I know that finally their shooting system works. Tired of the many times I shoot an enemy in the head and that doesn't drop him. If there's a hole exactly where you shot, then you know that the shooting system is working perfectly. And, again, who's to say what the engagement ranges are in ArmA? That can be from a click (or klick) out up to 10m away). Honestly, I hope that there are some close quarters engagements. We're playing as SF operators, not some squad sized, or platoon sized, or company sized element. There better be some close quarters engagements.

[BMFer 1]

Fact is even a 5.56mm round can literally blow apart a head like a peice of fruit. Type "LiveLeak-dot-com red shirt shot dead in Bangkok Thailand - YouTube" into google.

Brutal clip but it shows exactly how much damage a bullet can do to the human head.

What's so wrong with only adults playing ArmA? COD is rated M in the U.S. And kids still play it. A rating doesn't really have any effect. So what if you cut out the under 18 demographic? Then they'll just have to wait til they're older, or get their parents to pay. And, sorry, but I don't consider gore eye candy. It's a realistic features that underscores realistic wounds. If they can get gore working in a realistic fashion, then I'd say that's an indicator that the wounding system is improved. If BIS can get gore working to where, if I shoot an enemy soldier in the head with a .50 cal, his head blows off, then I know that finally their shooting system works. Tired of the many times I shoot an enemy in the head and that doesn't drop him. If there's a hole exactly where you shot, then you know that the shooting system is working perfectly. And, again, who's to say what the engagement ranges are in ArmA? That can be from a click (or klick) out up to 10m away). Honestly, I hope that there are some close quarters engagements. We're playing as SF operators, not some squad sized, or platoon sized, or company sized element. There better be some close quarters engagements.

Well said. The poll clearly indicates the majority wants realistic wounding and gore so I find it funny when people say "Oh noes but what about the children!" and "Making it M or 18+ will drive people away" when the exact opposite is true.

[rye1 21]

It'll be banned in Australia though. ;)