1970's vintage IDPA Training film

Bob Wolff · Post by **Bob Wolff** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:26 pm

1970's FBI training film...
"good demonstration of cover"

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/tsgtv/inde ... =TSGTVshlk

Enjoy
Bob

GlockenHammer · Post by **GlockenHammer** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:59 pm

The demonstration on ricochet geometry was really eye opening!

I think this would be of interest in the General forum.

Bob Wolff · Post by **Bob Wolff** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:17 pm

Posted both places, look for thread called "Shooting for Survival"

Bob

jimlongley · Post by **jimlongley** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:17 pm

GlockenHammer wrote:The demonstration on ricochet geometry was really eye opening!

Especially since it's WRONG!

This was discussed some time back in: http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... eo&start=0

Bob Wolff · Post by **Bob Wolff** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:34 pm

Thanks, missed it the first time around

GlockenHammer · Post by **GlockenHammer** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:29 pm

jimlongley wrote:
GlockenHammer wrote:The demonstration on ricochet geometry was really eye opening!
Especially since it's WRONG!

This was discussed some time back in: http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... eo&start=0

I read the old thread. I did not find any definitive evidence that the video was wrong. I did read some opinions to that fact, though.

There are probably just as many (if not more) opinions that the angle of reflection is not necessarily equal to the angle of incidence. Unless one is purporting that the video is a fake, I'd say there is at least some indication that there is truth in the statement that a bullet ricocheting from a hard surface will leave at a shallower angle than it arrived.

jimlongley · Post by **jimlongley** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:46 am

GlockenHammer wrote:
jimlongley wrote:
GlockenHammer wrote:The demonstration on ricochet geometry was really eye opening!
Especially since it's WRONG!

This was discussed some time back in: http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... eo&start=0
I read the old thread. I did not find any definitive evidence that the video was wrong. I did read some opinions to that fact, though. There are probably just as many (if not more) opinions that the angle of reflection is not necessarily equal to the angle of incidence. Unless one is purporting that the video is a fake, I'd say there is at least some indication that there is truth in the statement that a bullet ricocheting from a hard surface will leave at a shallower angle than it arrived.

But in the video they claim that a ricochet will travel parallel to the plane of the surface it bounced off of, and that's just flat WRONG!!!

GlockenHammer · Post by **GlockenHammer** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 8:00 am

jimlongley wrote:But in the video they claim that a ricochet will travel parallel to the plane of the surface it bounced off of, and that's just flat WRONG!!!

I'll give you that. But while their explanation is technical wrong to the geometry majors, their description was not far off. Perhaps better language would have been "A bullet striking a solid surface such as a wall or paved street will leave the point of impact at a shallower angle than it arrived, so much so that one stands a greater chance of being struck by a ricochet the closer they are to the surface."

I think the general guidance of stay away from the hard walls is a good one. This is a little counter intuitive which is why I remarked that it was notable.

jimlongley · Post by **jimlongley** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:32 pm

GlockenHammer wrote:
jimlongley wrote:But in the video they claim that a ricochet will travel parallel to the plane of the surface it bounced off of, and that's just flat WRONG!!!
I'll give you that. But while their explanation is technical wrong to the geometry majors, their description was not far off. Perhaps better language would have been "A bullet striking a solid surface such as a wall or paved street will leave the point of impact at a shallower angle than it arrived, so much so that one stands a greater chance of being struck by a ricochet the closer they are to the surface."

I think the general guidance of stay away from the hard walls is a good one. This is a little counter intuitive which is why I remarked that it was notable.

I was never a geometry major, heck I wasn't even sure what it was until years after high school, but that doesn't change the fact that their explanation is WRONG! Any angle other than parallel is NOT parallel. They had the option of telling it right, but they didn't, end of story, no excuses, coulda/shoulda/woulda, it just doesn't happen that way.

They even stated that a bullet bouncing off the pavement on one side of a car would travel parallel to the pavement, under the car, and strike someone on the other side, whereas it really has about as good a chance of hitting the car as anything beyond it. As if the criminal had that level of control over his shots.

Dougmyers5 · Post by **Dougmyers5** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:59 pm

I would think the training film would be to show the Good Guys what is possible in the scenario rather then what a BG knows.
The angel would be totally dependent on the type of projectile fired and what the surface is made of that the projectile is impacting with but the odds of a parallel reflection are almost slim to none. However the more the projectile deforms on impact the closer to parallel the projectile should be. The fact that the projectile can not return to its original shape like a rubber ball does is why the angel changes.