Why bullets don't contains venoms?

[fluidistic]

Hi PF,
I didn't know where to ask this question.
About 2 months ago I learned a lot about rigid bodies and realized that an object has mechanical energy when it rotates. Hence to my mind the question "Why do bullets fired by weapon don't rotates, so that they could do a lot more damage", then a friend told me they do rotates. Now I understand why.
Still, why aren't bullets made of potassium so that when they enter in contact with blood they could react with it making much more damage than a common bullet. (If it is because potassium is too ductil to enter deeply I understand).
Why bullets don't contains mercury or arsenic or any strong venom so that there wouldn't be any injured? Mercury wouldn't certainly contaminates the environment, but arsenic?
By the way I'm against wars and any kind of weapons. These are just questions I have.

 

[Santa1]

Maybe it is hard to keep the venom on the bullet with all the heat and "stuff" which comes with firing a bullet out of a gun?
Just a thought.

 

[Astronuc]

Bullets are primarily ballistic projectiles, and damage is inflicted due to the high kinetic energy. I Vietnam vet sold me that the M16 bullet tumbles so that when it strikes someone, the bullet tends to deflect inside the body doing a lot of internal damage.

Rifles are so named because the chambers are rifled, which induces a spin on a bullet which allows for accuracy because the angular momentum reduces the deviation from a trajectory.

Some bullets are hardened or jacketed (for piercing armour) while other bullets are soft so that they mushroom and expand to do more damage. In some cases, bullets can be scribed to fragment.

And some bullets may contain mercury or poison, but those would be special apps and not widely used on a battlefield.

 

[fluidistic]

Maybe it is hard to keep the venom on the bullet with all the heat and "stuff" which comes with firing a bullet out of a gun?
Just a thought.

I don't think so. You could make a bullet with venom into it so that the venom isn't that affected by the fire. It would reveal its venom when it hits and enter the body.

 

[fluidistic]

Bullets are primarily ballistic projectiles, and damage is inflicted due to the high kinetic energy. I Vietnam vet sold me that the M16 bullet tumbles so that when it strikes someone, the bullet tends to deflect inside the body doing a lot of internal damage.

Rifles are so named because the chambers are rifled, which induces a spin on a bullet which allows for accuracy because the angular momentum reduces the deviation from a trajectory.

Some bullets are hardened or jacketed (for piercing armour) while other bullets are soft so that they mushroom and expand to do more damage. In some cases, bullets can be scribed to fragment.

And some bullets may contain mercury or poison, but those would be special apps and not widely used on a battlefield.

Interesting.
I just wonder why bullets containing poison aren't commonly used. I guess there are some inconvenients by doing so.

 

[Santa1]

I don't know much about this stuff, but do most bullets that hit people pass through them? Making it not worthwhile to have posion inside of it?

 

[mgb_phys]

"Why do bullets fired by weapon don't rotates, so that they could do a lot more damage", then a friend told me they do rotates.

Bullets from rifles do rotate - along their long axis. The inside of the barrel has a spiral groove cut in it to make the bullet spin - this makes the bullet more stable and improves the range and accuracy.
Bullets do sometimes tumble - spin end over end - this does cause a lot more damage when the target is hit. It is illegal for a military round but does happen with poor quality weapons.
Military rounds are not permitted to cause unnecessary injury. Although expanding or exploding bullets are common in police use.

edit - were 2 threads merged while i was writing this?
To reply to Astonuc. The M16 in vietnam was the example I was thinking of - when it was mass produced for the first time the tolerance were poor and the bullets tumbled. This led to accusations that the US forces were using illegal dum-dum bullets.

Still, why aren't bullets made of potassium so that when they enter in contact with blood they could react with it making much more damage than a common bullet. (If it is because potassium is too ductil to enter deeply I understand).

Generally the cost, storage problems, reliabilty and risk to your own troops handling them.

 

[fluidistic]

I don't know much about this stuff, but do most bullets that hit people pass through them? Making it not worthwhile to have posion inside of it?

your answer is there :

other bullets are soft so that they mushroom and expand to do more damage. In some cases, bullets can be scribed to fragment.

from Astronuc and here :

Although expanding or exploding bullets are common in police use.

from mgb_phys.
Thank you guys, you've fully answered my questions.

 

[wolram]

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=2164884&pageindex=1

Phospherous bullets.

 

[fluidistic]

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=2164884&pageindex=1

Phospherous bullets.

Terrible end of life.

