Nobody's pointed out the exploding bullets enormous plot hole - The Day of the Jackal (1973) Discussion

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 17 years ago

Right, you obviously don't understand how those bullets work. They provide a concussive effect which makes whatever its struck explode from the inside out. The bullet itself does not actually "explode". Either I'm misreading what you're trying to say or you think that an exploding bullet is the same thing as, say, an RPG.

There was a large puff of smoke (well comparatively large) when the bullet meant for De Gaulle struck the pavement. And the gendarme was shot in the chest so the effects would not be readily apparent.

"General, how does a child shot with a 303 Lee-Enfield "apply" for help?"

reply

[–] jgroub 17 years ago

Hmmm. Well, I suppose you know more about these bullets than I do, so I'll give you that. But I did think that there would be a bit more than just a puff of smoke when it hit the roadway, such that they would have noticed. Maybe not necessarily a "boom," but at least a "Holy sh!t! Someone's shooting at DeGaulle!" It seems to me that these bullets would have at least accomplished that so that there would really be almost no chance of a second shot.

I would also have expected, given the explosion of the melon, that there would be ketchup everywhere when he shot the gendarme at the end.

By the way, is your sig from Gandhi?

I asked the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

[–] turtletommy 17 years ago

Yeah I can see where you would feel puzzled about the exploding bullets I don't think that was very clear to a lot of us. I think Hancock's explanation makes sense. I'm thinking the mercury in them was meant to add more mass (please someone correct me if I'm wrong) since it's a heavy metal right? So in the same way an armor-piercing projectile with a depleted-uranium core is used to penetrate a tank's armor and then rattle around inside to inflict maximum damage, the same in a way with those "exploding" bullets. Hollow point bullets are used for similar effect- when they hit a target they are meant to deform much more than a regular round and cause much more internal damage than a normal bullet that could just go right through a target and cause much less, if it didn't hit bone let's say. The police HATE crooks using hollow point bullets. I'm not sure the USA military uses hollow-point or similar ammunition- it may be internationally outlawed. I know in the past in Somalia (the Black Hawk Down setting) US troops would shoot at insurgents with their standard-issue ammo and complain that the high velocity rounds would go right through them and they would keep coming. They didn't have enough initial stopping power and that kept putting them at risk.

As far as the shot in the movie that missed De Gaulle and hit the pavement - that didn't seem to be done very well special effects-wise - not sure if the bullet would have vaporized like it seemed to do when hitting the pavement- or maybe that was supposed to be wisp of dust/pavement coming up on the ricochet. But any noise it may have made could have been muffled by the music playing and crowd noise etc. Plus in all that excitement possibly people wouldn't be as alert or focussed in to an actual gunshot hitting the ground. But yes you'd think all the police etc would be since they were on high-alert for something to happen. Remember too that the Jackal used a silencer which in reality would make more noise than they always do in the movies but would still muffle the sound somewhat.

reply

[–] jgroub 17 years ago

I don't know about mercury's effects, other than that it's a poison if it gets in the bloodstream, which was not the point of having the bullets be explosive. Like you finally ended up saying, regardless of the noise or lack thereof, the 100,000 police would have been on incredibly high alert for anything weird, like the bullet hitting the ground just a few feet from De Gaulle.

And the bullet wouldn't have just evaporated in a puff of smoke. It would have caused pavement fragments to go flying, and someone nearby would have gone "ouch" from this. (Like in the Kennedy assassination; a bystander was struck with curb fragments from a missed shot.) This wasn't well-handled by the movie, and they made it an important plot point.

I asked the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

[–] turtletommy 17 years ago

I seem to recall a lot of space behind De Gaulle in that scene. Again, if the initial gunshot is muffled by the distance and the music playing it would make it that much harder to connect the gun's report to a ricochet and/or some fragments occurring behind De Gaulle. You hear a gun shot, you instinctively expect to see or hear that gun shot's effect if it's fairly close to you. Just to have some fragments pop up suddenly may not automatically make even the police conclude it was from a gunshot if they didn't hear anything. Were there 10,000 eyeballs glued to the spot behind De Gaulle when the bullet struck?

I think you misunderstood what I said about the "exploding" bullets and the mercury. They were never designed to explode and certainly the mercury it stands to reason wasn't meant to instantaneously poison De Gaulle even if that was remotely possible! It can only be that it was used to effect more of a kinetic shock to its target. Any "explosion" as Hancock said wasn't from an explosive charge in the bullet tip going off but from the target's tissue/body reacting to the shock of the impact hitting it. Explosive bullet is sort of an inaccurate description.

Well you seem to be more unwillingly by your posts than some to suspend a bit of disbelief while watching what is undeniably a classic of its genre. Personally I don't think any lapses in logic in the film are so out there to warrant much criticism.

