Gun shot had no effect? - The Revenant (2016) Discussion

[–] sofkat 8 years ago

under the duress of such an attack, it doesn't take much for a shot to go astray, even at that range. the difference between the barrel pointing at the bears head, and then pointing at the bars shoulder is not much distance wise, and can happen in a split second, caused by tripping and panic, etc. I'm guessing he wounded the bear, possibly only grazed its shoulder.
for what its worth, I've seen animals run for 30-40 metres after being blasted through the heart with a high powered rifle.
Adrenaline can launch a rocket!

reply

[–] writinman2004 8 years ago

He didn't miss. He hit him in the side of the neck. They clearly show the bear weakened and bleeding from the wound. It was likely what eventually killed the bear (more so than Glass stabbing it).

reply

[–] thelostmachine 8 years ago

A single gunshot to kill a grizzly... are you kidding me? You've watched to many movies where people die instantly from a throwing star and/or a karate chop to the neck lol. In all actuality a single gun shot and a few stabs with a knife wouldn't be able to kill one of these creatures. A head shot might not even take out a grizzly... (In real life)

There is atleast one person though who has survived a grizzly attack under these circumstances, his name is Leonardo De Caprio... in a film called "the Revenant"

reply

[–] Tarquin_Q_Zanzibar 8 years ago

"There is atleast one person though who has survived a grizzly attack under these circumstances, his name is Leonardo De Caprio... in a film called "the Revenant"

Di Caprio? I don't think surviving the perils of green screen is really quite the same thing.

But you are right; there is "at least one person who has survived a grizzly attack under these circumstances"... and his name was Hugh Glass, and this film is based upon his own experiences.

"You've got lovely eyes Dee-Dee, never noticed them before, are they real?"

reply

[–] thelostmachine 8 years ago

An RPG might kill a grizzly with a single shot (might)

:)

reply

[–] sayhi2steph 8 years ago

I just watched a film about the fur traders that talked about the type of guns they took with them. It said they were not reliable at all for bear encounters, which were quite common. Especially at close range when you only have time to fire once.

reply

[–] gottaluvafriend 8 years ago

Something did happen. The shot did not miss as evidenced by the bear's howl. If you watch it again you'll see that the bear shows a little weariness as he's attacking the protagonist the second time.

reply

[–] LAV25USMC 8 years ago

Although certainly lethal, the muzzle loading muskets from the early 19th century (isn't the movie set in the 1820's?) did not have near the velocity of the muzzle loading "rifles" that came into use about 20-30 years later. The rifling makes a huge difference compared to the smooth bore of those early muskets.

In addition, the lead ball that musket shot was relatively small compared to the "Minnie ball" used by the later rifles. Coupled with the lower velocity the amount of energy that hit the grizzly, while enough to sting it and make it howl, was not nearly enough to stop it in one shot. If I remember correctly, many mountain men carried 2 or 3 loaded muskets while out hunting.

As someone else pointed out, even modern rifles with high powered ammunition do not necessary guarantee a kill of a grizzly. Especially when enraged.

reply

[–] thingading 8 years ago

This is a reasonable question and I can understand why someone would ask it.

I recently watched a documentary on Lewis & Clark's expedition West, which would have only been about 15-20 years before this.

They state in their journals not only their surprise at how many grizzly bears they've encounters, but their amazement at how many shots it takes to finally kill just one. Their hides are extremely thick, which adds to the problem.

I'm assuming the gun technology had not improved that much since Lewis & Clark, and they were likely fitted with the best rifles since they were on an expedition funded by the government.

One shot from Glass, even at close range, would not do much, and even if it did hit the bear in a vulnerable area, it likely would have taken a time for it to kill it, which is why the grizzly just continued to have its way with him.

