How come there are no or minimal casualties from bullets that are fired carelesly in the air?
922451
Actually there are cases of casualties and injuries.\n\nMythbusters the show on the discovery channel did an episode about this where they try to see if a bullet fired up into the air can come down and kill you.\n\nHere is a synopsis.\n\nEpisode 50: Bullets Fired Up, Vodka Myths III\n\n    * Bullets fired up into the air can be lethal: busted, plausible, and confirmed.\n  \n\nThe "all of the above" ruling on the bullets fired into the air myth was a new one for MythBusters. All of their tests showed that if you fire a bullet perfectly straight up into the air, it will not kill you as it will fall down on its side and have too low of a terminal velocity to kill, much like the Penny Drop myth. However, it is very difficult to fire perfectly straight into the air and they even found an international expert in falling bullets who was able to confirm for them that people have died from bullets fired up into the air.\nBullets Fired Up\n\nMyth: A bullet fired up can come down and kill you\nHow high would a bullet fly up?\n\nAdam's idea was to correlate the density of ballistics gel with the density of air (Jamie: "Huh."). Adam figured that if they could see how far a bullet traveled in ballistics gel, they could use the difference in density to calculate the distance it would travel through air. Adam calculated that the ballistics gel is 650x more dense than air, so, according to his theory, if a bullet fired into ballistics gel goes 1ft, it would go 650 ft through air. At least that was the theory: they would have to go to the firing range with some blocks of ballistics gel to see if it would work.\n\nThey lined up several blocks of ballistics gel end-on-end at the South San Francisco Police Department firing range (last seen in the Catching a Bullet with Your Teeth myth). They quickly ran into a problem. The 9mm round went through three blocks of ballistics gel for a total distance of about 5ft. The much more powerful .03-06 only went one block in. This wasn't so surprising given the results of the Bulletproof Water myth, though they didn't seem to anticipate the same happening with ballistics gel. The .30-06 rounds travel much faster, so they a greater tendency to break up on impact. Jamie managed to flip a block of ballistics gel with a final shot, finally putting an end to this particular avenue of testing: the ballistics gel was not going to help them figure out how far a bullet would fly up.\n\nBased on the failure of the ballistics gel experiment, they used a computer simulation program to calculate how high the bullets would travel up into the air. The calculations: *.03-6 10,000 ft 58 seconds\n\n    * 9mm 4,000 ft, 37 seconds\n\nTerminal velocity of a falling bullet\n\nAdam built an acrylic wind tunnel (much like the one in the Penny Drop myth). Air was shot up through the bottom and a bullet was dropped into the chamber. The terminal velocity was calculated based on the speed of the air needed to make the bullet stop falling. They figured that the terminal velocity was 100mph (150 ft/s). The wind tunnel also showed that the most stable falling position for the bullets was on their side.\nFiring bullets at terminal velocity\n\nThe rigged up an air hose to an aluminum pipe to launch the bullets at terminal velocity (150 ft/s). Their first shot put a good dent in the metal door. Their next target would be a pig's head, just as soon as they got the amount of air pressure tuned correctly. A chronograph was used to measure the speed of the bullet and a solenoid valve was attached to the tube to control the air flow.\n\nThey fired bullets from the pipe into the pig's head and recorded it all on the high-speed camera. At 166 ft/s, the 9mm bullet bounced right off of the pig's head. The .30-06 bullet did only slightly better, piercing the skin and then bouncing off.\n\nIt was looking like this was going to be busted, but, as it turns out, there is an international expert on falling bullet
299305
Bad powder load.\n\nUsually not enough powder -- the projectile could get stuck in the barrel causing excessive pressure and the barrel to burst or bulge. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO CLEAR IT BY FIRING AGAIN!!!\n\nMay also mean too much also called a "hot" load - too much could cause too much pressure in the barrel and cause it to burst or bulge.\n\nBe Safe!
94214
If nothing else, it is an interesting question.\n\nMost weapons wouldnt behave all that different, however, you may have to use them more carefully on Mars.\n\nMars only has about 1/3 the gravity on Earth and only about 1/100 th of the air pressure [I use the term "air" pressure to mean the atmospheric pressure, not necesarily air].\n\nBullets would be able to go farther due to the reduced gravity and reduced air pressure (less air resistance).  You would be able to shoot an arrow much further for the same reason.\nA sword would feel lighter in your hands, making it easier to wield.\n\n\nEDIT:\n-Rodri-, how so?  Why would the recoil be stronger?\nWhen firing a gun, the recoil is due to Newton's third law and the law of conservation of momentum.  How would less gravity effect the recoil?\nThe only thing I could think of would be that the acceleration of the bullet while in the chamber would be greater as the net force is greater since their is less air pressure for the bullet to be accelerated into.  I think this might be neglible though due to the extreamly short time the bullet in the barrel and the tiny mass the bullet has anyway.\n\n\njojo21,\nthe propellant used in most all guns and ammunition already has the Oxygen chemically added in the powder.  The classic example of this is gun powder, or gun powder-like propellants used today in amminition.  There is an oxidizer in the chemical (such as KNO3) that will supply all the Oxygen needed for the reaction.  Virtually nothing is needed from the surrounding "air".
