Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

[eulmanis12]

the center grip shield, for example a Roman Scutum, was more manuverable and the center boss allowed it to serve as a giganict set of brass knuckles at need. The disadvantage was that a center grip means that your arm will tire faster and that you can't apply quite as much force when pushing with the shield in a shield wall.

The off center grip with arm strap shield, for example a Greek Hoplon, was much more comfortable to wear for longer periods of time because you wore it, you didn't carry it. It allows you to have a heavier shield and a larger shield. It also allows you to put a lot of weight behind a bashing attack and absorb more of the impact from your opponent's weapon because of the way it is held. In a shield wall it allows you to push forward more easily. The trade off was that you could not reposition it quite as fast and had a much more limited range of motion with one.





On an unrelated note, approximately how far apart were musket volleys normally exchanged and what kind of shots to hits ratios could you expect?

[Mike_G]

On an unrelated note, approximately how far apart were musket volleys normally exchanged and what kind of shots to hits ratios could you expect?

There's a lot of anecdotal stuff on this, but little official.

Colonel John Stark drove a stake into the ground thirty yards from his position on the left flank at Bunker Hill and had his troops hold fire until the British reached it. I don't know the percentage of hits, but the charge of the light companies (the best of what the British had to offer) was broken with 97 men killed.

A history channel show on the American Civil War had reenactors fire rifled muskets as fast as they could reload at a company of silhouettes at 80 yards. They averaged two shots per minute with 50% hits. I don't think this was ever achieved in real life, but it shows that you can be pretty effective at that range.

[Galloglaich]

It's less that the ancient techniques got lost, perhaps, and more that certain things that made one or another forging process unique got left out in the process. For example, while phosphorus can be problematic to steel, making it more brittle, trace amounts might have had an effect on the forging process. Any forge that used bone in the smelting process would end up with certain of those properties. So regional and cultural differences could have had a whole heap to do with the properties of different forges.

Phosphorous in the steel (or steely iron) can make it easier to cold-work harden. Which is how a lot of early 'steel' swords were made. This is a really important difference from later blades.

We know from literary sources and some archeological evidence that they used to introduce phosphorous with both bird droppings and wolf and bear bones, and teeth, among other methods.

The process of heat treatment is really critical to how swords and other blades were made. A steel sword which isn't heat treated may be less flexible, tough, and / or able to hold an edge than a 'steely iron' sword with a lower carbon content, that has been heat treated. I may be wrong but I think the best current evidence is that the Romans were the first to start doing a proper heat treat, including real tempering, to sword blades, in the (formerly Celtic / Illyrian) region of Noricum in the 2nd or 1st Century BC.


That is the other big issue (related to the phosphorous) is what kind of heat treatment was being done, if any. We know that alot of early "Celtic" swords were being made of steel quite early, by at least the 3rd Century BC, and also probably in Iberia at some time between the 3rd and 1st Century BC, and by the Haya people in Africa near the 1st Century AD. Steel (as opposed to "steely iron" or pattern welded iron) wasn't really common in Europe until probably at least the 3rd Century AD and tempered steel not until at least that time. Even by the Medieval era not all blades had a good heat treatment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempering#History

The heat treatment, particularly tempering, are what make the difference between a good and great blade. Without tempering a sword blade is usually going to be pretty brittle. Other related techniques such as differential hardening are also really important, notably with Japanese blades among others. This is part of why you have the hamon pattern between the hard blade and softer spine on a Japanese blade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differe...heat_treatment

The term pattern welding can be used to describe a specific, complex type of pattern welding with the lattice type pattern in the center, which you read descriptions of by Romans well before the Viking Age, and much more simple types of forge-welding, such as using an iron core with harder high carbon steel edges. The latter actually remained a constant feature of sword making well into the Renaissance period, the former did kind of 'die out' in Europe by the end of the Viking Age.

G

[Roxxy]

I need help rationalizing the existance of colorful uniforms such as those of the Napoleonic Wars.