Actually if someone wants to poke holes in the plot or film some of us thought that the shooting of The Jackal by the detective at the end and sending him flying UPWARD against the wall was pretty farfetched and undoubtedly impossible to do. It looked great and was a satisfactory way to send the Jackal to his maker but from what I've read that particular automatic gun he used wouldn't have had enough punch to do that at all. Maybe with a .50 caliber machine gun at point blank range, I don't know.

reply

[–] jgroub 17 years ago

Hey, baby, I willingly suspend disbelief all the time. (:-) It's just that they went waaaay out of their way to make this exploding bullet thing an important plot point. They didn't have to go off on that tangent, showing him getting the special bullets from the gunmaker, buying the melon, shooting it, having it explode, etc., if they then weren't going to make the bullet "explode" when it hit the bricks next to De Gaulle. That's my point.

Yes, this was a very good film; I'll give it that. I knew that going in. It was good even though I knew De Gaulle was going to survive and that the Jackal was going to buy it (see my other thread on that topic). It's just that this exploding bullet thing was made a big deal out of, and it didn't have to be. I would have bought it that the silencer slowed down a regular lead bullet enough to make it go "puff" when it hit the ground. But if they're gonna make a big deal about using an exploding bullet, then I wanna see an explosion. I'm entitled.

As for your theory that the mercury makes the bullet heavier, at first I was going to say that I didn't think that was quite right because mercury is 80 on the periodic table and good old fashioned lead is 82. But then I looked at their specific density, and mercury is 13.5 grams per cubic centimeter, while lead is only 11.34. That doesn't make any sense to me why that should be, but if it's true, it's true: mercury is denser than lead. So that's weird, but you are right, my friend. I wouldn't have expected that.

As for your point about the 10,000 eyes (I think they said they would have 100,000 cops on the street), I still don't buy it. Every single one of them has been told that an assassination attempt is going to happen. This is the last part of the parade. They are all anticipating it. Then there's a small (and from what I'm arguing, it should have been a large) explosion right next to this guy, and you're telling me that because they don't hear a sound, they don't react? These guys are primed and ready to go. That doesn't wash. They'd be jumping up to form a shield around him. That was the point about the "extra-tall cops" line that they found to be his guard for the day.

Now, yes, you're absolutely right, the part where the Jackal gets thrown up against the wall was unrealistic and silly. I think Mythbusters did a test that proved that. But you're right, it's a Hollywood convention, and it's pretty cool. So I am totally willing to suspend disbelief there, because we expect to see that in a movie.

I asked the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

[–] turtletommy 17 years ago

I agree that the exploding bullet thing is a little shaky in how it's shown to work in various moments of the movie. It seems to cause the melon to explode, it doesn't seem to do the same with the soldier/policeman who was shot next to the detective near the end, but again in the moments before does seem to "explode" or vaporize on the ground when the Jackal shoots at De Gaulle. I'd like to hear others who may be more knowledgeable on the subject weigh in on it.

All 100,000 eyes by the way wouldn't be looking directly at De Gaulle or even the area he was in- ever see U.S. Secret Service in action? No one is looking at the President! I'm just messing around because I know what you mean. (<:

Finally, you know, in all honesty I don't think the exploding bullet part of the film was necessarily made a "big deal" out of - it was just an added thing to spice things up a little. It was a way to make this assassination seem even more probable (with one shot) but in reality a trained sniper I reckon in the same circumstances with a conventional bullet (and maybe a larger caliber rifle) would nail the target just as well. This happened a lot in WW2 for instance with some remarkable sniping. I realize though that it is an important plot point that the Jackal could be limited in what he could smuggle into France vis a vis a larger caliber rifle (such as a military .50 cal sniper rifle) even in pieces. But with a trained sniper shooting that larger caliber from the relatively short distance in the film De Gaulle would probably be a dead duck. But again (<: could the Jackal silence a rifle that large and not be discovered before he escaped like he wanted to? Lots of what, ifs and buts!

Update- I just watched it again. Gotta admit that the Jackal's shot that missed De Gaulle did occur pretty close to a large viewing stand full of people so probably hard for them to miss that.

When the policeman was struck by the Jackal's shot after busting thru the door of the flat it sure made a loud "whump!" sound like the guy's midsection was turned to jelly! So even though it wasn't obvious I think that bullet did its exploding trick on him.

