|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 8, 2017 16:56:07 GMT
one one of the recent forums about the texas shooting, a poster said that if the Las Vegas shooter had a "silencer" (yes, really suppressor) on his gun, it would have made it easier to tell which direction the shooter was shooting from because it would reduce the echoes.
I think it will make no difference. either in ease of pinpointing direction, or in distinctiveness of the shot from the echoes.
I think it is worth assembling as a myth proposal.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 8, 2017 18:13:23 GMT
ugh. cyber, can you fix my typo in the header? thanks.
{Done; For future reference you should be able to edit the header by editing the original post - Cyber]
addendum: yep, looks like it is so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 9, 2017 2:38:26 GMT
This might actually be a viable mini-myth if it could be added to some gunshot sound myths.
They would, of course, have to omit the context in which the original idea was made.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 9, 2017 3:59:01 GMT
This might actually be a viable mini-myth if it could be added to some gunshot sound myths. They would, of course, have to omit the context in which the original idea was made. yes, that would not be a good intro. we can add in a statement somebody made - I forget who - that if you hear a single gunshot, the danger is already over. IS there a circumstance where the sound of a rifle shot will arrive before the bullet? I'm thinking a lob MIGHT give the bullet a long enough path. but I see multiple levels of testing - the claim being that the potentially distracting echoes are reduced - so single shot, follow up shots, instead of just focusing on rifles, they can use pistols, and shotguns, too. not sure how much they will be able to play with terrain in the gun range/bomb range/quarry. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 9, 2017 5:58:49 GMT
Can you guess the distance of a gunshot by the sound?
About a decade or so back, I was on a geology class field trip. The trip took place in the Fall (November?), and involved going into an area of Texas where hunting was a big deal. One of the last stops on the field trip was where a cut into a hill to run a highway had exposed a rich fossil bed, and so we were stopped there to explore. Someone was hunting a fair distance off, but given the clear, cold air and the fact that we were in a rural area, the sounds of the gun shots traveled. It sounded to me like they were a fair distance off and so I didn't mind, but some of the other people in the group - who apparently had no experience with firearms - were in a panic until the shooting stopped.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 9, 2017 8:27:53 GMT
Strange thing about Stereoscopic hearing....
The brain does all the work for you on full automatic.
Subconsciously, passing all relevant information to the conciousness, on a need to know basis.
The more you learn to listen, the better the information thats passed to you.
Take a stereo system, and sit and play with the stereo/mono switch.
Strange isnt it?. It sounds "different", but you cant work out why... and then you can, because you realise that the "position" of the instruments has changed in the mental map you have made of the sound.
And the, go to a live concert... this is something that made me laugh in the beginning, because of the mental tricks your mind plays.
I am watching the band, who are playing in stereo...
As in, the bass and rhythm guitar are on the right speaker, the lead guitar and "other instruments" are on left.
The lead guitar starts walking across the stage, but, the sound doesnt change....
And my mind is asking why not?.
The thing with sudden sound in an echo inducing environment, the brain does all the work, you identify the first sound and from where, without thinking about it.
Some may say that this is the human condition, because hunting is so important to humans.
I have a suggestion, take a cat and a tinkle bell toy with you, watch the cat.
The cats ears will lock onto the toy at its first sounding, and will track the toy, even if its not been seen yet.
It aint just humans.
My daft dog will do exactly the same, his bat like hearing can catch the footfalls of my Kids on their way home long before I can hear them, or even see them.
I think you need to look to the animal world and those animals that have good hearing to see how all this works, because humans tell lies, my dogs ears are pinpoint accurate, without fault...
He can hear the rattle of the lead at a thousand feet no matter what direction it comes from.
However....
As Ironhold pointed out, some people just react.
As previous myths have been busted we find out that people fall down when they have been shot because thats what people expect to happen, so even if its just a light wound, people drop like a sack of spuds, because thats what they have seen in the movies?.
These same people will panic at the sound of gun shot, even if its half a mile away, because they are in fear, and some, because they are "Diva's" and have learnt that the get better reactions that way.
On a range the first day I ever went there, the first group of 5 went to the actual range, whist the rest of us spotty teenagers in the ATC hung about outside waiting. This was RAF Cosford, .303 Enfields.
The first round, and most of the group dropped several dozen inches to a crouch.
Every single one of the could identify that it was indeed on the range that the sound came from, its just they were not expecting that loud...
Because by this time I had been on a range several times, outside the ATC, with .303, 12 & 13 bore Clay pigeon, I was expecting that.
Use of suppressors?.
This idea is one I dont know the outcome.
I am thinking it makes no difference at all unless its very close quarters in a very small room.
As much as they say "You hear the bang they missed", I would also suggest by the time you hear an echo, you have, subconsciously, identified the origin of the initial shot, and echo's will only serve to help you "range" that sound even better?.