In my homebrew campaign setting, civilization is based off of the Georgian era (as in, mid to late 18th and early 19th centuries), albeight with much anacronism and magitech. The primary weapons are smoothbore flintlocks that load from the breech (This is for game speed reasons. I want weapons players can shoot quickly.). Propellant is a solid chunk of a low smoke alchemical substance that will go off soaking wet. The flint is also alchemical, and almost never fails to spark. These weapons have about the accuracy and range of a muzzle loading smoothbore musket, but several times the rate of fire.

I like the colorful uniforms of the Napoleonic Era, and it fits my planned aesthetic for my world, but it seems to me that the existance of common rapid fire and magical support and lack of smoke induced visibility problems would end the era of massed ranks pouring volleys into each other at close range. Casualties would be downright hellish. Without mass volley tactics, it seems there is little reason to wear such colorful uniforms. Can anyone think of a reason I could be wrong here? I want the pretty clothing, but I don't want a situation that makes no sense.

[Thiel]

Why are you bothering with smoothbores?
The breach mechanism was by far the most expensive piece of the early breach loaders, so much so that adding rifling to them wouldn't affect their price in any meaningful fashion. Especially when the breach is self sealing.

As for uniforms, they did in fact remain quite colourful until the end of the 19th century, though they became much more uniform in appearance as training and supply became more and more centralized.

French uniforms anno 1889

[Clistenes]

I need help rationalizing the existance of colorful uniforms such as those of the Napoleonic Wars.

In my homebrew campaign setting, civilization is based off of the Georgian era (as in, mid to late 18th and early 19th centuries), albeight with much anacronism and magitech. The primary weapons are smoothbore flintlocks that load from the breech (This is for game speed reasons. I want weapons players can shoot quickly.). Propellant is a solid chunk of a low smoke alchemical substance that will go off soaking wet. The flint is also alchemical, and almost never fails to spark. These weapons have about the accuracy and range of a muzzle loading smoothbore musket, but several times the rate of fire.

I like the colorful uniforms of the Napoleonic Era, and it fits my planned aesthetic for my world, but it seems to me that the existance of common rapid fire and magical support and lack of smoke induced visibility problems would end the era of massed ranks pouring volleys into each other at close range. Casualties would be downright hellish. Without mass volley tactics, it seems there is little reason to wear such colorful uniforms. Can anyone think of a reason I could be wrong here? I want the pretty clothing, but I don't want a situation that makes no sense.

Well, another reason to use red and dark blue for uniforms was that those colors helped disguise blood. Black or dark brown would have worked too, but those were seen as bad for morale (depressing, poor-looking colors; bright colors helped the soldiers look more energetic, rich and professional).

[fusilier]

On an unrelated note, approximately how far apart were musket volleys normally exchanged and what kind of shots to hits ratios could you expect?

Exchange volleys? 100 yards or less, and that holds true even for rifled muskets. I've heard as low as ten or fifteen yards but that seems to have been exceptional, 30 - 100 yards more common. That's not necessarily the range at which one would open fire. When we speak of regiments "exchanging" volleys, they are typically stationary and blasting away at each other.

If being attacked, an infantry regiment may open fire at 150 yards with smoothbores, although a bit closer was recommended.* Sometimes there was a decision made to hold fire until very close, as Mike G. pointed out. There was a belief that the first volley was the best, and it should be held until it was most effective. I wouldn't expect many casualties at 150 yards, but you might get a few and that's plenty of time to reload.

If attacking, then there are a couple of different schools of thought. A regiment could stop occasionally, fire then resume the advance. But this wasted time, and potentially disrupted the "momentum" of the attack. [As an aside, the advance would be done mostly at a walk -- most infantry weren't trained in running in formation, and would both tire and become disordered].