Afterwards, I got to thinking if he shot in part so that his companions would come, and not so much because he thought he would kill it. With his experience, he would have likely known one shot wasn't going to do much good.

reply

[–] silentmovie 8 years ago

Read "Undaunted Courage: Meriwether Lewis, Thomas Jefferson, and the Opening of the American West" by Stephen Ambrose. A lot of grizzlies were encountered and a lot were shot and killed in the expedition. Amazingly, not a single man died. They ate a lot of bear meat on that trip. Diary entries talk about how early in the expedition, the men nervously laughed-off the scary bear attacks, but as the attacks persisted, almost on a daily basis, the men became "discouraged." Not surprising. Not easy to kill an enraged, charging grizzly bear, even with a rifle. I assume it would take many well aimed shots.

reply

[–] thingading 8 years ago

Always make me laugh when some people say things about certain predators like, "Remember, they're more afraid of you than you are of them." lol. No they're not, most humans are terrified of being in the water with sharks or around grizzly bears, etc. And if the animals are "so afraid of us" then why do some bite/attack when the human just wants them to go away? Grizzlies especially seem to have no problem going after people. Even if it's out of fear, it still scares the human a heck of a lot more than the animal...

reply

[–] MrsAlpert 8 years ago

I saw a grizzly from the safe distance of a cruise ship and it still scared me a little. With grizz you do not mess.

reply

[–] KingCobra686 8 years ago

From a cruise ship?

reply

[–] KingCobra686 8 years ago

He hit the bear in the shoulder. You can see it bleeding in some of the shots.

It seems like you are asking why the bear didnt immediately die from a bullet. Keep in mind that humans can survive gun wounds from much more powerful guns if the bullet doesnt hit certain areas. Bears are no different.

reply

[–] orrdaniel398 8 years ago

King Cobra I know every gun shot is not immediately fatal. What I was questioning was the fact that there seemed to be no impact at all when he fired, as if he were firing blanks. I guess I'm used to war movies where they show a close-up of the bullet's impact with a huge blood splatter in super slow-motion, and the victim crying out in pain and clutching at his wounds before falling to the ground. This all happened so fast that I wasn't even sure if he hit the bear. But other posters have convinced me that a grizzly cannot be taken down with one shot even if you are close, and it is also true that the black powder muskets they had in the earlier 1800's are nothing like what is available today. You would probably need an elephant gun or something similar - I'm not a hunter but probably something really big.

reply

[–] sofkat 8 years ago

Yep, thats exactly right. Hollywood, typically, needs to exaggerate a gunshot wound purely for effect.
Its a proven fact that a bullet, no matter the calibre, cannot throw a human or an animal backwards, because it doesn't have the required mass to do so. Its pure physics.
If, for example, a person is shot in the stomach at point blank range by a 44 magnum handgun, the person would NOT be thrown back, ala Dirty Harry. If on the other hand, that same person is shot by a big cannon ball out of a big cannon, then he WOULD be thrown back, because the cannon ball has the required mass and energy to achieve this.
Apparently there are cases where sometimes the person doesn't even know he's been shot, and only realises it when the internal damage that the bullet makes starts to take effect.
Some of the reasons that a person falls after being shot is:
1. Shock, if they realise that they have been shot.
2. Internal damage that incapacitates the persons ability to stand, e.g. shot through the spine, or kneecap.
3. Being dead. (Being shot through the brain will stretch you out pretty quickly)

How does all this relate to your question about the bear? I think most of it applies, except for one thing.
The bear, and pretty much any other animal, doesn't have the mental capacity to realise that its been shot by a gun. So the animal won't stop until it cant move from its injuries, or until its actually dead. They literally dont know that they're dead, or dying.

reply

[–] KingCobra686 8 years ago

I guess I'm used to war movies where they show a close-up of the bullet's impact with a huge blood splatter in super slow-motion, and the victim crying out in pain and clutching at his wounds before falling to the ground.

Yep thats probably your answer right there haha.

All we really know is that the shot didnt kill the bear on impact and it didnt incapacitate it enough to stop it from charging him. It might have caused a lot of internal damage and bleeding, or it might not have done much at all beyond superficial injuries. I would say its a pretty realistic portrayal of what would probably happen if you shot a bear with a gun like that.

And like the other poster said, bullets never throw people back like a lot of movies show. Conservation of momentum is the reason for that. Momentum is mass times velocity. A small mass (bullet) x large bullet velocity will turn into a large mass (bullet + bear) x a very small velocity.

reply