175287
Yes, the discover channel show myth busters actually did a show on this once after someone asked the same question because they watched a cannon ball bounce in a war movie.  Cannon balls are very heavy...so if they hit a soft or low density surface like dirt or grass they will generally make a divet and come to rest where they land.  However, if shot from a low trajectory they CAN skip...like skipping rocks on a lake...in fact if shot at a fast enough speed they can even skip ON a lake themself.  When dropped from ontop of the myth busters studio building the cannon ball hit the concrete, did some major damage that made Jamie really mad and rolled off the sidewalk BUT fascinatingly enough...slow frame film showed, afterward, that when the cannon ball rolled off the sidewalk it actually bounced once...a tiny tiny bit.  They also did some research with revolutionary and civil war historians and found that a VAST majority of cannon ball injuries from that era actually CAME from low flying cannon balls taking off legs and such just like in the movie.  In fact the true myth wasn't the bouncing of cannon balls...it was the big explosion of dirt and shrapnel that fly out and take down 15 guys around it.  Cannon balls dont break up when they land like grenades and bombs...so that doesn't really happen.  Sometimes if the ground is soft enough there will be a big dust cloud but unless the ground is covered in nails and scrap metal...there won't be any shrapnel in the dust cloud to cause damage.  Most of the time, though, the ground was uncultivated so it was generally hard enough that a cannon ball landed with a thud and stayed there.  According to the experts there were even opportunities after a battle for the winning side to go out and gather up all the expended canon balls off the field and re-use them.  The single greatest danger from cannon balls at that time was actually the low flying bouncing ones that skipped over the ground and ripped legs off as it went...(by the way in the scene in The Patriot where it bounced high enough to take the guys head off...that was busted.  They're too dense to actually BOUNCE like that...they more or less SKIP which is still a form of bouncing but most injuries were leg injuries NOT decapitation by cannon ball)...there was a low chance of a cannon ball landing directly on a person but the odds were outstanding...I can't recall the actual numbers now but I know when I watched it...my jaw dropped.
617737
Yes, Indirect Fire means that the person aiming the weapon cannot see the target, he is relying on the precision of the 'spotter' or forward observer.\n\nThis is for many different types of heavy weapons, to include mortars, but also artillery, rockets, fire from gunships or from warships, etc.
18207
You have the right idea, but you actually can fire a gun in space. What causes a gun to fire is actually the sudden impulse delivered by the trigger to the gunpowder causing the gun powder to explode, transferring a lot of energy to the bullet and causing it to shoot out of the barrel of the gun. In order to trigger the explosion of the gun powder, you do need an oxidizer to initiate the chemical reaction, but most gun ammunition comes with its own oxidizer built in so therefore, the gun can fire even without oxygen.  \n\nHowever, you shouldn't believe anything physics-related you see in movies,  What's funny is those huge explosions that happen all the time win movies in space with no oxygen like in star wars and armegeddon.  That definately could not happen.  Being a physics major has ruined my appreciation for movies really, I can't watch one without picking out all of the physics mistakes--and there are a LOT, and not just in space movies.  They should employ a physicist to stand by and tell them what they screw up.  Actually, I wish they did, that would be an awesome job haha.
1131010
Would bullets be better?
221534
If this is true, then you may be aware of the "fact" that if someone shoots an arrow at you, it will never hit you, because after a certain amount of time after being shot, the arrow is halfway to you; then more time goes by and the arrow is half of that distance, then more time and half of that, etc. so there is always half of some distance left and some time left so it never hits you.
753733
You put a bullet in a gun and set it on a table and leave it. I will guarantee that gun will never kill no one. You put that same gun in the wrong person's hands and it will kill someone. So therefore it must have something to do with the person.
487788
you're talking .223 here aren't you.  the heavier bullet will retain more energy than a lighter bullet.  imagine getting hit with a ping pong ball, a marble and a ball bearing, each traveling about 100 mph.  the ball bearing will hurt more because it has more energy in its weight.\n\nhowever, the benefits of a lighter bullet is that it will go faster and will drop less at shorter to medium ranges.  the ligher bullets are good for varmint shooting.  the heavier bullets are good for larger animals.
187416
Naturally.\nIts like a rocket.  Fuel and oxygen are all self-contained.\nWhen a sealed shell casing detonates, where is the oxygen supposed to come from?  The oxygen is already in the nitrate.\n\nA bullet would work exceptionally well in space.  No wind resistance and no gravity to bend the trajectory.\n\nYah, ray guns are an option.  The ones we have with currrent technology are to heavy to pick up, but in space...
164638
I must bebunk the answerers who think the bullet will be travelling faster without the absence of gravity - the answer is yes and no - yes if compared to a bullet fired vertically on earth or at any angle, no if compared to bullet fired horizontal to the ground on earth.\n\nIf bullet is shot horizontally here on earth, and then shot in space, both bullets will travel at the same speed. The bullet travelling horizontally on earth will have gravity only affect its vertical movement, hence it will be pulled faster and faster towards the ground, but its horizontal velocity will stay the same.\n\nStraightdope has covered this in an article:
71702
If the only factor involved in this would be gravity, the bullet would come back down at the same speed as it went up. But since there are other factors (friction, air, etc), the bullet would come down with less speed than it went up.\n\nThe same would happen with the place where it was fired, it probably wouldnt land on the same spot, since other factors have an effect on the bullet trayectory.\n\nchech the link from digg and wait for the episode of Mythbusters where they solve this myth ...
478202
If is really no wind, it should fall right back into your gun.\n\nBut an experimental proof I think can hardly be done because of friction effects between air and bullet: so you would need an evacuated tube of some 100 m height, higher than any building. And the accuracy of this tube also woud be hard to be realized.\n\nNevertheless, such an accuracy problem I think was encountered when was built the SLAC (STANFORD Linear Accelerator) in the 1950ies; but this installation was not upright.
334471
If fired straight up, no the terminal velocity is too small.  But if fired at an angle, the bullet maintains horizontal speed and that can be enough to kill.
413225
It is possible to shoot blanks through the short barrel but It is not recommended.  The pressure is higher in the short barrel than the long barrel and can damage the internal workings of the weapon.
107602
Bullets are usually made of lead, with an outer shell of copper. Lead is a known carcinogen. It is not a good idea to mess with it, without the required permits and protection. I don't think it is worth the hassle.