Buck-and-ball, the standard load for a military musket since at least the 18th century, was more effective at less than 40 yards. Advancing to within that range, firing a volley, then charging, would be another approach. However, a regiment advancing as such, would be taking casualties from enemy fire from about 100 yards and could potentially be weakened. Also, after stopping to fire, it may be difficult to get the troops moving again. Some officers preferred to have their troops charge with empty muskets; the idea being that they would be less likely to stop and exchange volleys if the only weapon immediately useable was the bayonet.

*Against calvary it was different: cavalry could cover about 100 yards before the infantry could reload. They typically tried to stay at this range until the infantry had fired their volley, then charge. The infantry counter tactic was to sucker the cavalry in close, by only having part of the formation fire (e.g. one rank), to trick the cavalry into charging.

[Clistenes]

Exchange volleys? 100 yards or less, and that holds true even for rifled muskets. I've heard as low as ten or fifteen yards but that seems to have been exceptional, 30 - 100 yards more common

And before that, during the XVI century, Duke of Alba used to tell his gunmen not to shoot their weapons until they were less than twelve yards from the enemy ("the length of two pikes").

[fusilier]

I need help rationalizing the existance of colorful uniforms such as those of the Napoleonic Wars.

In my homebrew campaign setting, civilization is based off of the Georgian era (as in, mid to late 18th and early 19th centuries), albeight with much anacronism and magitech. The primary weapons are smoothbore flintlocks that load from the breech (This is for game speed reasons. I want weapons players can shoot quickly.). Propellant is a solid chunk of a low smoke alchemical substance that will go off soaking wet. The flint is also alchemical, and almost never fails to spark. These weapons have about the accuracy and range of a muzzle loading smoothbore musket, but several times the rate of fire.

I like the colorful uniforms of the Napoleonic Era, and it fits my planned aesthetic for my world, but it seems to me that the existance of common rapid fire and magical support and lack of smoke induced visibility problems would end the era of massed ranks pouring volleys into each other at close range. Casualties would be downright hellish. Without mass volley tactics, it seems there is little reason to wear such colorful uniforms. Can anyone think of a reason I could be wrong here? I want the pretty clothing, but I don't want a situation that makes no sense.

Breechloading smoothbore weapons would be both faster firing, and, usually, more accurate than muzzle-loading ones. Part of the reason smoothbores have such a bad reputation for accuracy, is the use of loose-fitting ammo to speed loading. If tight fitting ammo is used, then accuracy is significantly increased. With a muzzle-loader this will slow down loading, unless using something like a Nessler ball (a kind of "minie ball" for smoothbores, in vogue during the transition from smoothbore to rifle-muskets in Europe). As breechloading gets around the problem of slow-loading, tight fitting ammunition can be used as easily as loose. Thus giving an increase in accuracy.

The range could be worse! Depending upon how good of a gas seal the weapon gets.

An historical example of this is the US made M1833 Hall Carbine. A breechloading, smoothbore, weapon used by the Dragoons. They had terrible range though.

As for colorful uniforms -- that's basically up to you. Even after the introduction of smokeless powder it took a few decades before colorful uniforms disappeared. On the other hand, long before its introduction, "camouflage" uniforms were being used. British riflemen started wearing dark green in the early 19th century, Austrian schutzen wore gray, brown was used by Portuguese riflemen, etc. And, in the second half of the 19th century, khaki started to become a common color for colonial uniforms.

Well, another reason to use red and dark blue for uniforms was that those colors helped disguise blood. Black or dark brown would have worked too, but those were seen as bad for morale (depressing, poor-looking colors; bright colors helped the soldiers look more energetic, rich and professional).

I find the first part an unlikely reason at this time period. The Austrians used white uniforms, as did the French and Spanish for a period, and prior to the introduction of national uniform colors, white and light gray were common regimental colors. It typically only took one gun shot wound to fell a soldier, and the garment was marred with a big hole anyway. In earlier time periods, where soldiers would have spent a fair amount of time in hand-to-hand combat picking up blood from others, then perhaps this was a deciding factor in color choice.

