Question about an exploding handgun.

[SittingBull]

If a barrel is blocked on a handgun and someone, not knowing or panicking, still fires it; what might the damage be? Assuming the handgun does 3d6 to start. Would there be an area of effect?

Thank you

[NMI]

I would say that the damage is equal to the amount that the bullet would do. In your example, 3D6. If the barrel is stuck or plugged with another bullet, than the damage would be for both bullets.

If you want to be evil, you could say that this damage is the % chance of cooking off the ammo in the rest of the clip.

[Jefffar]

I'd say less. The gun is built to channel the energy of the discharge down the barrel and away from the shooter. Any failure of the weapon is going to have to overcome the strength of the weapon first before doing anything to the shooter.

In real life injuries from catastrophic failures do happen and can be quite serious, but generally newer weapons are pretty resilliant (for example, I recall one of the new Korean 20mm grenade launchers recently experienced a round detonating in the weapon, despite the explosion next to his head, the operator was not seriously injured).

So, the normal damage of the round, strictly speaking, is going to be a maximum damage and, in practical terms, half damage is probably more realistic.

[SittingBull]

Would it affect any opinions if I mentioned the handguns barrel was damaged (but not cut off) by metal claws? So the barrel has some breaches along one side.

[Jefffar]

Breaches along the side of the barrel would vent more force sideways than back at the user.

[say652]

I personally would rule it.

Single round damage 3D6 in this case.
Since most MD armor has about 10mdc per hand there's a pretty good chance it will blow your hand off.

[SittingBull]

I apologize, forgot to mention SDC setting.

[The Artist Formerly]

I'd say less. The gun is built to channel the energy of the discharge down the barrel and away from the shooter. Any failure of the weapon is going to have to overcome the strength of the weapon first before doing anything to the shooter.

In real life injuries from catastrophic failures do happen and can be quite serious, but generally newer weapons are pretty resilliant (for example, I recall one of the new Korean 20mm grenade launchers recently experienced a round detonating in the weapon, despite the explosion next to his head, the operator was not seriously injured).

So, the normal damage of the round, strictly speaking, is going to be a maximum damage and, in practical terms, half damage is probably more realistic.

This.

The kinetic energy will follow the path of least resistance. When discharged, the bullet is moving away from the shooter, the force is going that way. Remember, 3rd law, equal and opposite, so the shooter is already absorbing the same force as the target, spread across the area and mass of the gun as it is. The gun is built to absorb the same amount of force a bullet discharges and do it thousands of times over without failing due to that stress. Unless the shooter is in a situation that puts him in front of the collision point of the blocked barrel, the shooter is likely safe. They tested this concept on an episode of Mythbusters, all they got, even when using a metal finger to block the gun, was destroyed gun, no damage to the Grant mold they made to test for injury.

[SittingBull]

This might be the migraine talking but what you posted, Artist Formerly, didn't quite click with my understanding.

[SpiritInterface]

This might be the migraine talking but what you posted, Artist Formerly, didn't quite click with my understanding.

Simple answer is that even with a critical failure most if not all the energy will be directed away from the shooter, there might be some shrapnel damage but it would be less than the damage for a normal round would be. Even a critical failure at the breach wouldn't cause as much damage. The only way to get damage equal to or greater than a normal round is to set off the magazine.

[The Artist Formerly]

This might be the migraine talking but what you posted, Artist Formerly, didn't quite click with my understanding.

Cool. Let me break this down for you. Also, feel free to call me Taf or Taffy, saves typing. Also, it seems you're new to this board, so welcome.

I don't know what your experience level with guns are, so if I point out stuff you already know, sorry not trying to talk down to you I just want to cover everything so we're on the same page. Well assume a shooter named Charles, a target named Robo-Bob (we'd have gotten Bob for this, but he hates being in my examples) and Glock 19 9mm handgun with 12 rounds in the mag so we're legal in California and New York.

So a round (bullet + powder charge + shell casing + primer) is loaded into a gun's firing chamber. Charles takes aim and fires at Robo. There is an explosion in the gun's chamber, the gun the bullet, the shell casing are all exposed to this explosion. The shell casing is the lightest thing involved in this it would be the easiest to move (path of least resistance), but it's held firmly in place by the gun's firing chamber so it's not going anywhere. The bullet itself is the next lightest thing, and it's just (relatively) lightly held in place by the shell casing. It has an exit path of down the barrel, so it's starts moving, riding the pressure wave caused by the explosion. (If one was to toss a round into a fire (which is really dangerous and you shouldn't do that) and wait for it to discharge, it would be the shell case that was thrown from the fire and the bullet would likely remain in or very, very close to the fire because throwing the shell case is the easiest path for the energy to take.) Now, the gun is also taking the force of this explosion. It's designed to take this repeated shock over and over and over without failing. It's made out of steel and ceramic and even a little plastic after all, and in sufficient mass to be effectively immune to the forces we're talking about. But that shock, the kinetic energy has to go somewhere, so we see it manifest as recoil.

The bullet, moving at 1000 to 1200 feet per second (give or take) hits the target, Robo-Bob (Robo-ouch!) and inflicts 3d6 points of damage from having a bit of metal passing though his cyber-flesh (which is just like real flesh only 30% less tasty). Let's assume that's 10 points on average (a three a four and a three).

Now in your original post, you had the barrel blocked. Assuming that blockage is made out of something more substantial the mild cheese (though cheese would make cyber-flesh burgers much yummier) then the damage and the gun get to split the damage. Usually what happens is the gun is slightly damaged and the blockage is seriously screwed up. When the Mythbusters tested this, most of the tests the gun was fine and the blockage was annihilated, no damage to the shooter (a ballistics gel stand in of Grant Imahara). But when they welded a steel piece (in the shape of a finger) into the gun (a shotgun), it screwed up the barrel and shot the steel finger across the bunker. They retested this myth with a rifle and used a in barrel laser sighter (used to sight the weapon in) and were able to seriously screw up that gun, causing the barrel to kind of banana peel back a little. But no damage to stand in Grant.

Unless the shooter somehow gets in front of the firing chamber, it's unlikely that he or she is in any real danger. Guns are built with these ideas (battle damage from things like wear and tear, poor maintenance, in coming shrapnel, being dropped, super heated and then doused with water, the guy holding it being a dimwit conscript, ect) in mind and are by design, resistant to forces that might kill the guy holding it.

[SittingBull]

Thank you TAF. Not new just haven't been on them in a while, unless new means a certain number of posts or under, then I might be considered new. ^^

[The Artist Formerly]

Thank you TAF. Not new just haven't been on them in a while, unless new means a certain number of posts or under, then I might be considered new. ^^

Eh, well, either way, nice to meet you.

[SittingBull]

Nice to meet you also and thank you for the detailed input.