 

[mgb_phys]

The ingestion of a small quantity of white phosphorus can cause gastrointestinal complaints such as nausea, abdominal cramps, and vomiting. Individuals with a history of oral ingestion have been noted to pass phosphorus-laden stool ("smoking stool syndrome").

...

 

[wolram]

Did i read some where that they were used in Korea by the vc? or may be that was a memory from MASH.

 

[Math Jeans]

And besides, exploding bullets are so much more fun.

 

[BobG]

Expanding bullets (such as dum-dum bullets) have been banned for use in warfare since 1899 (Declaration concerning expanding bullets)

Using poison bullets (or any other type of chemical weapon) is also banned by international law (see A.4.8.4)

 

[Math Jeans]

Here is a question of mine:

We are at a point of technology where we can make weapons of small sizes that are able to track down and destroy.

Why can't we make a bullet that identifies enemies and curves into them? (besides the fact that your clips would be very expensive).

 

[mgb_phys]

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/06/laser-guided-bu.html

The trick is persuading troops of a certain country that Brits and Canadians are on their side.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Here is a question of mine:

We are at a point of technology where we can make weapons of small sizes that are able to track down and destroy.

Why can't we make a bullet that identifies enemies and curves into them? (besides the fact that your clips would be very expensive).

I think money is the only factor. No one wants to pay for a round that costs $1000.

 

[mgb_phys]

I think money is the only factor. No one wants to pay for a round that costs $1000.

It would probably be cheaper.
It was estimated that in Vietnam an average of 50,000-150,000 rounds were fired for each enemy killed. For snipers it was 1.3 rounds/kill.
In Gulf War II (the sequal) it is thought to be worse - certainly one operation involving a number of ground troops and helicopters fired almost a million rounds into a house - killing one insurgent.
In modern wars where you are fighting a small number of targets among a large number of civillians then a sniper with $1000each bullets is not only cheaper in $ terms but a lot cheaper in propaganda terms.

 

[NeoDevin]

It's cheaper to use 5 conventional bullets than 1 poisoned/exploding bullet.

 

[edward]

There are a number of substances that can be put into a hollow point bullet that will result in eventual death.

On the battle field a soldier wants to kill the enemy quickly so that he can not return fire.
A second bullet is the fastest way of accomplishing this.

 

[mgb_phys]

On the battle field a soldier wants to kill the enemy quickly so that he can not return fire.

But the generals want to wound the soldier.
Casualties take a lot of effort to recover, evacuate and treat - it's bad for moral in the unit and at home.
Thats why weapons that are designed to wound are banned by the Hague/Geneva conventions.

 

[wolram]

Just send me out to cook for the enemy, with a few non toxic ingredients i could bring an army to its knees in days.

 

[mgb_phys]

Just send me out to cook for the enemy, with a few non toxic ingredients i could bring an army to its knees in days.

They are already doing it to themselves http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/12/military_kbr_lawsuit_121508w/

ps. don't read if you are eating...

 

[DaveC426913]

Interesting.
I just wonder why bullets containing poison aren't commonly used.

Two things:
1] efficacy : The lethality of a bullet comes from its kinetic energy. To hollow out a bullet and put in some other substance would lower its kinetic energy. Trying to make up for its lower physical lethality with a different type of lethality you end up with sometihng that does neither as well as it could. The fox that chases two rabbits usually gets none. An automoible that's designed to double as a boat does neither very well.

2] purpose : Who would use them? And what for? And are they really better for that purpose? It seems obvious at first that this would be a simple addition that might help bullets kill, but it's the shooter that makes the decision to load the gun.

I think if we examine who the shooters are (not who we suppose they might be), and what their motives are for shooting someone, we'll see that, for the most part, poison doesn't help them.

Guns are best used to stop someone right now. Killing them a few minutes from now is rarely a part of the desire.

 

[wolram]

They are already doing it to themselves http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/12/military_kbr_lawsuit_121508w/

ps. don't read if you are eating...

Abhorrent to the point of evil.

 

[Danger]

The trick is persuading troops of a certain country that Brits and Canadians are on their side.

Too true.

 

[franznietzsche]

Two things:
1] efficacy : The lethality of a bullet comes from its kinetic energy. To hollow out a bullet and put in some other substance would lower its kinetic energy. Trying to make up for its lower physical lethality with a different type of lethality you end up with sometihng that does neither as well as it could. The fox that chases two rabbits usually gets none. An automoible that's designed to double as a boat does neither very well.

Not true. The kinetic energy of the bullet is going to be a function of the chemical energy released by the gun powder (and the efficiency of the gun itself). Changing the mass of the bullet would not decrease its kinetic energy, the exit velocity would rise. Of course, the real situation is slightly more complicated than this, depending on the design of the gun itself. But lowering the mass will not necessarily decrease the kinetic energy.

