Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why the First Cowboy To Draw Always Gets Shot

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the more-guns-less-crime dept.

Science 398

cremeglace writes "Have you ever noticed that the first cowboy to draw his gun in a Hollywood Western is invariably the one to get shot? Nobel-winning physicist Niels Bohr did, once arranging mock duels to test the validity of this cinematic curiosity. Researchers have now confirmed that people indeed move faster if they are reacting, rather than acting first."

cancel ×

398 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Unforgivable! (4, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026018)

They explained that in Unforgiven

Wrter: "But what if he draws first?"

Sheriff: "Then he'll miss. You see, you can only draw, aim, and shoot so fast. Me, this is about as fast as I can draw my gun and hit anything smaller than a barn. The guy that keeps a cool head, he'll come out standing."

That was from memory and is obviously not word for word, but the gist is there. It makes sense to me.

Re:Unforgivable! (2, Interesting)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026096)

Agreed. Someone who draws first would (theoretically) be the one who DIDN'T think they could win, and as such would prolly be a little more nervous than the other guy.

Just my opinion though...my apologies if that is way more stupid than it was in my head.

Re:Unforgivable! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026414)

Just my opinion though...my apologies if that is way more stupid than it was in my head.

No worries. The only thing you might need to apologize for is the use of the cringe-inducing pseudo-word "prolly" in an otherwise coherent, grammatically-correct, and typo-free post.

Re:Unforgivable! (5, Funny)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026802)

that's not a Troll, that was clever.

Didn't you see what the parent did to the grand parent? Grand parent drew first, then parent responded with a more precise comment.

I think grand parent is dead now, Jim, killed by the AC.

Re:Unforgivable! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026290)

So Han Solo Did shoot 2nd! heh :D

Re:Unforgivable! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026598)

"Look, the Giant Chicken's Boba Fett!" - Peter Griffin, as Han Solo.

Re:Unforgivable! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026712)

Who? I think you are looking for Carlos Spicyweiner.

Re:Unforgivable! (4, Interesting)

ViViDboarder (1473973) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026312)

This is the opposite of what the article is saying...

The article says that the first person to draw will be the last one to pull the trigger, but the one reacting (drawing second after seeing the first person draw) will draw and pull the trigger quicker but they are less likely to get a hit.

Re:Unforgivable! (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026372)

This is the opposite of what the article is saying...

Yes, it is. It's an alternative explanation.

Re:Unforgivable! (2, Informative)

ViViDboarder (1473973) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026436)

So they didn't explain "that", they explained the opposite...

Re:Unforgivable! (4, Informative)

Translation Error (1176675) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026666)

Actually, in the last paragraph it concluded that the increased reaction speed wasn't great enough to offset starting later. The research team believes that Bohr, the man who conducted the first experiments on the subject and won every time when drawing second, was simply much better than his opponent.

Re:Unforgivable! (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026390)

Seems odd, and just a tad self serving, for Unforgiven to have an explanation for a cheesy writer's ploy designed to keep the good guy's body as intact as his halo.

Almost as odd as spending time researching this.

Perhaps they will do a follow up on how there can be a huge running firefight with automatic weapons and virtually no cover, and yet nobody from either side gets hurt.

Re:Unforgivable! (2, Informative)

Tyler Durden (136036) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026520)

Guess you never bothered to see this fantastic film, huh? William Munny sure as hell didn't have a halo.

Little Bill Daggett: You'd be William Munny out of Missouri. Killer of women and children.
Will Munny: That's right. I've killed women and children. I've killed just about everything that walks or crawled at one time or another. And I'm here to kill you, Little Bill, for what you did...

Re:Unforgivable! (1)

icebrain (944107) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026548)

Well that's easy... nobody aims. It's hard to hit a barn from the inside when you're shooting like that.

Re:Unforgivable! (4, Funny)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026696)

Seems odd, and just a tad self serving, for Unforgiven to have an explanation for a cheesy writer's ploy

It's obvious you never saw the movie. There was a damned good reason it got all those Oscars. It was realistic and believable, a VERY well written flick. Few movies at all are as good.

As a nerdy bonus, Saul Rubenik played the writer; he was on an episode of ST:NG.

As a double bonus, it has hookers.

Re:Unforgivable! (3, Informative)

wurble (1430179) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026460)

I used to think that was true insight into the reality of the world. After seeing Unforgiven, I viewed all the scenes of quickdrawing and such from old westerns as Hollywood bs impossiblities.