The second part is an interesting one. At certain points in history some soldiers may have wanted to wear nice clothes, but would take pride in being individuals, and being set apart from their comrades (take a look at Landsknechts). Also there's Count Tilly's comment: "a ragged soldier and a bright musket", he was probably referring to what we may call "battle hardened" soldiers, whose ragged appearance showed to all that they had been doing some serious campaigning.

Historically, there were wars where both sides were armed with single-shot breechloaders, but, to the best of my knowledge, they were all blackpowder (Franco-Prussian War, and the Russo-Turkish War). They did wear colorful uniforms.

I would not assume that combat would be too deadly for formed ranks of infantry to exchange volleys -- if the guns are single shot. It would be more deadly, but not necessarily total bloodshed. It may shift the advantage to the defender (see the Austro-Prussian War of 1866), and the tactics may get a bit more defense oriented. Having observed the defensive tactics of the Prussians in that war, the standard French tactics during the Franco-Prussian War was to deploy infantry in slit-trenches, but still a fairly tight single rank. Interestingly, while the Prussians were able to successfully take French positions, they often did so with high casualties. So offensive tactics could still work (the Prussians did have better artillery -- but the French rifles had better range than the Prussians' rifles).

[Storm Bringer]

the major reason for the choice of uniform colours was actaully cost.

in the late 17th/early 18th century, when the armies were switching form a more feudal to a more centralised organisation, the cheapest colours you could get en masse for dying woolen uniforms were red, blue and undyed white. hence, most counties ended up with some combination of those colours. the English, Swiss and Danish had red, revolutionary france, Prussia and the U.S. had blue, and Austria and royal france had white.

the real killer for close order drill (i.e. standing shoulder to shoulder) is wether a determined enemy can push his way into close combat. so long as a cavalry charge can reach the line without being totally shot to pieces, then close order drill is still a vital skill.

as others have said, the main problem with breech loaders is getting a tight seal around the breech. several early breech loaders suffered problems with gases escaping the breech (and into the face of the user).

[Brother Oni]

Buck-and-ball, the standard load for a military musket since at least the 18th century, was more effective at less than 40 yards. Advancing to within that range, firing a volley, then charging, would be another approach. However, a regiment advancing as such, would be taking casualties from enemy fire from about 100 yards and could potentially be weakened. Also, after stopping to fire, it may be difficult to get the troops moving again. Some officers preferred to have their troops charge with empty muskets; the idea being that they would be less likely to stop and exchange volleys if the only weapon immediately useable was the bayonet.

Indeed. To add some detail to fusilier's post, the normal British tactics during the Napoleonic era was to advance to about 50 paces, fire a volley, give a loud cheer then rush into melee.

There's a film called Revolution with Al Pacino that has a good depiction of this (Link), although it's set a bit earlier in the Revolutionary War. It also highlights the necessity of drummers and pipers - not only for communication, but to keep morale up, especially when your fellow soldiers are dropping like flies around you.

I believe the French in particular were fond of sending their men in with no ammunition, which tragically continued up into the early years of WWI.

[Roxxy]

Why are you bothering with smoothbores?
The breach mechanism was by far the most expensive piece of the early breach loaders, so much so that adding rifling to them wouldn't affect their price in any meaningful fashion. Especially when the breach is self sealing.

The breech mechanism is magical in nature, not mechanical, so the cost is not so high (low powered magic is cheap in this world). The lack of rifling is because the worth of rifling has yet to be discovered.

[xeo]

Christopher Duffy's "The Military Experience in the Age of Reason" is probably the best single accessible source on military conduct in the age of horse and musket. Best of all (for those who only speak English like me) he backs up his arguments with plentiful translations from rare (or rarely translated) first hand accounts.

Paddy Griffith also has a good, if slightly old, chapter on low level tactical combat in the Napoleonic Wars (focused around Wellington's armies) in his book "Forward Into Battle".