Since the Jackal's shot at De Gaulle and the police storming into the flat before he could shoot at him again were just seconds apart that wouldn't have given the rest of the 100,000 police and people supposedly involved in this manhunt time to mount much of a response. But, I do have to say, that doesn't explain why when after the Jackal is killed the next scene shows the street scene below with De Gaulle saluting veterans as if nothing had happened and nobody in a panic. (<: You'd think everyone below on the street and rooftops would have heard the machine gun fire coming from that flat and De Gaulle would have been immediately hustled away. Even if that scene with him saluting standing next to the viewing stand was possibly a fast-forward in time to after the situation had been deemed okay. Alrighty then, I do have a problem with how that seemed to be handled but I still love the flick what can I say! (<:

reply

[–] jgroub 17 years ago

You mean 200,000 eyes, dontcha? But yeah, you're right about their looking at anything but the person they're guarding.

Still, as you pointed out with your re-viewing of the movie, somebody would have noticed that puff of smoke, or at least heard the machine gun fire, and there would have been much panic and hustling.

Thanks for admitting you have a problem with it. I went through a whole series of posts on the Invasion of Body Snatchers board about whether the main character became a pod at the end, and after much cajoling, I re-viewed the end and decided that I was flat out wrong. It's sort of rare on these boards. Nice to have someone else do it for a change!

I asked the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

[–] turtletommy 17 years ago

I wasn't flat out wrong just changed my opinion a little. (wink)

Oh one other thing, I read somewhere else on some film review site a reviewer saying that at the end of the movie after Lebel has shot the Jackal you see him looking out the window (I assume at De Gaulle below) and the reviewer says Lebel was thinking to himself that De Gaulle has no idea how close he came to being killed. The assumption then is that everything else outside that flat just went along as if nothing had happened. No one heard the machine gun fire? I'd like to find out if that was in the book. I could maybe see that happening if silencers were involved but not that machine gun and police pretty close by like on the rooftops. By the way, I'm now a little troubled that Lebel didn't have any type of weapon on him that day. France may have been like Britain is or was with police generally unarmed, but not in those circumstances! Lebel was back on duty as well. I still like the film I do.

reply

[–] lwi101 14 years ago

In the book it is explained that the bullets are hollowed and contain mercury. When the bullet hits, the mercury is still moving and the momentum caused the bullet to "blossom". The same idea as a Dum Dum bullet. There is no explosive in the bullets. As to the melon, it contains a lot of water, which is incompressible, so it doesn't take much pressure inside to make the water expand and explode. It is physics, not chemistry. Watch "Mail Call" and see what Gunney does to all those poor melons. It has to do with the energy contained in the bullet, not much mass but a lot of velocity, plus the high speed expansion of the mercury. When it hit the sidewalk, it would have spread like a water drop, not made an explosive noise. The smoke could have been dust created by the impact.

reply

[–] anghmho 14 years ago

At last, a reply from somebody who knows what the hell he's talking about, unlike others who seem to be farting out the wrong end. BTW, before somebody posts a question about what kind of cartridge the Jackal uses (I have seen so many misinformed posts), let me settle that right now. It's a .22 Long Rifle. If you want to confirm that visually, compare the scene in the film where the Jackal holds the cartridge in his hand to the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Long_Rifle I know whereof I speak. The Remington Nylon 66 is my favorite rifle, and the .22LR is my favorite cartridge.

If you think that such a small bullet won't kill somebody, know this: It's the Mafia's preferred assassination weapon. You simply walk up to the victim in a crowded public place, put the pistol to his head, fire, and walk away into the crowd and make a clean getaway. Done many times.

When a bullet such as this is enhanced as "explosive," and the target is the head, the bullet will :blossom" into the head, as the previous poster puts it, and the fragments will cause so much brain damage that the victim will die on the spot. Or as good as.

reply

[–] sascha-17 13 years ago

It's a .22 Long Rifle. If you want to confirm that visually, compare the scene in the film where the Jackal holds the cartridge in his hand to the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Long_Rifle I know whereof I speak. The Remington Nylon 66 is my favorite rifle, and the .22LR is my favorite cartridge.

I beg to differ. Here's the rifle-scene on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUm3W2fen-s&feature=related

Go to 1:48 and check out the cartridges. They look too long for LR, more like .22 Magnum I'd say.

.22 LR and Magnum side by side:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/22_Long%2C_22_LR%2C _22_Winchester_Magnum.JPG

In any case: Having shot .22 LR, .22 Stinger and .22 Magnum, I'd say .22 Magnum is the sensible choice for this job. Since he has to take the shot from a fair distance (as demonstrated in the melon-scene), he needs all the punch he can get to ensure a single-hit kill. Mercury or not: A single .22 LR for a headshot at 25-50 meters would be too weak and thus unreliable for my taste.

S.

reply

[–] RichEyles 13 years ago

Got to agree with Sascha-17. Pretty sure it's a .22WMR and not .22LR.

reply

[–] joscco 13 years ago

Agreed. It's a .22 Magnum, and for its size, a regular hollow point is devastating. Pictures of animals hit by them aren't pretty.

