When is the bullet most powerful: point-blank, 1' away, at end of range?

[Inferno0032]

Well, I would have personally gone with 1" out of the barrel. 1' is too far for the gases from the gun to push the bullet at all. at 1' or less, there might be a little thrust.

Personally I'd think it would be closer to 1" as well, was just saying in the context of the poll. Honestly, there may not be much of a difference, the energy lost from it gaining a theoretical max velocity at 1-2" wouldn't have changed much by 1', anyway. So there could be an essential small range of max velocity.

 

[Gibsons]

If you were shooting a standard M-16 or AR-15 at me, I'd actually rather get shot from 1 foot than a few hundred meters. That is, provided I could shield myself from the muzzle blast. Those rounds are going to make much bigger holes at thier preferred distance.

But at point blank, aren't you more likely to get the hydrostatic shock (assuming it really does harm, I know there's some controversy) and maybe even shatter the bullet?

 

[DrPizza]

For the an educated it looks like all 3 could have their reasons.

Point-blank: Because it's right out of the nozzle.

One foot away: Strongest because it gives 1' of breathing room for 'fully launching' than point-blank.

At the end of effective range: I heard bullet gets stronger and stronger as it travels? (at the cost of accuracy)

Haven't read through the thread yet, but "for the educated" is in contradiction with choice three.

If by point blank, you mean pressed against the skin, that's probably most damaging, but it'll be the gasses as well as the bullet that are doing the damage. i.e. press a gun against your thigh and shoot a blank. Well, actually, don't do this.

Of course, there's the Bugs Bunny/Elmer J Fudd phenomenon where if the finger is fully inserted into the barrel of the gun, it will shoot backwards. Maybe you could give this a try as well? Well, actually, don't try this either.

 

[DayLaPaul]

lol @ nozzle

 

[spidey07]

But at point blank, aren't you more likely to get the hydrostatic shock (assuming it really does harm, I know there's some controversy) and maybe even shatter the bullet?

Look at the ballistics jell results and complaints from the troops. At short range the rounds go right through the target with minimal damage requiring many, many shots to bring them down. The actual bullet isn't much larger than a .22, but a crap load of powder behind it. It's most effective at medium to long range, > 100 yards.

I admit it is an ongoing argument with merits on both sides.

 

[Train]

But at point blank, aren't you more likely to get the hydrostatic shock (assuming it really does harm, I know there's some controversy) and maybe even shatter the bullet?

Not with a measley 5.56 round. And it aint gonna shatter on a human body. Unless It hits bone I guess.