Then I saw some of the things guys like Bob Munden and Jerry Miculek can do. Jerry Miculek can draw and fire 5 shots on target in under 1 second. I've seen Bob Munden split a playing card in half by shooting the thin edge FROM THE HIP. That means no aiming, just draw and fire from the hip. I've also seen an exhibition shooter draw, fire 6 shots, 3 targets, 2 on each target with a single action revolver all in under 3 seconds. Go shooting at a range some time and have someone time you. You'll be SHOCKED at how fast that is when you try to put yourself in that scenario.

However, these are examples of the best in the world. Hardly typical. So for MOST, Little Bill's advice is correct.

Re:Unforgivable! (1)

GungaDan (195739) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026552)

Most ranges explicitly disallow holster draws or other quick-shoot scenarios. Because in addition to being shocked at how fast the pros can squeeze 'em off, you'll put holes in your lower appendages or other unintended areas.

Re:Unforgivable! (1)

Tyler Durden (136036) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026586)

Also keep in mind that as amazing as those guys are they didn't do those tricks under the pressure of their lives on the line.

Re:Unforgivable! (1)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026726)

Just to put this more poignantly than Tyler did, playing cards don't shoot back.

Re:Unforgivable! (2, Interesting)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026594)

They explained that in Unforgiven

Wrter: "But what if he draws first?"

Sheriff: "Then he'll miss. You see, you can only draw, aim, and shoot so fast. Me, this is about as fast as I can draw my gun and hit anything smaller than a barn. The guy that keeps a cool head, he'll come out standing."

There was an interview with someone who'd been in a few gunfights and come out the winner. He said he was not that great of a shot but simply did not panic when he had to shoot someone for real.

You can test out this phenomenon in real life quite easily. Find someone who can consistently sink 3 pointers and tell him the next basket has $25k riding on it. More than likely he'll muff the next shot now that he knows something is riding on it. If he can put that out of his mind and take the next shot like he did the last fifty, your wallet's gong to be lighter.

But if the guy doing the first draw is as calm and collected as you hope to be, you're still likely dead.

Re:Unforgivable! (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026730)

I seem to remember on ESPN had a play of the day where some kid made a 3 pointer from his own key with no time left. Naturally they sent someone out there to see if he could do it again, he missed like 10 times; then they said they'd give something like $1k to charity if he made it and he did.

Re:Unforgivable! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026638)

The 'quick draw' is fiction, as real as Tarzan, Frankenstein, etc.

Re:Unforgivable! (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026718)

You see, you can only draw, aim, and shoot so fast. Me, this is about as fast as I can draw my gun and hit anything smaller than a barn.

I don't know, if you watch this video at about 2:55 [youtube.com] , he shoots twice, hitting two balloons before I could probably put my finger on the trigger. Granted, it's pretty close.

BANG! (4, Funny)

stillnotelf (1476907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026020)

Does that mean the first poster gets shot? Wait, why am I bleeding...?

Re:BANG! (5, Funny)

Bryan Gividen (739949) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026066)

You really shot yourself in the foot with that non-first post, didn't you?

Re:BANG! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026824)

lol owned by self

More unforgiven (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026068)

"You ain't shot!"

Re:BANG! (1)

Seakip18 (1106315) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026090)

Musta been grazed by the bullet that hit Mcgrew...

Bah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026574)

Subscribers getting the FP is little more than sanctioned cheating, just so /. can rake in some dough.

Re:BANG! (1)

gerddie (173963) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026206)

That's because your reaction speed gain did not make up for delay.

I confess, I actually RTFA.

First post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026022)

I reacted - yay for me.

First draw! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026028)

First draw!

Oblig. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026034)

Han shot first.

Re:Oblig. (1)

GungaDan (195739) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026136)

That explains the odd tag. I did not want to know what "Hans' hot first" was all about.

Re:Oblig. (5, Funny)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026200)

"Hans' hot first"

AKA "How I Learned To Enjoy Wookiee Lovin'"

Re:Oblig. (1)

Mechanik (104328) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026568)

AKA "How I Learned To Enjoy Wookiee Lovin'"

AKA "Let The Wookie Win: How I Learned To Whimper Quietly And Just Take It So I Wouldn't Get My Arms Ripped Out of Their Sockets"

Re:Oblig. (5, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026642)

"Hans' hot first"

AKA "How I Learned To Enjoy Wookiee Lovin'"

You came in that thing? You're braver than I thought.