"I told you it was off." The Jackal

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ATerribleJest 17 years ago

OK. I know this is kinda late, but I'm something of a firearms afficiando and I also have seventeen years as a Crime Scene Specialist with a major police department.

The mercury bullets were not actually "exploding" in the normal sense of going BOOM !!! The mercury, not being secured to the bullet in any way, is thrown to the back of the hollowed bullet when that bullet is fired. When the projectile strikes anything it is slowed, however slightly. HOWEVER, the mercury is still travelling at the original speed of the projectile and is thrown into the front of the bullet, causing it to strike the front of the bullet with its original velocity. This forces the kinetic energy of the mercury to blow out the front of the bullet, causing little hunks of lead to spew out in all directions. This would create a much more massive wound in theory.

Having read the book several years before the movie came out, I think Forsythe just used the mercury bullets to pad the story by a few pages.(Possibly having been paid by the word.) The effects attributed to these mercury slugs can easily be achieved by any soft point or hollow point bullet readily available at any sporting goods store.

reply

[–] bobsphotography2000 16 years ago

I think you are misunderstanding the actual bullets.

As someone else pointed out, they don't "explode" like a firecracker or bomb. The damage they cause is so severe that it might look like somebody had an explosion on the inside of the body. But the bullets do what they do based upon physics and mass and velocity... as someone else pointed out.

The massive damage inflicted is from the internal mass of the victim being pushed out the opposite side of the victims body. Small hole on the entry.... massive hole on the exiting side where guts and such are being pushed out... rather than bored through.... with a regular bullet.

I can't explain physics. Sorry. But thats all it is. But the bullets are not explosive. They don't blow up.

And as for hitting the ground and making a puff of dirt? Well, thats all they would do. The same as any bullet. I agree, though, somebody somewhere in the background would have said, "ouch."

reply

[–] schumithecat 10 years ago

re: the jackyl being launched through the air when shot (a common Hollywood thing) it doesn't happen in real life when shot with any type of gun, the bullet may pass through cleanly or it may stay in the body, but either way bullets simply don't launch people through the air. they tested this on mythbusters (no on real bodies obviously but on surrogates), plus recall physics, equal and opposite reaction -- if being hit by bullet imparted enough kinetic energy to launch the victim then shooting the gun the recoil would throw the shooter backwards.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] e76549 16 years ago

I think the book said the hot sun made the pavement soft enough to absorb the mercury bullet that missed Charles de Gaulle without much notice, but I do not know if it would be that way in real life.

The way the cop's body reacted to being shot by the mercury bullet, without any visible on camera mess, does not seem to be what we would expect after seeing such a bullet explode the melon. And of course some interesting questions have been raised about the way the Jackal's body behaved after being shot by the machine gun.

The open window even on a very hot day might have been more noticed by the security forces. The machine gun fire noise that killed the Jackal in his sniper's nest room might have been more obvious outside, unless it happened at some point during the ceremony when other noises may have masked it.

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 17 years ago

(This is sort of an omnibus reply to your other posts on the thread...)

I'm sorry if I came across as kind of a jerk, I didn't mean to. I'm not a ballistics expert by any means, although I know a fair amount I think. They explain in detail how the bullets work in the novel so read that if you haven't already (and get a chance).

I think that you could explain the gendarme's lack of blood as being any of the following:

1) censorship (not likely given that it was basically a European film made in the '70s)
2) Zinneman wasn't big on graphic violence
3) The briefness of the camera angle on him
4) He was wearing a dark uniform so blood effect wouldn't be visible
5) He was shot at point-blank range so the bullet probably went through him without exploding

I think it's a combination of 2 and 5 myself (Zinneman was an old-school director and didn't think highly of graphic volence, but there's probably a "real" explanation too). The bullet hasn't really generated much velocity at a distance of ten feet or less so its full effect probably wasn't registered.

Also to address a point above about the crowd not hearing the machine gun fire... It's been a few months since I've read the book but the basic explanation is that the French government covered the whole thing up. The police told the public that the machine gun was a firecracker or back-fire from a motorcycle, I forget which. If you read any story about shootings/assassinations (particularly the JFK assassination) you'll note that the first gunshot is rarely identified as a gunshot.

Also, the exploding bullet was intended for dramatic effect. I think "nothing is made of it", as you say above, only because he failed. The Jackal wanted a psychological effect to be applied; if De Gaulle's head exploded into red mist in front of hundreds of thousands of people, can you imagine how shocking that would be to everyone? The OAS's message would be delivered loud and clear.

Yes, my sig's from Gandhi. Just watched it for the first time last week, I thought it was brilliant.