On a range, in mid position, with maybe 5/7/more of us shooting, not only can I tell which side the shot comes from, I can place bets on which position they are in, merely from experience of the sounds of the place.
Or rather I could have, its been a few years... [decades?...]
Suggestions...
On testing gun sounds. Make SURE they are full blank rounds, and the correct practise rifles with the painted muzzles that wont fire live.....
And WARN everyone in the immediate surroundings.
Take people you would expect to be able to "spot" such sounds, like time-served range masters.
Start with smaller sounds, such as tinkle toys and such, to see how good we are at hearing.?.
Blind test...
Buzzer box, the type that every electrician carries for testing circuits?.
One of them, and a blindfold.
Blindfold a test subject and ask them to point in the direction they suspect and "guess" at how many yards away, whilst the tester walks round quietly pressing the buzzer at random intervals.
Repeat in a heavy echo room.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 9, 2017 14:41:40 GMT
Yes, that would be the point at which the bullet has slowed to sub-sonic speeds and remained at that speed long enough for the sound of the shot to catch up and overtake it. This distance would depend on the muzzle velocity of the round, the aerodynamic properties of the bullet and the amount of sound produced by the firearm when fired.
With most rifles however this point would be far beyond not only the range at which you could remotely consider shooting at something. But also beyond the range at which the sound is likely to carry. Although in both cases your millage will vary as there are a lot of possible variables. Keep in mind that rifle bullets show muzzle velocities between 2,300 and 3,200 feet per second. (Compared to pistol rounds which show velocities between 600 and 1,500 feet per second). So the majority of rifle bullets are moving at roughly two and a half times the speed of sound.
A quick check seems to indicate that a .303 (British) round is subsonic at 100 yards, probably less. Just using this 100 yard range and a velocity of roughly Mach 2 very rough maths would indicate that the sound of the shot wouldn't catch up with the bullet until it was some 400 yards away and (again, very rough estimate) you probably wouldn't be able to register the shot before it hit unless you were 500 yards or so away.
This is for a rather slow moving rifle bullet that isn't all that aerodynamic. If you are dealing with faster more aerodynamic rounds, something like the 5.56 NATO, you'd be looking at ranges of probably a thousand yards or more.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 9, 2017 15:35:18 GMT
Yes, that would be the point at which the bullet has slowed to sub-sonic speeds and remained at that speed long enough for the sound of the shot to catch up and overtake it. This distance would depend on the muzzle velocity of the round, the aerodynamic properties of the bullet and the amount of sound produced by the firearm when fired. With most rifles however this point would be far beyond not only the range at which you could remotely consider shooting at something. But also beyond the range at which the sound is likely to carry. Although in both cases your millage will vary as there are a lot of possible variables. Keep in mind that rifle bullets show muzzle velocities between 2,300 and 3,200 feet per second. (Compared to pistol rounds which show velocities between 600 and 1,500 feet per second). So the majority of rifle bullets are moving at roughly two and a half times the speed of sound. A quick check seems to indicate that a .303 (British) round is subsonic at 100 yards, probably less. Just using this 100 yard range and a velocity of roughly Mach 2 very rough maths would indicate that the sound of the shot wouldn't catch up with the bullet until it was some 400 yards away and (again, very rough estimate) you probably wouldn't be able to register the shot before it hit unless you were 500 yards or so away. This is for a rather slow moving rifle bullet that isn't all that aerodynamic. If you are dealing with faster more aerodynamic rounds, something like the 5.56 NATO, you'd be looking at ranges of probably a thousand yards or more. that's why I was thinking it might take a ballistic arc trajectory to make a relevant difference. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 9, 2017 15:41:54 GMT
to the echoes myth, testing in a close echo environment and a distant echo environment would also make a difference.
we could also use the "gunshot sensors" which are now said to be in some cities as a reference. would such sensors be able to triangulate the gunshot better or worse with a suppressor fixed. - which would automatically make the assumption the sensor could be tuned to register the "silenced" gunshot. - which could be easily demonstrated as you are calibrating your sensor to the sample, and in your test scenario, you could even use a blank firing pistol with and without blanks to simulate the difference.