Re:Oblig. (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026742)

-1 Need Mental Bleach

Re:Oblig. (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026424)

The alien didn't shoot at all. If I shoot you, it's not likely you'll shoot back.

Re:Oblig. (4, Interesting)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026448)

It was always the intent of George Lucas to have Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan ride on Greedo's ship, The Manka Hunter, but Harrison Ford was cheaper than keeping famous actor Paul Blake around (who demanded more money for sitting in a rubber suit most of the day) so he decided to rewrite the script to have Han kill Greedo instead of the other way around.

Must be joking (5, Funny)

TwiztidK (1723954) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026036)

This must be why people can think up a comeback before I'm finished with the original joke.

Re:Must be joking (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026070)

There was some comeback action at your mom's last night...

Re:Must be joking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026452)

There was some comeback action at your mom's last night...

Come on...

Re:Must be joking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026614)

I did.

First Post!!! DAMN!!!!! I am not! (2, Funny)

viraltus (1102365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026048)

Just like the article predicted.

Bad summary (5, Informative)

RealErmine (621439) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026084)

Did the submitter or editors read the story? At the end they plainly state that even though the second "shooter" reacted faster, they could not make up the difference in time.

To quote Wyatt Earp (2, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026314)

"It's not the first man to draw who wins. It's the first man to hit his target."

Re:Bad summary (5, Informative)

mdarksbane (587589) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026410)

This is pretty important, and follows the police and self-defense literature I've read. It's a real concern for officers who might have a gun pointed at a suspect who draws and fires.

Previous studies have shown that even though the officer should have an advantage, if they actually process what is being drawn instead of just firing, the suspect who began with a gun at their head wins most of the time. Reading some of those studies provided a whole new perspective on all of the horrible "cop accidentally shoots a kid with a toy gun" moments.

Re:Bad summary (3, Informative)

Weedhopper (168515) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026668)

Gun at their head? This is a massive procedural mistake and an error of the first order.

I've taught several different types of courses to different LEOs. If the target is close enough to touch you, you will simply not have enough time to react to hit your target. A lot of officers don't understand this until it's demonstrated to them with simunition.

Re:Bad summary (1)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026676)

If there is any disadvantage on the side of the officers that delays their shot, it is the legal mumbo jumbo that they have to deal with if they actually do shoot. The suspect has nothing to loose so he will take the shot as soon as possible, but the officer is trained to wait to the last moment. Different circumstances than a western style showdown.

Re:Bad summary (1)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026736)

The suspect has nothing to loose

Except a few bullets.

Re:Bad summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026618)

Did the submitter or editors read the story?

Your UID suggests you've been around Slashdot long enough to know the answer to that question.

uh, Cowboy Neal... (1)

BearRanger (945122) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026098)

Is that your six gun in your pocket or did you just shoot first?

Han shot first? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026114)

So if Han shot first it's because Greedo was already drawing his pistol.

Re:Han shot first? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026426)

Greedo had his blaster drawn on Han from the beginning of the scene. Turn in your nerd credentials now.

Airforce tests show... (1)

frnic (98517) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026130)

a long time ago that there is a 3/4 second delay from seeing to reacting. So, if you wait to see the other start to draw you need to be at least 3/4 second faster in drawing and shooting to make that up.

Not quite (1)

Weedhopper (168515) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026558)

Simple human reaction time to an external stimulus is 0.05 to 0.20 seconds, depending on the type of stimulus - tactile, audial, visual, roughly in that order.

That .75 seconds that your brought up may have included decision trees because simple human reaction time to simple stimuli is much, much faster than 3/4 seconds.

The mythbusters need to test this! (5, Interesting)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026138)

The mythbusters need to test this!

Re:The mythbusters need to test this! (2, Insightful)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026184)

Why? Real scientists have already confirmed it. Methinks someone just wants to see Jamie get shot on tv.

Re:The mythbusters need to test this! (1)

cryoman23 (1646557) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026238)

so whats wrong with him getting shot with a blank?.... well a course theres the "accidental" switching of the blanks and loaded shells...

Re:The mythbusters need to test this! (2, Insightful)

Rennt (582550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026570)

Nothing wrong with it at all, just ask Brandon Lee.

Re:The mythbusters need to test this! (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026256)

Methinks someone just wants to see Jamie get shot on tv.

Don't we all?

Re:The mythbusters need to test this! (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026472)

If Jamie did get shot he would probably just shrug it off and keep going cause he has the " 'stache of power".

Real Scientist Adam's the one getting shot... (1)

jeko (179919) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026600)

They've already had this duel. Adam's the one who's gonna get shot.