"General, how does a child shot with a 303 Lee-Enfield "apply" for help?"

reply

[–] turtletommy 17 years ago

Good post thanks. I was making some comments without detailed memory of the novel which I had read decades ago, and it does indeed seem as with many films based on novels more info and explanations are given in the books. The novel is sited by so many people as so particularly brilliantly set up and crafted that one wonders if Forsyth's story has so many unreasonable plot holes in it!

I always thought the amount or lack of blood (and violence) in the film was as you said more a conscious artistic decision by Zinneman. The bloodiest scene was when the bag guy at the end gets shot against the wall leaving it smeared with his blood. The gendarme getting shot into and falling on his stomach (?) needn't have been (and wasn't) as dramatic as the Jackal getting his comeuppance right after that. The way the gendarme fell instantly dead though seems to discount him being shot through by the round doesn't it? Unless it went through the heart or spine who knows. The sound the round made when it hit him was like a big whumpfff so I think the round did its exploding thing. No matter this is just "fun" speculation.

reply

[–] jgroub 17 years ago

No, not a jerk. A bit of a know-it-all perhaps, but I've seen and dealt with much worse on these boards. I appreciate the reply. Don't even mention it.

The lack of blood on the gendarme's uniform doesn't really concern me. But I gotta disagree with both you and turtle. They DID make a big deal out of the whole exploding bullet thing. They went off on it for a good five minutes, between the Jackal and the gunsmith, the test firing, the handling of the bullets, their special packing (all wrapped up) right before he loads them into the gun. Then they didn't have a payoff at the end.

But you said something that was far more intriguing - that this movie/book has some basis in reality? I thought it was a work of pure fiction. Or are you saying in the universe of the book that it was covered up? If not, can you point me to a website that has more info on this? (Yes, I'm too lazy to Google it.) I agree that seeing De Gaulle's head disappear into a fine red mist would have sent a pretty impressive message.

Yes, it would be possible to come up with a cover up for the sound of the machine gun fire as being fireworks, but I don't think that would be too believable. I hear ya on the JFK thing (I'm a JFK assassination buff myself) that the first shot is always identifiable, but this was a stream of shots, and there would be plenty of WW II vets in that crowd (including the guys getting medals from De Gaulle) who could identify that sound.

Our star, Edward Fox, was in Gandhi too, wasn't he? Wasn't he the general of whom they asked the question that your sig refers to? The one who mowed down all the people? I haven't seen the movie in 25 years, but I remember that I wanted to tear him a new a$$hole in that scene.

I asked the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 17 years ago

Well this movie was not based on a true story, I meant within the universe of the film/book. But they do give reason as to why nobody seemed to react in the book. Of course the OAS was real and the opening attempt on De Gaulle's life really happened, but the case of the Jackal was fictional. Forsythe did know a great deal about how assassins and criminals worked however, and probably cobbled the character together from a composite of cases he'd covered as a journalist.

Yeah, Edward Fox was General Dyer at Amritsar. Very nasty character, Dyer was.

"If you'd been able to get the armored car into the square, would you have used the machine gun?"
"Yes, I probably would have."

"General, how does a child shot with a 303 Lee-Enfield "apply" for help?"

reply

[–] jgroub 17 years ago

Yup, that was the line I found particularly chilling and repulsive. And he meant it, too.

I asked the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

[–] Noir-It-All 16 years ago

I saw an old newsreel of that scene. It was awful. Something awful about seeing men dressed as Indians did being hurt that way.

"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne

reply

[–] jejozi 12 years ago

I thought the same thing. The melon explodes as if an M-80 was packed inside of it, and there just a little puff of smoke on the street and nothing with the policeman. He certainly wouldn't have just fallen forward. There should have been SOME kind of reaction, even if we follow your explanation. Also, there would have been a ricochet, which makes a sound, off the street and at least one person would have been hit by the shrapnel of the slug. Yet the ceremony continues, totally oblivious to the fact that someone just took a shot at the president. That and, after just putting holes in the door of the flat, it didn't blow it open, the Jackal flying across the room and just about hitting the ceiling after being shot seemed a bit over the top.

