Either fuckery, or a ricochet. My first time shooting tracers was eye-opening to how much bullets bounce around. This guy shooting a 50-cal is hit in his earmuffs after the berm launches the round back at him.
To keep enough velocity and stay at a consistent height and ricochet in that direction seems much less likely than they were just shooting in the wrong direction.
I agree that fuckery is the most likely explanation in this case. However, ricochets do not need to remain at a constant height or velocity to hurt someone. A round bounced backward and arched just enough to clear the treeline would be enough. I’m kinda shocked an outdoor range would be allowed this close to those fields. Regardless of physical danger, imagine concentrating on playing ball while gunshots ring out in an adjacent lot!
Don’t bother to comment out speculation if you haven’t even bothered to read the article and watch the video. Like 30 bullets didn’t ricochet 500+ yards away into a baseball field.
My point is not that heavy volume is required for this to happen, and it’s strange how you could jump to that conclusion.
Instead, a higher rate of fire gives more opportunities to witness anomolies between shots, within a given time. Combine this with tracers, and now you can easily follow these paths, before and after each bullet hits it’s initial target.
With a 6000 round-per-minute minigun, even if you only see one tracer bounce away every second, that demonstrates a 1% chance for every round to deflect and hit somewhere unintended.
Considering that the tracers are normally spaced out on a belt, with other rounds between them; the sample size can be reduced further, and this chance becomes multiple times higher.
When yearly machine-gun shoots were still hosted in Knob Creek, Kentucky, the range staffed people left and right of the firing line with fire extinguishers. After the ‘finale’ occurred and weapons were cleared, they would run out onto the hills beside the range.
With multiple miniguns firing alongside other automatics, and the insane number of rounds fired downrange, it was inevitable to have more than enough hot tracers land in the brush of these hills to start multiple small fires.
The possibility of ricochet injury is simply matter of probability. Sure, I would never claim this is the most probable explanation, but it’s silly to claim there’s absolutely no chance this could happen.
I’ve already posted a video of a complete trajectory reversal. Maybe you didn’t watch it, but otherwise you’re being stubbornly ignorant choosing to completely ignore video evidence. Also, a 1/2 mile really isn’t far for something moving over 3000 ft/s. It’s clear you’re not speaking from an educated position on this topic.
Firstly, it’s reported that the shots weren’t from the gun range. Second; have you seen the overhead view of the range? What exactly do you think the bullets could be bouncing off of at that range? Your thought process is just silly.
If you’ve seen tracer fire in real life, I doubt you would keep that position. The fact that a falling bullet traveling at terminal velocity is enough to kill or injure someone, combined with the fact that bullets travel for miles would instantly tell you otherwise. Watch tracers fired at night and you can see how frequent ricochets are when hitting a mix of rocks in dirt. The last video I shared already demonstrated that complete trajectory reversals are even possible, not that this is even required in this circumstance.
The baseball field is only about 1/2 mile from the range backstop (about 22% of a 5.56 bullet’s maximum range). All it would take is a rock plowed up into an inopportune position on the berm to set off a freak accident. Now, as I’ve said in another comment, I absolutely don’t believe this is the most likely explanation; however, to discount it as an impossibility is ignorant.
The range of a round when fired and the range of a round after it hits a rock and bounces are two incredibly vastly different things. Also nobody’s talking about a bullet falling from the sky. Look at where that range is look at the angle from which they’re firing and look at where the baseball field is. There is no possibility a Ricochet fired at that range could bounce back into that baseball field like they claim. It’s not possible.
I think he made a good case for it being possible. That baseball field really isn’t far away from a bullet’s perspective. He mentioned his first time shooting tracers, which makes me think he has a lot of real life experience shooting FMJ bullets and seeing them ricochet. He posted videos showing ricochets, you can see them maintaining almost all of their momentum.
The issue isn’t the distance, though I think it’s further than you think, it’s angle. You can see where the range is. You can see where the baseball field is. It’s not possible. The JFK bullet couldn’t do this. He made a good case for ricochets being a thing that happens, not in this case.
I’m still not seeing any issue. A bullet can ricochet in any direction. The first thing @AlDente@sh.itjust.works posted was a video example of a bullet ricocheting directly backwards (nearly straight up I think?), then ricocheting again off the ground and into the shooter’s earmuff.
He showed enough examples and hard numbers for distance to convince me that this could be a freak accident. If you want to change my mind, you’re going to have to provide counterexamples. I’m even convinced that it could happen with many bullets in a row if the shooting was consistent.
Counter examples to what? You’re saying that someone shot down that range and it ricocheted directly back into the baseball field? Like what’s the argument here? That’s the problem I’m having you and the other guy, or your alt I’m not sure, haven’t made any arguments about the feasibility of a Ricochet from that range going to that field. Which we know didn’t happen by the way. That’s not even in question. But even the possibility you haven’t given any evidence for. You’re arguing that ricochets can happen. Which is not the argument.
My example is basic geometry and basic physics. Learn how angles work dude I don’t know. Learn that bullets can’t turn 45° in midair. What are you arguing. Trace the line for me. Trace the line from down the range back around the dirt embankments and toward the field.
He said a ricochet was possible and put an argument together with video examples and distance numbers. You haven’t done much except express disbelief, and that isn’t very convincing.
You said a ricochet at the correct angle to land in the baseball field would be impossible, and you asked me to draw the trajectory.
Honest question, why is this so hard to imagine? He posted this video, can you watch it and tell me what you think? https://youtu.be/0ABGIJwiGBc
I think we all know this was probably just redneck shit, no argument there.
