View Single Post
  #24 (permalink)  
Old October 11th, 2009
Franky4Fingers Franky4Fingers is offline
Super Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location:
Altoona, Pennsylvania
(Blair County)
Posts: 530
Rep Power: 93
Franky4Fingers has a reputation beyond reputeFranky4Fingers has a reputation beyond reputeFranky4Fingers has a reputation beyond reputeFranky4Fingers has a reputation beyond reputeFranky4Fingers has a reputation beyond reputeFranky4Fingers has a reputation beyond reputeFranky4Fingers has a reputation beyond reputeFranky4Fingers has a reputation beyond reputeFranky4Fingers has a reputation beyond reputeFranky4Fingers has a reputation beyond reputeFranky4Fingers has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight

I don't think the milk jugs are so far off at all. Watch slow motion vids of ballistics gel being shot. It does damn near the same thing only the gel holds together because its a solid. You can see the gel expand outward like an explosion when the bullet hits. And when hit with a bigger gun, the gel "explodes" more...surprise surprise.

And I did use to hunt years ago.

Obviously our bodies aren't filled with loose water like a jug, but it is soft water based tissue that expands, and I'm bettering if you watch in slow motion a piece of beef being shot it would do near the same thing. You could watch the bullets hit and watch the beef expand.

And it depends on what kind of jugs your shooting to. I said milk jugs, like the cardboard, because they are the weekest, showing that the .223 wont even explode those.

So does shooting a milk jug the same as shooting flesh? Of course not, and I never said as such. All my post said was simple relevance to hydrostatic pressure and force. Don't add things that aren't there.
Reply With Quote