This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.

reply

[–] autopro50 17 years ago

the exploding bullets thing is pretty silly but sounds cool. There are large caliber (.50) bullets made with explosive tips used for antiaircraft and other purposes, but I don't think it's physically possible to make them in the very small caliber (looked like under .25) that the Jackal uses. You could make a melon expode like in the movie just by using hollow point bullets.

reply

[–] anghmho 13 years ago

Excuse me, but you should research a subject at least a little before you make such an ill-informed post. Please read ALL the posts on exploding bullets. You will then know what is meant by "exploding bullet" and HOW they do the damage they do. Better yet, read the book to understand how they are made. Exploding bullets can easily be made in the caliber the Jackal used (.22 Long Rifle). What makes this film so great is that everything the Jackal did was possible--and easy. He COULD have pulled if off.

reply

[–] sharonpullman 17 years ago

When bullets are refered to as "exploding", it only means they expand very rapidly or desintegrate when they strike a target. So the expansion slows the bullet down very rapidly after it hits the target and it releases most if not all of its energy into the target. They don't actually explode like they are filled with explosives. The puff of smoke you saw when he missed DeGaulle was right on. You would have heard very little and the hard pavement would cause an "exploding" bullet (which is very unstable upon impact) to practically vaporize.

reply

[–] Writ_in_Water 17 years ago

A direct quote from the novel (apologies to those w/ weak stomachs):

"Far too complex to be used en masse except if factory-produced, banned by the Geneva Convention, more vicious than the simple dum-dum, the explosive bullet would go off like a small grenade when it hit the human body. On firing, the droplet of mercury would be slammed back in its cavity by the forward rush of the bullet, as when a car passenger is pressed into his seat by a violent acceleration. As soon as the bullet struck flesh, gristle, or bone, it would experience a sudden deceleration. The effect on the mercury would be to hurl the droplet forwards toward the plugged front of the bullet. Here its onward rush would rip away the tip of the slug, splaying the lead outwards like the fingers of an open hand or the petals of a blossoming flower. In this shape the leaded projectile would tear through nerve and tissue, ripping, cutting, slicing, leaving fragments of itself over an area the size of a teasaucer. Hitting the head, such a bullet would not emerge, but would demolish everything inside the cranium, forcing the bone-shell to fragment."

reply

[–] davek22 16 years ago

For further film viewing on this I recommend In Bruges. That film has similar issues as one character gets shot in the midriff with a hollow point but does not die immediatly but another is hit in the head and litterally looses his head. Is the mercury bullet dependant ok striking bone for it's effect? If it missed the gendarmes ribs and spine then it wouldn't explode?

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 16 years ago

That's my guess. I'm not an expert on this issue but I don't think soft tissue would have the same affect as bone. Or more particularly the skull. I'd imagine most of the damage would be internal in the case of being shot in the torso.

Let us drink, gentlemen, till we roll under the table in vomit and oblivion!

reply

[–] Noir-It-All 16 years ago

I think the handsome gendarme was played by the same actor that played Frog One's new Frog Two in French Connection 2. I think the actor died after living a short, drug-filled life.

"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 16 years ago

I think you're thinking of the gentleman at the train station. Phillipe Leotard, a well-known French singer/actor, played the gendarme at the end. He died in 2001 - ironically on Liberation Day, August 25th.

REPENT, you son of a bitch!

reply

[–] Nomad-1968 16 years ago

The 'exploding' bullet, as already mentioned, is designed to cause massive internal damage to the victim's internal organs and maximise the wound effect. If the Jackal has time for only one shot and is using a small calibre rifle then it makes sense to use an 'exploding'/dum dum round. I don't agree that he chose this round just for public 'effect' - it would have been more expedient to use this type of bullet to ensure that his shot was a 'kill shot'.

reply

[–] anghmho 14 years ago

Well put. I can't imagine why so many posters can't grasp this simple concept.

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

Do you apply the same principle to the alleged Grassy Knoll shooter in the Kennedy Assassination, or do you think no one will know who you are here?

Let's kick some ICE!

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

So are you saying the Grassy Knoll shooter went flying backwards across the Grassy Knoll?

Let's kick some ICE!

reply

[–] jd-276 15 years ago

Movies of that era didn't focus on gore the way they do today. Shot is shot and dead is dead. The mechanics and the morbidity didn't matter much then. On top of that, there weren't a lot of options available to the special effects people. Certainly not like today.

To be honest, I didn't really care that his body didn't explode.

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

I'd have to agree, although this was the era of The Wild Bunch, Bonnie and Clyde and The Godfather films. Blood and gore were already in vogue and being used in mainstream films. I think it's more an issue that Zinnemann was an old-school director with little fondness for graphic violence.

Whatever happens, we have got/The Maxim Gun, and they have not!

reply

[–] jd-276 15 years ago

Good point. Peckinpah was leading the charge on that score but people knew well enough what to expect from him. I liked Bonnie and Clyde up to a point but I've never been into splatter fests. I'd have to side with Zinnemann.

reply

[–] jmac-20 15 years ago

The issue of what the term 'exploading bullet' and what it really means has been covered pretty concisely imho.

Let me address the other related notes.

It's _possible_ that the angle the shot was taken from (or at least a little plausible) that it 'skimmed' the pavement it made contact with - like a rock or a shell across water, so the dust rising was from that skimming, not the bullet fully disintegrating as it digs into the ground.