additional for the minimyth. legend has it that german soldiers would listen for the sound of an M1 Garand ejecting the en bloc clip to know it was safe to rise up to take a shot at a US infantryman, and infantrymen took advantage of that by keeping an empty clip to throw against a rock. could THAT be done convincingly?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Nov 9, 2017 22:28:55 GMT
to the echoes myth, testing in a close echo environment and a distant echo environment would also make a difference. we could also use the "gunshot sensors" which are now said to be in some cities as a reference. would such sensors be able to triangulate the gunshot better or worse with a suppressor fixed. - which would automatically make the assumption the sensor could be tuned to register the "silenced" gunshot. - which could be easily demonstrated as you are calibrating your sensor to the sample, and in your test scenario, you could even use a blank firing pistol with and without blanks to simulate the difference. additional for the minimyth. legend has it that german soldiers would listen for the sound of an M1 Garand ejecting the en bloc clip to know it was safe to rise up to take a shot at a US infantryman, and infantrymen took advantage of that by keeping an empty clip to throw against a rock. could THAT be done convincingly? If you could make the whole myth WW2 related perhaps it could be a special related to that. I know that in WW2 there were suppressed weapons such as this: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Lisle_carbineThis was used by SOE, Commandos and by American agents in action. If have seen one fired at Audely End House a former SOE training base during the war. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 10, 2017 2:36:21 GMT
to the echoes myth, testing in a close echo environment and a distant echo environment would also make a difference. we could also use the "gunshot sensors" which are now said to be in some cities as a reference. would such sensors be able to triangulate the gunshot better or worse with a suppressor fixed. - which would automatically make the assumption the sensor could be tuned to register the "silenced" gunshot. - which could be easily demonstrated as you are calibrating your sensor to the sample, and in your test scenario, you could even use a blank firing pistol with and without blanks to simulate the difference. additional for the minimyth. legend has it that german soldiers would listen for the sound of an M1 Garand ejecting the en bloc clip to know it was safe to rise up to take a shot at a US infantryman, and infantrymen took advantage of that by keeping an empty clip to throw against a rock. could THAT be done convincingly? If you could make the whole myth WW2 related perhaps it could be a special related to that. I know that in WW2 there were suppressed weapons such as this: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Lisle_carbineThis was used by SOE, Commandos and by American agents in action. If have seen one fired at Audely End House a former SOE training base during the war. sounds good. although that would eliminate the gunshot sensor angle. it's a bit manpower intensive, but they could also do the myth that a rifle team with bolt action rifles could be mistaken for a machine gun. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 10, 2017 6:57:01 GMT
Yes, that would be the point at which the bullet has slowed to sub-sonic speeds and remained at that speed long enough for the sound of the shot to catch up and overtake it. This distance would depend on the muzzle velocity of the round, the aerodynamic properties of the bullet and the amount of sound produced by the firearm when fired. With most rifles however this point would be far beyond not only the range at which you could remotely consider shooting at something. But also beyond the range at which the sound is likely to carry. Although in both cases your millage will vary as there are a lot of possible variables. Keep in mind that rifle bullets show muzzle velocities between 2,300 and 3,200 feet per second. (Compared to pistol rounds which show velocities between 600 and 1,500 feet per second). So the majority of rifle bullets are moving at roughly two and a half times the speed of sound. A quick check seems to indicate that a .303 (British) round is subsonic at 100 yards, probably less. Just using this 100 yard range and a velocity of roughly Mach 2 very rough maths would indicate that the sound of the shot wouldn't catch up with the bullet until it was some 400 yards away and (again, very rough estimate) you probably wouldn't be able to register the shot before it hit unless you were 500 yards or so away. This is for a rather slow moving rifle bullet that isn't all that aerodynamic. If you are dealing with faster more aerodynamic rounds, something like the 5.56 NATO, you'd be looking at ranges of probably a thousand yards or more. Questions. Reactions and processing time. The saying if you hear it it missed.... Many soldiers in WW2 stated that they never heard the sound of the one that hit them, and I am relying on the rather truthful parts of Spike Milligans six part war trilogy here [yeah, six part trilogy, he just had a bit more to say?..] and his accounts of what really happened. The thing is, it takes the brain a micro-second to register a sound?. By the time it gets to the conciousness, how long is that?. How far would the bullet fly in that micro-second, and if the round was sub-sonic by the time it hit, would the brain "miss" the sound because by the time it got processed you are now reacting to a rather more important message "I been hit!"... Spike spent a while in a hospital during his service after the incident that left him "Bomb happy", a condition we would now take more seriously, and call it PTSD. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 10, 2017 12:40:43 GMT
284-331 miliseconds, depending on age, gender, intelligence, health, stress, level of distraction, intensity of the noise and although not noted how familiar you are with the sound in question (Translation; You have to be able to identify the sound as a danger that needs action)
The distraction caused by being shot are also likely to cause the victim to miss or forget the sound of the shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 10, 2017 15:00:32 GMT
I think we might have trouble finding volunteers to test that one.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 11, 2017 10:02:21 GMT
Paint ball?.
This is the place, we have the ideas, and if I were to test that one, supersonic ping-pong ball downsize to paintball firing at an either stab-vest or bulletproof vest, with a trigger mechanism that also fires a small charge to replicate the muzzle sound....
|
|