And BTW, that crack about "Real Scientists?" If you Observe, Hypothesize, Test and Repeat, then congratulations, you're a Real Scientist(tm). You need to remember to leave the door open for the patent clerks, the mud-covered mathematicians, the Idaho farmboys, and the peasant bastards...

Re:The mythbusters need to test this! (4, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026708)

Why? Real scientists have already confirmed it.

Because the Mythbusters would dress up in cowboy costumes and play "high noon" music.

Re:The mythbusters need to test this! (1)

loafula (1080631) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026496)

The mythbusters need to test this!

on eachother...

New therapies for patients with brain damage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026168)

The article mentions that this could be used therapeutically, but up till now all the trials have been abject failures with 100% mortality as patients with brain damage have terrible aim.

Brokeback Mountain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026172)

Maybe they didn't like artists back in the wild west, after all it's a bit gay...

It's a variant of "Instinctive Shooting" (2, Informative)

koan (80826) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026174)

Basically if you have trained and know your weapon you fire faster if you don't think about it, it's a reflex thing and I have personally experienced the accuracy portion of this, meaning; if I know my rifle I can shoot without little or no thought/concentration and I am generally more accurate.

1645 called. (4, Informative)

bigattichouse (527527) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026180)

Miyamoto Musashi established this phenomenon quite well in 1645. Book of five rings [wikipedia.org] .

Feudal Japan called, they want their news back.

Re:1645 called. (2, Insightful)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026432)

God forbid the scientific community should research something a samurai once said.

well - YA. Wyatt Earp even said so (2, Interesting)

el_guapo (123495) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026182)

Before he died, Wyatt Earp was interviewed where he admitted he was no where near the fastest draw - but he pointed out that being accurate with your first shot was by far the most important criteria

Re:well - YA. Wyatt Earp even said so (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026278)

In other words..... Practice.

If you blew through 12 boxes of rounds by shooting at cans from a holstered position, you would be better than 90% of the other cowboys out there at a pistol duel.

if you did it on a regular basis you could easily win every one you were in.

Re:well - YA. Wyatt Earp even said so (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026440)

The biggest mistake is to draw. You only need to pull the weapon out of the holster if you intend to aim with the sights. Otherwise, you can just shoot from the hip and cut a lot of unnecessary motion out of it. At close range it probably doesn't matter that much anyway.

Re:well - YA. Wyatt Earp even said so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026288)

...he pointed out that being accurate with your first shot was by far the most important criteria

Criterion.

Re:well - YA. Wyatt Earp even said so (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026526)

I was just going to post on this. In early Hollywood most of the advisors/stunt shooters were folks with experience, like Wyatt Earp. So I'm sure they passed along that the guy who drew first usually got shot first.

And it carried on through the movies.

The bad guy always loses (-1, Redundant)

McGregorMortis (536146) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026186)

It's the bad guy that draws first. The good guy only shoots in self-defense.

Re:The bad guy always loses (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026268)

Not true.

Han shot first and he's a good guy.

SHUT UP!! HAN SHOT FIRST DAMMIT!!!

Stupid Lucas.

Re:The bad guy always loses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026468)

You seem to be forgetting the whole reason _why_ we all got so mad that Lucas changed that... It was because it showed us that Han _wasn't_ a "good guy" (because good guys only shoot in self-defense).

Re:The bad guy always loses (1)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026616)

We got mad for Lucas changing it because it reduced the impact of Han Solo's character growth from a "grey hat"... amoral mercenary and smuggler... to a "white hat" hero of the rebellion.

I have no idea who got mad with Lucas for Han shooting first. It was a clear establishing shot of Han Solo as a badass.

Re:The bad guy always loses (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026286)

You must not have seen Battle Beyond The Stars. Cowboy died in that movie, and he was the good guy!

Re:The bad guy always loses (-1, Redundant)

cephyn (461066) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026308)

Han SHOT FIRST!!

Fast vs Accurate (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026190)

It's also an issue of fast vs accurate. Drawing your gun quickly and snapping off a shot may make a bang but your goal is to hit the mark. Taking a smidge more time to actually get a kill shot can make a big difference.

It also helps to have the script writer and director on your side as well as your name on the marquee...

Re:Fast vs Accurate (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026536)

The person who draws first has just as much opportunity to be Fast and Accurate as the person who draws second.

So while true, your explanation really does not really help explain anything about the movies or real life.