THe bullet never 'truly' explodes, but the human head (and it would have been for a sure kill that the Jackal went with said rounds, no other reason, the main point of his character is that he does whatever it takes (including hooking up with a man in a steamhouse for a place to stay undetected for a day or two) to get the job done, he is single minded about that.

Now whilst the bullet never truly explodes in teh real sense, a watermelon is a bit softer than a human head, one could (if trained) punch into a watermelon with a fist or a small hammer - strike well through the surface, perhaps not out the other side. try that on a human skull, not going to happen to the same extent.

So the effect might be more pronounced on a watermelon. BUT problably not AS pronounced as is shown in the film. In the end, I suspect Zinneman chose a little artistic licence there, to get the point across. I suppose he could have fired the final shot, then gotten the watermelon down, cut it in half an showed the internal cross section with most of the core ripped apart.

reply

[–] oddjob1 15 years ago

The other problem with mercury is that the bullet would be inaccurate due to the mercury moving (a liquid) after being fired.

reply

[–] BikeBill 14 years ago

The concept of the exploding bullet has been well and truly explained by the person who posted the excerpt from the novel.

The noise of the machine gun fire within the sniper's nest was passed off, in the book, anyway, as a motorcycle's engine being started at an inappropriate time.

-"BB"-

reply

[–] cableaddict 14 years ago

So much wrong information posted here ....

Exploding bullets (as opposed to fragmenting or hollow point) do exist, and there are several types, most using at least some mercury or mercury-compound. It took me all of 15 minutes to gather the following (slightly paraphrased in spots)

-------

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vBLWL92rfP4J:www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/29-2503.aspx+explosive+tip+bullet&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Potasium doesn't explode, but rather the heat of the reaction (which takes potassium and water atnd turns it into H2 and P2O) ignite the hydrogen that's formed. You can fill a hollow point bullet with mercury and then cover it with wax to keep it in place. (this is 100% illegal and also very, very dangerous.) Mercury doesn't deform the same way as lead or something, and upon impact instead of penetrating, it explodes. One of my teachers watched a coupel college kids do this out in a little-known shooting range and they shot at a rialroad tie--zero pentration, but the explosion blew it railroad tie in half.

==============

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1770159/

The Winchester Black Talon SXT is often falsely called an exploding bullet.1 It is, in fact, a type of expansion bullet. The tip is coated with a black lubricant and has a hollow point possessing six prescored serrations designed rapidly to open outwards upon impact. The jacket of the bullet is thickest at its tip, unlike most hollow point bullets, to provide support for the claw-like petals as the bullet passes through the body. This bullet was voluntarily removed from the market in 1994 and remarketed as the Ranger SXT, and later as the Ranger Talon, both available only to law enforcement officers.

True exploding bullets were first described over a century ago and were prohibited under the St Petersburg Declaration of 1868. Examples include the Russian 7.62 mm ×54R machine gun ammunition with an internal charge of tetryl and phosphorus, and later handgun cartridges containing Pyrodex charges, with or without mercury additives.2

Individuals can easily obtain instructions for the creation of their own bullets. The most infamous use of such bullets was the attempted assassination of President Reagan in 1981 by John Hinckley, who used “Devastator” bullets composed of a lacquer sealed aluminium tip with a lead azide centre designed to explode on impact. They are rarely encountered today, because sales have been restricted following the incident in 1981.

Finally, it is interesting to note that the Devastator bullet was developed in the 1970s for use by sky marshals, to minimise the risk of penetration of the plane fuselage when incapacitating a hijacker; a concept that appears to be returning in light of recent world events.

==============

"I tried explosive bullets with a friend of mine and they worked quite nicely. A .357 bullet filled with 300 mg of PETN or RDX and fuzed with lead azide will explode from hitting practically anything solid. Such bullets make about 10 cm wide holes to a standard cardboard target - they effectively make the center of the target disappear. We also added fine magnesium dust into the explosive to make the hits _very_ visible."

reply

[–] Spudang 14 years ago

The jackal asks the gunsmith "mercury or glycerine?", to which the reply is "mercury, of course, much cleaner".

What would have happened with glycerine bullets?

Do they exist?

Wouldn't they be unstable?

reply

[–] bpcw001 14 years ago

Glycerine is *not* Nitroglycerine.

Glycerine is just a viscous and heavy liquid (it does not explode), but not as heavy as the liquid mercury. They would have put it into the bullet's cap for percussion reasons as they did with the mercury, and *not* for an alleged explosive effect.