I've got a quick question for 16th century specialists. Did the crusading Military Orders in the Mediterranean, like the Knights of St John or the Order of Santo Stefano, have a particular training regime or facilities? Obviously, as they were largely comprised of aristocrats, they'd have been well trained but how did they keep that training up? I've read a few accounts of the "average day" for a knight in the Military Orders but these are invariably focused around the 11th-13th centuries. Does anyone know a good source for day to day life in these orders after the fall of the Holy Land?

[Clistenes]

I find the first part an unlikely reason at this time period. The Austrians used white uniforms, as did the French and Spanish for a period, and prior to the introduction of national uniform colors, white and light gray were common regimental colors. It typically only took one gun shot wound to fell a soldier, and the garment was marred with a big hole anyway. In earlier time periods, where soldiers would have spent a fair amount of time in hand-to-hand combat picking up blood from others, then perhaps this was a deciding factor in color choice.

Well, it is said that in 1806, when indigo dye became too expensive due to the british blockade, Napoleon ordered the new french uniforms to be white, but changed his mind after watching how visible were the blood splatter stains on the white uniforms at the Battle of Eylau.

Then again, maybe he thought they looked to much like Austrians, or maybe they looked too much like the old pre-revolutionary uniforms.

The second part is an interesting one. At certain points in history some soldiers may have wanted to wear nice clothes, but would take pride in being individuals, and being set apart from their comrades (take a look at Landsknechts). Also there's Count Tilly's comment: "a ragged soldier and a bright musket", he was probably referring to what we may call "battle hardened" soldiers, whose ragged appearance showed to all that they had been doing some serious campaigning.

Soldiers liked to have a particular look long before military uniforms existed, and tended to look down to soldiers who wore civilian-looking clothes, which often meant plain, non-flashy clothes.

The spanish soldiers took to wear the flashy clothes of the Landsknechts after the Italian Wars of the beginning of the XVI century, and kept using those for the rest of the century, despite spanish fashion being to dress in stark black clothes (this was considered very elegant, sober and serious). When the king tried to create a black uniform for some new tercios (I guess he thought they would look cool all clad in black clothes and silver armor) they made a fuss, saying that they would look "like monks, not like soldiers".

Indeed. To add some detail to fusilier's post, the normal British tactics during the Napoleonic era was to advance to about 50 paces, fire a volley, give a loud cheer then rush into melee.

There's a film called Revolution with Al Pacino that has a good depiction of this (Link), although it's set a bit earlier in the Revolutionary War. It also highlights the necessity of drummers and pipers - not only for communication, but to keep morale up, especially when your fellow soldiers are dropping like flies around you.

I believe the French in particular were fond of sending their men in with no ammunition, which tragically continued up into the early years of WWI.

You have to take into account that those guns required to be cleaned constantly or they became useless, and you would have also to change the flint, and that if you fired too fast the bore would get too hot, which would be dangerous. Due to their smoothbores they would have to get really close to cause damage, but after a few shots, the weapons would start to become less effective, to a point a bayonet charge would become more effective.

The XVI c. musketeers/arquebusseers would prepare little more than twelve shots, knowing that, if those weren't enough to break the enemy they would have to discard their guns and start a melee. I know that you are speaking of Napoleonic Era muskets, but besides the different lock, those weren't so different (the enhanced effectiveness was due mostly to the drilling, that allowed a faster rate of fire).

[Mike_G]

I would not assume that combat would be too deadly for formed ranks of infantry to exchange volleys -- if the guns are single shot.

The American Civil War tended to have horrible casualties among infantry exposed to massed rifle fire, even though most soldiers were still using muzzle loaders. Far worse casualties than the Revolution or the War of 1812. Infantry assaults in the ACW tend to be bloody and often fail. Some of that would be the more reliable percussion caps instead of flintlocks and the better accuracy of the rifles, and some may be chalked up to the fact that troops tended not to close and use the bayonet, but to exchange fire for a prolonged period.