Either fuckery, or a ricochet. My first time shooting tracers was eye-opening to how much bullets bounce around. This guy shooting a 50-cal is hit in his earmuffs after the berm launches the round back at him.
To keep enough velocity and stay at a consistent height and ricochet in that direction seems much less likely than they were just shooting in the wrong direction.
I agree that fuckery is the most likely explanation in this case. However, ricochets do not need to remain at a constant height or velocity to hurt someone. A round bounced backward and arched just enough to clear the treeline would be enough. I’m kinda shocked an outdoor range would be allowed this close to those fields. Regardless of physical danger, imagine concentrating on playing ball while gunshots ring out in an adjacent lot!
Don’t bother to comment out speculation if you haven’t even bothered to read the article and watch the video. Like 30 bullets didn’t ricochet 500+ yards away into a baseball field.
My point is not that heavy volume is required for this to happen, and it’s strange how you could jump to that conclusion.
Instead, a higher rate of fire gives more opportunities to witness anomolies between shots, within a given time. Combine this with tracers, and now you can easily follow these paths, before and after each bullet hits it’s initial target.
With a 6000 round-per-minute minigun, even if you only see one tracer bounce away every second, that demonstrates a 1% chance for every round to deflect and hit somewhere unintended.
Considering that the tracers are normally spaced out on a belt, with other rounds between them; the sample size can be reduced further, and this chance becomes multiple times higher.
When yearly machine-gun shoots were still hosted in Knob Creek, Kentucky, the range staffed people left and right of the firing line with fire extinguishers. After the ‘finale’ occurred and weapons were cleared, they would run out onto the hills beside the range.
With multiple miniguns firing alongside other automatics, and the insane number of rounds fired downrange, it was inevitable to have more than enough hot tracers land in the brush of these hills to start multiple small fires.
The possibility of ricochet injury is simply matter of probability. Sure, I would never claim this is the most probable explanation, but it’s silly to claim there’s absolutely no chance this could happen.
Cool write up. Ricochet bullets can’t travel that far, and it’s the wrong direction.
I’ve already posted a video of a complete trajectory reversal. Maybe you didn’t watch it, but otherwise you’re being stubbornly ignorant choosing to completely ignore video evidence. Also, a 1/2 mile really isn’t far for something moving over 3000 ft/s. It’s clear you’re not speaking from an educated position on this topic.
Firstly, it’s reported that the shots weren’t from the gun range. Second; have you seen the overhead view of the range? What exactly do you think the bullets could be bouncing off of at that range? Your thought process is just silly.
There is no amount of Ricochet on this Earth that would result in this.
If you’ve seen tracer fire in real life, I doubt you would keep that position. The fact that a falling bullet traveling at terminal velocity is enough to kill or injure someone, combined with the fact that bullets travel for miles would instantly tell you otherwise. Watch tracers fired at night and you can see how frequent ricochets are when hitting a mix of rocks in dirt. The last video I shared already demonstrated that complete trajectory reversals are even possible, not that this is even required in this circumstance.
The baseball field is only about 1/2 mile from the range backstop (about 22% of a 5.56 bullet’s maximum range). All it would take is a rock plowed up into an inopportune position on the berm to set off a freak accident. Now, as I’ve said in another comment, I absolutely don’t believe this is the most likely explanation; however, to discount it as an impossibility is ignorant.
The range of a round when fired and the range of a round after it hits a rock and bounces are two incredibly vastly different things. Also nobody’s talking about a bullet falling from the sky. Look at where that range is look at the angle from which they’re firing and look at where the baseball field is. There is no possibility a Ricochet fired at that range could bounce back into that baseball field like they claim. It’s not possible.
I think he made a good case for it being possible. That baseball field really isn’t far away from a bullet’s perspective. He mentioned his first time shooting tracers, which makes me think he has a lot of real life experience shooting FMJ bullets and seeing them ricochet. He posted videos showing ricochets, you can see them maintaining almost all of their momentum.
The issue isn’t the distance, though I think it’s further than you think, it’s angle. You can see where the range is. You can see where the baseball field is. It’s not possible. The JFK bullet couldn’t do this. He made a good case for ricochets being a thing that happens, not in this case.
I’m still not seeing any issue. A bullet can ricochet in any direction. The first thing @AlDente@sh.itjust.works posted was a video example of a bullet ricocheting directly backwards (nearly straight up I think?), then ricocheting again off the ground and into the shooter’s earmuff.
He showed enough examples and hard numbers for distance to convince me that this could be a freak accident. If you want to change my mind, you’re going to have to provide counterexamples. I’m even convinced that it could happen with many bullets in a row if the shooting was consistent.
Counter examples to what? You’re saying that someone shot down that range and it ricocheted directly back into the baseball field? Like what’s the argument here? That’s the problem I’m having you and the other guy, or your alt I’m not sure, haven’t made any arguments about the feasibility of a Ricochet from that range going to that field. Which we know didn’t happen by the way. That’s not even in question. But even the possibility you haven’t given any evidence for. You’re arguing that ricochets can happen. Which is not the argument.
My example is basic geometry and basic physics. Learn how angles work dude I don’t know. Learn that bullets can’t turn 45° in midair. What are you arguing. Trace the line for me. Trace the line from down the range back around the dirt embankments and toward the field.
He said a ricochet was possible and put an argument together with video examples and distance numbers. You haven’t done much except express disbelief, and that isn’t very convincing.
You said a ricochet at the correct angle to land in the baseball field would be impossible, and you asked me to draw the trajectory.
Honest question, why is this so hard to imagine? He posted this video, can you watch it and tell me what you think? https://youtu.be/0ABGIJwiGBc
I think we all know this was probably just redneck shit, no argument there.