Get your physics right about that type of bullets.

reply

[–] anghmho 13 years ago

Not so. All you have to do is drill dead center and true plumb into the bullet before placing the drop of mercury, then carefully solder the hole shut. It ain't rocket science.

reply

[–] anghmho 13 years ago

Not so. All you have to do is drill dead center and true plumb into the bullet before placing the drop of mercury, then carefully solder the hole shut. It ain't rocket science.

reply

[–] spam-1164 14 years ago

In terms of the watermelon, it is an enclosed space with a soft centre and a rigid shell (much like a human skull). The effects of sending a liquid at high velocity into any tightly packed space like that would be devastating and would make the watermelon explode or the skull's contents liquify. A chest cavity contains far more space and soft organs that would deform to make space for the sudden expansion of the liquid, so there would be serious damage inside but no explosive effect. It's the same basic principle that is used in dynamite; ie the black powder itself will burn up rather than explode, but when wrapped tightly in paper it focuses that power and causes an explosion. The tighter the space, the more violent the explosion. When such a bullet hits something solid like the pavement with no compression around it, it would simply vaporise.

Also, I don't think we can discount the choice of mercury for the bullet's core. Not only would it make little noise if it missed (allowing more chance for a second shot), but if the Jackal was forced to go for a chest shot (as was suggested in the scene with the gunsmith) the mercury would ensure the target's death or incapacitation. With that much pure mercury distributed throughout the bloodstream and damage to the chest cavity, death might not be instantaneous but DeGaulle would be in no position to maintain his position at the head of the government. This was all quite well thought out in order to give the Jackal the best chance of success in his mission.

reply

[–] Orbtastic 14 years ago

In simple terms - A skull is harder than a melon, and the pavement is harder than the skull. I really don't understand why people are even asking why the bullet didn't "explode" on the pavement.

reply

[–] anghmho 13 years ago

As someone else pointed out, the skull is rigid, so the contents of the head are not expandable or compressible. So a bullet to the head, particularly a well-placed exploding bullet, would cause severe damage, likely resulting in instant death. The gut, on the other hand, is easily expandable, so death might not occur as quickly as it would with a shot to the head. A shot to the rear end, however, might result in instant death in people who seem to have their brains located in their posteriors. But anybody shot in the chest with an exploding bullet would be incapacitated, not so much by the tiny droplet of mercury but by the severe tissue and organ damage caused by the bullet.

reply

[–] anghmho 13 years ago

As someone else pointed out, the skull is rigid, so the contents of the head are not expandable or compressible. So a bullet to the head, particularly a well-placed exploding bullet, would cause severe damage, likely resulting in instant death. The gut, on the other hand, is easily expandable, so death might not occur as quickly as it would with a shot to the head. A shot to the rear end, however, might result in instant death in people who seem to have their brains located in their posteriors. But anybody shot in the chest with an exploding bullet would be incapacitated, not so much by the tiny droplet of mercury but by the severe tissue and organ damage caused by the bullet.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] garyedgecombe 10 years ago

May i explain these 'exploding' bullets in a little more detail? It's clearly confusing many people, hardly surprising..it's a misleading term! Chemical mass, periodic tables and Uranium don't figure in the equation...just good old fashioned ballistics! Neither has Frederick Forsythe used artistic license in describing Mercury as a component in such a bullet. They exist, they are VERY effective..and are illegal after being banned under the Geneva Convention!
Our gunsmith proceeded as follows;
He cuts the extreme tip of lead off the bullet, just enough to provide a flat surface big enough to accept a 1 - 2 mm drill bit. (depending on the calibre of the cartridge, and the diameter of the lead) He then drills a hole into the bullet directly in line with the percussion cap of the cardridge, ie; straight down through the length of the lead, anything between one third and half way of the bullet length. This hole would be made on a lathe to ensure precision, even a few 10ths of a millimetre would effect the spin of the bullet in flight, and make accuracy next to impossible. A tiny drop of Mercury is then dropped into this hole, and the tip of the bullet reinstated with molten lead..and reshaped to it's original profile. Again..accuracy in the tip is crucial, as this too will affect the behaviour of a bullet in flight.
When such a bullet is fired it will behave normally until it hits it's target, and that's when the clever/gruesome bit comes into play. Upon impact, it deccelerates rapidly..but the drop of liquid Mercury does not. It flies forward down the tunnel created by the drill bit until it reaches the sealed tip of the bullet...exploding the front of it forwards and outwards in tiny fragments.
Such a bullet seldom exits the body, but causes massive and irrepairable damage to internal organs that is almost always fatal.
An horrific weapon...no wonder they're banned!!
That's why the Jackal could afford to employ a small calibre rifle, with such a bullet a large cartridge becomes redundant. It also explains why, when he missed and hit the tarmac, nobody notices. There was no bullet to ricochet, it was in tiny pieces and buried in the ground.
That's what makes this film/book so superb.
Nothing is too absurd, it almost reads like a 'how to' manual.
Hope i've been of help.

reply