PDA

View Full Version : hypothetical math question

joneb
January 28, 2006, 04:34 PM
if you had to take a shot at a bad guy running all out would you need to lead your target? you are 60 ft away from the b.g. he is running perpendicular to you, and say he covers 40 yrds in 4.5 sec. you are shooting a .45 acp with a muzzle velocity of 800 ft per sec. how far to lead ?
2. six inches
3. one foot
4. two feet

rapier144
January 28, 2006, 04:37 PM
I can't beleive you would ask such a question we are all non-violent here.;)

AAshooter
January 28, 2006, 04:51 PM
60 feet will be covered by the bullet at 800 feet/sec in about 75 msec (assuming constant bullet velocity).

In 75 msec, the bad guy will travel two feet.

XDoctor
January 28, 2006, 04:56 PM

joneb
January 28, 2006, 04:57 PM
I don't know what made me think of this :confused: but when I did the math the answer suprised me . I would have guessed six inches .

RandyDTC
January 28, 2006, 08:11 PM

Randy

riverkeeper
January 28, 2006, 09:30 PM
Great Topic--
2 related Questions.

If everything is the same except at 20 ft would it require a lead of 1/3 x 24 inches = 8 inches?

Fixed lead v swinging to target? If trigger is pressed while swinging the HG at point with the BG ... would the swing moment be transferred to the bullet so that no lead would be required? We're not dealing with the speed of light here so I assume it would.;)

joneb
January 28, 2006, 09:43 PM
riverkeeper, the question did not account for the speed of the bullet at 60 ft. nor does it account for the time it takes the brain to tell the finger to pull the trigger. so the answer to your first question is yes. one may find a lead more than two feet is requierd. for the second I'll let a experienced dove or chucker hunter answer that.

RandyDTC
January 28, 2006, 09:48 PM
It is important to maintain the lead on the target while pressing the trigger.

8.4 inches at 20 feet.

Randy

Scope
January 28, 2006, 10:00 PM
I also got 2 ft.

rapier144
January 28, 2006, 10:28 PM
Ah hell this is too much thinking where's my shotgun.:D

Pointer
January 28, 2006, 10:44 PM

The follow through is far more important...

Keep the gun moving along the arc until after the round goes off... ;)

kentak
January 28, 2006, 11:36 PM
...your hypothetical has the BG being a damn fast runner. If it was an older guy with a bit of a belly, I'd say half the speed would be more realistic. In that case, lead by about a foot. ;)

K

joneb
January 29, 2006, 01:10 AM
when shooting a hand gun the thought of leading the shot did'nt seem to be a issue. but after doing the math it did seem relative. thanks for the input, I think randy and pointer came up with the best tactic for this scenario. and yes he was fast. but now what if the bad guys are shooting at you from a car the ability to lead the shot could be of more importance.

bermo61
January 29, 2006, 01:28 AM
The correct answer is DONT SHOOT! He is running perpendicular..not at you. He poses no threat and you cannot legally shoot now...because you are bound to get a bunch of anti gunners on the jury that will say that he was misunderstood as a child and that you...a gun toting trigger happy killer..are the real bad guy. Then you will spend the rest of your life in a cell with big leroy...learning not to sleep on your stomach!

USNavy_233
January 29, 2006, 01:33 AM
Bermo beat me to it. He's not running AT you and he's 60 FT away. I see no threat here.

bermo61
January 29, 2006, 01:38 AM
Yeah but you guessed too...I just typed faster!

Trip20
January 29, 2006, 01:43 AM
This is where full auto and some tracer rounds really help the math impaired.

To the PC-Police: I think it's safe to assume that in the question posed, it's a given that the circumstances in place warrant shooting a BG not running directly at you.

What if it's a misunderstood child? Well, what if it's a misunderstood child running at your kids with an axe?

joneb
January 29, 2006, 03:10 AM
I posted this thread to bring awareness to the possibility for the need to lead. the scenario could have went like this: the BG just shot some one and it looks like he may finish him off. you yell at the BG to stop and he takes a shot at you and misses, then seeing you drawing your weapon runs for a car thirty feet away. you don't know if he's making a gettaway or taking cover. your in a parking lot with no cover near by. do you shoot or become target practice for the BG, or hope he gets in the car and drives away ?

riverkeeper
January 29, 2006, 03:19 AM
It is my understanding that in most states IF YOU PERSONALLY WITNESSED an especially brutal terrible crime against someone's person and fully understand what happened -- rape, murder -- you may (or may not) choose to use deadly force on the fleeing BG.

Do not screw this up or you are submerged in DOO DOO forever. :eek:

brickeyee
January 29, 2006, 01:57 PM
Threat is over. No reason to shoot. You are not LE.