The movie bad guy usually has 10 or 20 notches on his gun, so why did he not learn that the Bang does nothing?

Sen No Sen (1)

Danimoth (852665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026202)

Any karate practitioner could have told you this. Intercepting a reverse punch with another reverse punch is one of the most common tequniques, especially among more traditional karateka.

Eh? No... (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026822)

For a start, "traditional" karateka are not traditional. They're a 1940s phenomenon.

Second... Intercepting a reverse punch with a reverse punch? Who on earth is going to throw a reverse punch at you?

If you read anything the guys from the earlier era said, it basically amounts to "Don't start a fight, but if trouble is inevitable, put the other guy down first." The alternative interpretations are modern "bushido" bullshit.

 

In movies, it's a Morality lesson (5, Insightful)

The Famous Druid (89404) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026212)

The guy who draws first is the agressor, we can't let the agressor win.

That's the same reason that the guy on the roof of the saloon, aiming to shoot the someone in the back, always gets shot just as he's taking aim, and falls impressively to the street. Snipers and back-shooters are bad guys.

Re:In movies, it's a Morality lesson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026402)

Although, if you think about it, the sniper's "back" is everywhere that isn't in the cone of his scope. So, the one that shoots the sniper is himself a back-shooter...

Re:In movies, it's a Morality lesson (1)

Rennt (582550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026492)

Its more of a trope then a lesson - the audience already knows that bad guys shoot first. If you go breaking conventions like that you better have a damn good reason, or you're going to loose the audience.

Surprising result (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31026260)

It turns out the black hats the bad guys wear makes them easier to hit.

Hollywood has it wrong anyway. (1)

Skidborg (1585365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026466)

You can probably survive being shot long enough to take your time aiming and putting a bullet in the other guy's chest or head anyway. Of course, a movie that ends with both duel participants slowly bleeding to death from poorly placed shots doesn't make money like Hollywood fantasy duels do.

Re:Hollywood has it wrong anyway. (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026704)

In Hollywood, getting hit by a bullet usually knocks people off their feet. Sometimes the bullet picks them up and carries them several feet backwards. In real life, bullets don't have nearly that much momentum (otherwise the shooter would also be knocked off their feet). However, I suspect they do have enough momentum to spoil your aim. For small-caliber slugs, it isn't always immediately obvious that you've been hit. For the 45 caliber lead slugs that the cowboys used (which would have a lot of tumble), I suspect you would always know when you were hit. Nevertheless, I think your conclusion is generally correct -- most duels should have ended with both parties injured. I believe this was frequently the case when duels were conducted as a matter of honor, with single-shot pistols.

Re:Hollywood has it wrong anyway. (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026830)

which would have a lot of tumble

There was a programme many, many years ago that explained why small calibre rounds did more damage than large calibre. It was to do with tumble. Apparently, the larger rounds (they were talking about rifle fire, so it' probably doesn't hold for low powered weapons like hand guns) that 7.62mm rounds would be energetic enough to go straight through soft tissue and out the other side. Whereas smaller ammunition did, in fact, tumble inside the body: causing massive damage and therefore transferring all it's energy into the target, rather than keeping it, as the round flew through the exit wound and kept going.

There's an obvious alternative explanation (1)

wytten (163159) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026510)

In Hollywood movies, the bad guy always draws first, and the bad guy always gets shot. QED

Han Shot First! (1)

DolomiteZipper (768505) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026590)

Han shot first. He lived. Theory debunked.

eastwood movies (1)

j2020j0908 (1574393) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026650)

That's a lie. I remember 1 Eastwood flick where he drawed first and killed everyone.

Re:eastwood movies (1)

Tekfactory (937086) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026826)

Just 1?

I remember 3, but I just can't remember that blonde guy's name...

Did they mix the groups? (1)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026724)

Bohr never drew first but won every time

That indicates to me that the opponent is just slower by nature. It doesn't mention if they had the later test groups try both sides, but I wouldn't be surprised if they didnt.
For example, if I was in that test with my parents, I could be half asleep and turned the other direction when they started and I would still probably beat them.

Followup: subject *thinks* other guy drew first? (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#31026800)

Seems like there would be an interesting followup experiment. Arrange it so that one participant *actually* draws first, but *thinks* the other guy drew first, and see who 'wins' in those situations? Because, the experiment seems to suggest this a brain/nervous system reaction to perception, not anything based on actual objective physics or anything. If that is indeed the case, then the actual facts of the situation shouldn't matter, only that which is perceived/believed.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>