Massed units with breechloaders tended to fight colonial battles against native troops without rapid firing weapons. If the Zulu are charging you, standing shoulder to shoulder with your mates won't make you more vulnerable to an assegai, and will help you support one another if the enemy do get to melee. Once you get two European armies with breechloaders shooting it out, casualties get horrific.

[Roxxy]

I read something on Wikipedia about the British Redcoats stating that once a soldier had been in the field in a warm climate for a long time their coats faded to a brownish-red or a pink. This seems to coincide with the above posters' quotes regarding ragged looking soldiers. I like this. My setting carries a theme of widely available (though weak for D&D) magic that has made everything glamourous and wonderful, including impeccably dressed and equipped military units, but underneath this varnish things aren't as pretty as they look (politics are as ugly as ever, crime is endemic in many areas, and magic can be misused in horrifying ways). I think this approach to uniforms backs that up. Sure, they look pretty parading through town, but the rapid fire of breechloaders combined with airburst artillery and battlefield control magic make combat a very, very costly affair, and those uniforms wear out quick if you don't die first. This disconnect between what the public sees and the reality of military life fits my world perfectly.

[Thiel]

The breech mechanism is magical in nature, not mechanical, so the cost is not so high (low powered magic is cheap in this world). The lack of rifling is because the worth of rifling has yet to be discovered.

I can't really see how that's going to work out. Rifling are at least 550 years old and you've removed every obstacle that stood in its way historically.
Heck, the way you describe your magic it sounds like it would make a decent rifling machine.

[Roxxy]

I can't really see how that's going to work out. Rifling are at least 550 years old and you've removed every obstacle that stood in its way historically.

Heck, the way you describe your magic it sounds like it would make a decent rifling machine.

The reason is simple: guns are still pretty new. They have advanced rapidly thanks to magic, but it's still a new technology, and nobody has thought of trying to rotate the round yet. Eventually somebody will, but I don't want that much range and accuracy right now. I'd rather force combat to happen at closer ranges.

[Brother Oni]

Due to their smoothbores they would have to get really close to cause damage, but after a few shots, the weapons would start to become less effective, to a point a bayonet charge would become more effective.

I would say really close to be accurate rather than cause damage, but I otherwise agree with you.

Napoleonic era muskets and rifles fired ~19mm balls and the famous shot by Thomas Plunket (depending on which account you use) indicates that they're still lethal up to 600m, even if a Brown Bess couldn't hit the broad side of a barn past 40 yards.

I read something on Wikipedia about the British Redcoats stating that once a soldier had been in the field in a warm climate for a long time their coats faded to a brownish-red or a pink. This seems to coincide with the above posters' quotes regarding ragged looking soldiers. I like this.

You don't even have to be initially wearing bright colours to look like a well seasoned campaigner. The 95th Rifles wore dark green uniforms and after 6 months to a year (I'll have to check the exact numbers) in the field, their uniforms were looking very ragged indeed according to one contemporary account.

[fusilier]

The reason is simple: guns are still pretty new. They have advanced rapidly thanks to magic, but it's still a new technology, and nobody has thought of trying to rotate the round yet. Eventually somebody will, but I don't want that much range and accuracy right now. I'd rather force combat to happen at closer ranges.

Poor gas seal will reduce effective range considerably. Hall rifles and carbines were known for having bad range. In theory, dragoons armed with the M1833 carbine would ride in close, dismount, blast off a few rounds quickly, then ride away.

The famous Prussian Dreyse needle rife, was also known for poor range and accuracy, especially when compared to the French Chassepot. My suspicion is that many of the early breechloaders attempted to make up for the poor gas-seal by increasing the powder charge, which, due to some weirdness of how black-powder burns, would lead to heavier recoil.

With short effective range, rushes may still be practical, but expect pretty high casualties. Even against longer ranged weapons the Prussians were able to attack French positions during the Franco-Prussian War -- but often with high casualties.