2]Guns are best used to stop someone right now. Killing them a few minutes from now is rarely a part of the desire.

I would think this is the big reason that a poisoned bullet would be pointless. In most cases someone will bleed to death faster than a poison could kill them.

 

[Proton Soup]

i think maybe it'd make more sense to go the way of old native american warfare, dipping your projectiles in something septic and letting it dry.

 

[wolram]

i think maybe it'd make more sense to go the way of old native american warfare, dipping your projectiles in something septic and letting it dry.

That is just a modification of the old siege tactic of lobbing rotting carcases over the wall.

 

[BobG]

Not true. The kinetic energy of the bullet is going to be a function of the chemical energy released by the gun powder (and the efficiency of the gun itself). Changing the mass of the bullet would not decrease its kinetic energy, the exit velocity would rise. Of course, the real situation is slightly more complicated than this, depending on the design of the gun itself. But lowering the mass will not necessarily decrease the kinetic energy.

I would think this is the big reason that a poisoned bullet would be pointless. In most cases someone will bleed to death faster than a poison could kill them.

Decreasing the mass would lower the ballistic parameter of the bullet, meaning air drag would have a greater impact on the bullet's trajectory. The kinetic energy remaining in the bullet at time of impact probably would be less.

It's the wrong argument, anyway. It's not the kinetic energy of the bullet, per se, that kills a person - it's having that kinetic energy rip out internal organs that kills a person. It's that anybody parts hit along the way are ripped loose and add to the size of the object traveling through your body. The exit wound is always much larger than the entry wound. A bullet that would break apart would create several chunks of mass moving through a person's body. If it broke up enough to be truly efficient, you'd break up the kinetic energy into enough pieces that none of the chunks of mass actually left the body, since whatever energy remains in the parts coming out the other side is wasted.

That is just a modification of the old siege tactic of lobbing rotting carcases over the wall.

That was my first thought, as well. Nothing like getting splattered by the rotten innards of a bloated horse.

 

[gravenewworld]

People dip their bullets in things like horse, human, and cow feces so that when they hit the enemy they have a higher chance of causing infection.

It is against the rules of war to do such practices, but many insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan routinely do it.

 

[mgb_phys]

People dip their bullets in things like horse, human, and cow feces so that when they hit the enemy they have a higher chance of causing infection.

A bullet isn't likely to have a viable pathogen coating by the time it reaches the target - a more likely effect is that you will jam your own weapon. And if you are fighting a sophisticated enemy with medics and antibiotics there is nothing that is likely to cause them any real problems.

English archers in the middle ages kept their arrows stuck in the ground in front of them - it was thought by historians that this was done to increase the lethality of wounds.
It turns out that the coating of mud and sand on an arrow helps it pierce armour. Instead of a glancing blow bouncing off, the abrasive material helps the arrow dig into the Armour. A medieval bodmin arrow will go through plate Armour easily.

 

[franznietzsche]

Decreasing the mass would lower the ballistic parameter of the bullet, meaning air drag would have a greater impact on the bullet's trajectory. The kinetic energy remaining in the bullet at time of impact probably would be less.

True, I did not consider that.

It's the wrong argument, anyway. It's not the kinetic energy of the bullet, per se, that kills a person - it's having that kinetic energy rip out internal organs that kills a person. It's that anybody parts hit along the way are ripped loose and add to the size of the object traveling through your body. The exit wound is always much larger than the entry wound. A bullet that would break apart would create several chunks of mass moving through a person's body. If it broke up enough to be truly efficient, you'd break up the kinetic energy into enough pieces that none of the chunks off mass actually left the body, since whatever energy remains in the parts coming out the other side is wasted.

Also true. This is why tumbling bullets do so much more damage, bigger cross section so they smack more stuff. Even though the tumbling would increase drag and decrease kinetic energy, the energy imparted from the projectile into the target is greater.

 

[DaveC426913]

I would think this is the big reason that a poisoned bullet would be pointless. In most cases someone will bleed to death faster than a poison could kill them.

Well, the point I was trying to make was that those who use guns are concerned with stopping someone in their tracks at that moment for whatever reason. Usually, if more needs to be done, there are more effective things after-the-fact one can do to render a threat moot (such as cuffing them, stabbing them, shooting them again, or simply running away from them).

But what would be the point in poisoning them to death? In the several minutes afterward they could have killed you, run away, or drawn a sketch of you.