Telling the judge "I thought he was seeking cover" is not likely to cut it at the trial.

Double Naught Spy
January 29, 2006, 02:30 PM
The correct answer is DONT SHOOT! He is running perpendicular..not at you. He poses no threat and you cannot legally shoot now...because you are bound to get a bunch of anti gunners on the jury that will say that he was misunderstood as a child and that you...a gun toting trigger happy killer..are the real bad guy. Then you will spend the rest of your life in a cell with big leroy...learning not to sleep on your stomach!

Bermo beat me to it. He's not running AT you and he's 60 FT away. I see no threat here.

Threat is over. No reason to shoot. You are not LE.

Telling the judge "I thought he was seeking cover" is not likely to cut

Just how did you all determine that a bad guy running perpendicular to a shooter is no longer a threat to the shooter? How did you all determine a bad guy running perpendicular to the shooter isn't a danger to some bystander? Just what is it about 60 feet and running perpendicular to the shooter that somehow magically transforms the situation into a no shoot situation?

jibjab's query was not about the legalities and circumstances for which to justify the shot. He asked specifically what sort of lead would be needed if YOU HAD TO TAKE THE SHOT. In other words, the person was still a threat, hence you need to take the shot or feel it most prudent to take the shot so as to mitigate the threat, be it to you or another person.

In Somalia, US forces dealt with this sort of scenario, only with rifles. There would be a Somali crossing the street from one building to another, running all out, and hosing down the street at the American soldiers. Was he a threat? Hell yes. But y'all's interepretation, he isn't because he is running perpendicular to the American forces.

I am just guessing here, but I am inclined to believe that y'all don't think you can shoot a person in the back as part of self defense. You would be wrong as there are most definitely situations where the bad guys end up shot in the back and the shootings are 100% justified and legal.

bermo61
January 29, 2006, 11:51 PM
Tell you what...you shoot someone in the back..claim it was self defense in THIS country, and I will wish you the best of luck at your trial. But I would not count on being a free man for a long long time.

Case in point...man rapes a 70 year old woman in her home to unconsciousness. She wakes up and realizes that he is watching T.V. in the other room...she grabs a gun from her dresser and when the man comes in to rape her again she shoots and kills him.

Now this looks pretty open and shut right? Self defense! He had already committed a crime and was on his way back in for seconds.

The district attorney filed charges for murder...he felt she could have climbed out the window rather than shoot him. The fact that she was on the third floor and 70 years old is what saved her at the trial. The point is you NEVER EVER know what some jerry springer watching jury is going to do...CCW availability is a wonderful legislation...but people who are trigger happy are going to ruin it if there is not an imminent threat to their safety or someone else. No where in the scenario is there the mention that he is running perpendicular to attack and kill someone is there? The point I was making is that that scenario should make one think...should I shoot or not...legally, its not a very defensible situation.

bermo61
January 29, 2006, 11:55 PM
And Jibjab had you added all the rest of the details to your scenario, it may have changed the responses!

From the information provided..which was not much...no imminent threat existed. To take a life without that is what fuels the anti-gun crowd.

joneb
January 30, 2006, 12:53 AM
Well I think that D.A. has more pressing issues, like job security. And if the judge and or jury swallowed that load of garbage, I would be surpised. :confused:
As far as this thread, it was a question of math, as to raise awareness to the possibility to leading your shot with a hand gun. bermo61 I suggest you read the entire thread, and then post.

joneb
January 30, 2006, 02:51 AM
Okay I give, I've just learned a lesson about" Situational Awareness" In this thread bremo61 stepped into it, because he did not fully assess the thread. :)

OneInTheChamber
January 30, 2006, 04:53 PM
your BG is running pretty fast at around 25 fps.

Ah hell this is too much thinking where's my shotgun

Beautiful thinking!

pickpocket
January 30, 2006, 06:07 PM
Those of you arguing whether or not BG is still a threat in this scenario: good on you. BUT...you are missing the point of the thread. It wasn't about threat assessment, it was about leading, or identifying a need to lead. The question was mathematical in nature, not legal. Let's just assume for the sake of argument that since the situation is hypothetical that we're going to shoot said BG... let's not 'what-if' it to death, ok?

The compliance gods are happy, someone has posted the obligatory Legal Warning.

Now, let's just talk about whether or not to lead the moving target.

Weeg
January 30, 2006, 06:48 PM
If a train left New York, heading west at 43 MPH, and had to stop for 12 minutes every 3 hours, how long...

:rolleyes:

AAshooter
January 30, 2006, 07:52 PM
Well dang . . . if the guy is running on the train it makes a difference :D