[Brother Oni]

My suspicion is that many of the early breechloaders attempted to make up for the poor gas-seal by increasing the powder charge, which, due to some weirdness of how black-powder burns, would lead to heavier recoil.

Out of curiousity, why is that weird? Surely if you put in more powder, there's more force generated and hence more recoil?

[Spiryt]

If there's just more powder, but force of explosion is not spent to propel bullet faster, there will be no more recoil.

There's not (much) more force acting upon the bullet = not (much) more force upon the weapon and shooter.

I would guess that some interaction with other elements of chambers etc. could lead to stronger recoil, despite not much better performance of the bullet.

[Yora]

The way the energy is transfered from the weapon to the body could be different and cause the weapon to jerk around more than usual. That could be called increased recoil even though the amount of energy doesn't increase by much.
The energy is the same when you shot a gun properly braced or shot it from the hip, but the later is still much harder to control. Force isn't everything when it comes to recoil and physics doesn't always scale in a linear way.

[huttj509]

If there's just more powder, but force of explosion is not spent to propel bullet faster, there will be no more recoil.

There's not (much) more force acting upon the bullet = not (much) more force upon the weapon and shooter.

I would guess that some interaction with other elements of chambers etc. could lead to stronger recoil, despite not much better performance of the bullet.

While the post below yours puts things well, I just want to point out that even if the bullet is not going faster, you still have hot gasses escaping from the barrel. Air has mass too, and gas escaping at high velocity can still provide a kick, even if there's no projectile.

*remembers the pressure wave feel when observing a detonation of leftover explosives, that was neat*

[Spiryt]

While the post below yours puts things well, I just want to point out that even if the bullet is not going faster, you still have hot gasses escaping from the barrel. Air has mass too, and gas escaping at high velocity can still provide a kick, even if there's no projectile.

Could it be really 'observable' from the point of the shooter, in case of weapon that weights like few good pounds at least, and shoots quite heavy bullet as well?

[Traab]

I had a question about guns I wanted to ask. I know that most have a range outside which they are not very accurate, but outside THAT range, at what distance does say, a handgun bullet have to travel before it is no longer capable of causing a lethal hit on an unarmored target?

[Roxxy]

I had a question about guns I wanted to ask. I know that most have a range outside which they are not very accurate, but outside THAT range, at what distance does say, a handgun bullet have to travel before it is no longer capable of causing a lethal hit on an unarmored target?

This is dependant on several factors. The first is calibre. A 9mm pistol round has a different mass and propellant load than a .45 ACP, so they have different maximum lethal ranges. A second factor is the angle of the shot. Shooting at a target from a 0 degree angle and from a 45 degree angle result in two seperate ranges. Air density and wind velocity can also effect things, and I'm pretty sure there are other factors I am forgetting. There are ballpark figures on maximum ranges, but I don't have them.

[Spiryt]

I had a question about guns I wanted to ask. I know that most have a range outside which they are not very accurate, but outside THAT range, at what distance does say, a handgun bullet have to travel before it is no longer capable of causing a lethal hit on an unarmored target?

In case of 'full scale' rifles, like the ones used commonly in the first half of 20th century, bullets were very lethal on very long ranges, often exceeding one kilometer easily.

Because no-one, let alone ordinary soldier can generally hit anything from much shorter distances anyway, basic infantry weapons became generally less powerful, then came the miniaturization of bullets caliber/general size and so on.

In pistols lethal distance is much shorter, obviosuly, but they certainly can still hurt.

Here I could find only 100 yards data, but on those yards 9mm appears to be deadly enough.

[Brother Oni]

A quick bit of searching gives me this page: link.

The caveat at the bottom is important in my opinion - rounds will rarely travel that far before hitting something. This is also not mentioning the speed it's still travelling at when it hits the ground.

[Traab]

Thats the thing though, I dont want to know how far a bullet can theoretically travel before it stops moving, I wanted to know at what distance say, a 9 mm can go and still kill someone. When will it no longer have enough velocity to penetrate several inches into human flesh and puncture an organ?