RE: More reasons for suppressors

[Reese <reeza@flex.com>]

So they didn't actually _measure_ the return velocity, they just calculated
it?
I'd read a partial quote of Hatchers data before, it wasn't as complete as
that.  I think I'll place more faith in the observed data from my
parachutist friend.

At 01:56 PM 1/10/00 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
> 
>Note that they are referring to producing 'disabling wounds'
>in a soldier - presumably a healthy young man, wearing a 
>uniform and a helmet.
>
>A bare-headed civilian in a tee-shirt is considerably more
>vulnerable.

Agreed, but that wasn't truly the issue.

>I'll take 10 of your slugs, solder them together head-to-tail , and
>attach light tailfins to the rear end. This makes something like a
>heavy metal dart (it should weigh 3-4 ounces). You can stand on the
>ground, while I drop this dart on your head from the top of a 2 story
>building (gravity's accelleration is about 32 ft/sec/sec - from a
>15 ft height (above your head) an object will be at about 30 fps
>velocity when it hits). You can tell us if it hurts. We could repeat
>the experiment with you facing upwards, while I aim at your eyes.

And what are the odds of being struck by such a contraption, on july 4, new
years eve or any other time of year?

Though I said ~300 fps earlier, I now think that number is high, as
indicated above.

Reese