Would you rater be hit by...?

Question

A bullet, or a friking arrow.

By friend said arrow, and we have been arguing about an hour over this.

I said arrows do more damage to you, but he disagrees.

But it is impossible to get an arrow out of yourself without doing more damage to your wound.

Answer 1

Arrow

Answer 2

The answer to this question is easy. IT DEPENDS.

Think of it like this. If you take an arrow through the heart you will probably die before a surgeon can help you . Same for a bullet. Either way you are dead. Now, lets say for this question you don't take a hit in a vital organ that bleeds you out on the spot.

Then the answer of course is the arrow. Examine it based on physics. It is the energy transfer from the projectile to your body that does the damage. According to physics, Energy = mass * velocity * 0.50. Now f you do the math, the bullet speed is a huge number. That speed will outweight the energy of the arrow almost always. You will experience less trama, shock and wound from the arrow than the bullet in almost all cases (I did not say every case).

Like other people have correctly stated, modern bullets are designed to be frangible and thuse create a much larger wound channel. They tumple, expand and zig zag through out the body on impact. they tear jagged holes in many directions.

You definitely have a better chance to survive and arrow than a bullet.

Best regards. Watch out for arrows. and bullets.

Answer 3

I think that's a silly question! Assuming you lived, I think the arrow would be worse, because like you said taking it out would cause untold damage! (I believe surgeons used to take a mallet and hammer the arrow all the way through the other side, in order no reduce damage!)
Not all modern bullets are frangiable, in fact the majority arent! Most anything in Full Metal Jacket will simply pass through you and leave a wound channel they doesn't really get bigger (and take it's energy with it, reducing blunt trama!) , that's just hollowpoints! I think the arrow would be far worse!

Answer 4

An arrow for CERTAIN!

To remove it simply unscrew the head and slide it back out.

A bullet causes FAR more damage than a arrow.

Answer 5

Sadly enough I have a friend who is unlucky enough to have been shot with both (the guy is a walking accident he has also broken his back falling out of a treestand, and wrecked his motorcycle three times). He accidentally shot him self in the leg with a .22lr pistol because he put his finger on the trigger while he was drawing it from his holster. Then he was shot in the buttock with a broadhead while out hunting. According to him the .22lr was much worse than the broadhead. This is because a bullet displaces tissue with blunt force (leading to what is called nock-down power) while an arrow tipped with a good broadhead cuts through tissue with it's surgically sharp blades. Either way I'd suggest trying to avoid being shot with anything.

Answer 6

The lethality and tissue destruction from a trauma surgery point of view for projectile injuries from least to worse is

1.Rimfire bullet.
2.Arrow.
3.Handgun/muzzleloader bullet.
4.Rifle bullet.Military FMJ(similar to no.3)
5.Rifle bullet .Hunting softpoint. (Most damage)

For no.5. any moderately powered centrefire rifle, you would be mad not to take the arrow if you had the choice.

Ask any army medic or trauma surgeon.

Rifle bullets blow cavities several times larger than the bullet itself, set up shockwave injuries in organs not even in the bullets path, and splinter bones radially they hit into high speed secondary fragments, which may exit or destroy other tissues in their path.

A rifle wound can be 10 times wider than the bullet in worse case scenarios, with several different types of tissue damage-laceration, crush compression etc.

An arrow can kill you for sure but at least if it hits you in a non vital place it means a surgeon can pull it out later.

A rifle bullet that hits in a non vital area can cause enough damage to produce extensive blood less and shock, and cripple and or destroy the limbs function for ever, depending if it splinters bones.

With handguns all of these effects are much less due to the lower velocity. Generally over 2000fps is needed for the massive cavitation injuries you see with rifles, and handguns are generally 1000fps or less.


However I would still prefer the arrow injury of any bullet. At least if you are still alive after a few minutes you know you are going to survive intact.

Answer 7

I thought kinetic energy was mass*velocity^2.

Sorry I have to say bullet. The shock wave sent through the body when shot with a bullet, actually causes scar tissue to form on organs.

So the holes may be comparable but the overall affect on the body is not.

I feel stupid for answering this question. I am going outside.

Answer 8

If the arrow goes all the way through you it won't do more damage because you could snap it at an end and take it out.

Answer 9

i'd rather not get hit by any projectile... but here's the facts
an arrow will remain solid when it hits it's target.
bullets are designed to expand/burst into fragments upon impact. (that's why exit wounds are larger than enter wounds)
thus, a bullet will cause far more damage than an arrow.

Answer 10

A choice of the two? I would pick the one (probably arrow, and specify shot placement to avoid the certainty of a quick kill, but lethal nonetheless) that would permit me to "linger" in extreme pain and hopelessness of my own survival. My last experience with a body should include great pain and a mindset that would have me think in ways heretofore literally unimaginable.