In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Mercury in a JHP

cce1302cce1302 Member Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭
edited October 2007 in Ask the Experts
I was reminded of this in the "Shredder" thread:
In Frederick Forsythe's book, The Day of the Jackal, the assassin made his own exploding bullets by putting a drop of mercury into a hollowpoint round and covering it over. The hypothesis was that the mercury would remain at the back of the bullet until it struck flesh, at which point the lead would decelerate faster than the mercury, which would strike the front of the chamber inside the bullet, causing it to explode.

Would this work, and why or why not?

Comments

  • Tailgunner1954Tailgunner1954 Member Posts: 7,734 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Yes and no.
    IF it's used quickly (IE within a few minutes) and the nose seal is tight enough than the mercury drop will tear off the front half of the bullet.
    However, lead will absorb mercury like a sponge, and the resulting mix becomes very soft and overexpands on the surface with very little penatration (think high velocity spitball) IF it even holds together long enough to get to the target.


    'Day of the *" isn't the first time it's been shown, and don't ask how I know what happens when you try it.
  • perry shooterperry shooter Member Posts: 17,105 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Hello Mercury will "AMALGAMATE" with lead . Beside that you can't go in to HOME DEPOT and say give me a quart of mercury . or anywhere else it is a Heavy metal and is a HAZARD to your health. Can you say mercury poison.Now consider your trial there will be one if you shoot someone[:0]. Lawyer yes your honor this man built some exploding ammo but was not "LOOKING" for a fight[xx(][V][:(] Use a 45ACP 230 grain Ball ammo instead and you can say my ammo meets the rules of the Geneva convention[:D]
  • v35v35 Member Posts: 12,710 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    A recent Russian immigrant, who seemed to know a bit about guns, said the Mossad used mercury filled bullets in head shot assassinations using 22s.
    Lead or other metals that don't readily amalgamate with mercury don't have to be present or they can be sealed off with wax.
    If it is true, there are government resources that can work it out since they are govt approved hits.
  • Tailgunner1954Tailgunner1954 Member Posts: 7,734 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    A Russian immigrant knowing details about the Israeli secret service ammo?
    Sounds like a BS rumor to me.
  • cce1302cce1302 Member Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by perry shooter
    Hello Mercury will "AMALGAMATE" with lead . Beside that you can't go in to HOME DEPOT and say give me a quart of mercury . or anywhere else it is a Heavy metal and is a HAZARD to your health. Can you say mercury poison.Now consider your trial there will be one if you shoot someone[:0]. Lawyer yes your honor this man built some exploding ammo but was not "LOOKING" for a fight[xx(][V][:(] Use a 45ACP 230 grain Ball ammo instead and you can say my ammo meets the rules of the Geneva convention[:D]


    I guess I should have put a disclaimer in there "for instructional purposes only" or something to that effect.
    Yes, I can say mercury poisoning. I can also say lead poisoning, which is probably just as relevant to this conversation.
    I don't think anybody was about to try to buy a quart of mercury here. Anybody knows how to get mercury out of a mercury thermometer anyway, which would hypothetically be enough for a couple bullets.

    Thanks for the info about absorption of mercury into the lead though, guys. I think I'll take that info over to General Discussion and put it in one of their "random facts" threads.[:D]
  • competentonecompetentone Member Posts: 4,696 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by perry shooter
    Hello Mercury will "AMALGAMATE" with lead . Beside that you can't go in to HOME DEPOT and say give me a quart of mercury . or anywhere else it is a Heavy metal and is a HAZARD to your health. Can you say mercury poison.

    There are actually no restrictions on buying mercury in small quantities.


    quote:Now consider your trial there will be one if you shoot someone[:0]. Lawyer yes your honor this man built some exploding ammo but was not "LOOKING" for a fight[xx(][V][:(] Use a 45ACP 230 grain Ball ammo instead and you can say my ammo meets the rules of the Geneva convention[:D]


    Clear-cut self-defense cases (like an intruder in your home), almost never go to trail; they are resolved -- and determined to be self-defense -- by the police investigation.

    Please show me an example where the "type" of bullet/ammunition used in a firearm was used as an argument in criminal legal action after a shooting.

    Show me a case where a prosecutor has argued that a gun owner was "looking for a fight" because he used "hollow point" ammunition in a shooting?

    I've never had anyone show me such a case; they just reply with some comment about "something they read in a gun magazine."

    The fact of the matter: The specific ammunition you had loaded in your firearm will be a complete non-issue in determining whether or not a shooting was self-defense.

    To be prepared incase you have to use a firearm to defend yourself, make sure it is loaded with the best ammunition to give you the best chance of coming out of that altercation alive. Know the "rules of engagement" for your state (like whether or not you have an obligation to retreat in a specific circumstance), but don't worry that the ammunition you've chosen might be "used against you" at some point after the shooting.
  • v35v35 Member Posts: 12,710 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    This 35ish Russian Jew was involved in Russian management of a truck stop & fuel operation under investigation by NJ State Police and Treas (my employer)at the time, for taxation violations and Maffia connections.
    I brought my motorhome there for "servicing". The fellow in charge of mechanical repairs held his cards close to the vest but he was friendly and we talked guns. It became clear he was in to guns and their technicalities and while he was a bit guarded this came out.
    It may or may not have been BS.
    Whatever the case, mercury splashed inside a cavity in the brain can't be all that healthful. Amalgamated or not, compounds of heavy metals are extremely toxic. In fact in the form of a soluble compound, mercury may be more toxic than the metal.
    Im sure it wouldn't be much of a project to produce a mercury or nonexplosive compound of mercury filled bullet if it were necessary.
  • AZEXAZEX Member Posts: 1,163 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Please look up the "State of AZ v. Harold Fish" case which was just wrapped up here about 6 mos ago.

    Story goes like this. Retired schoolteacher (Fish) was walking through the National Forest, hiking, and minding his own business. In the woods ahead of him is a man with a history of mental problems, who is 1. living in his car, in the National Forest, illegally. 2. Has with him, besides his own dog, a couple dogs he "borrowed" from the Payson, AZ animal shelter.

    One of them is a Chow (the most useless POS dog ever, IMO) and the dog accosts Mr. Fish and Mr. Fish fearing for his safety, fires a round (10mm) into the ground near the dog, frightening the dog away.

    Crazy dog man comes loping toward Mr. Fish and Mr. Fish warns him "I have a gun". When Crazy dog man does not stop, Mr. Fish puts three rounds into his chest. Mr. Fish sits with Crazy dog man until he "loses oil pressure" and dies.

    The lead detective on the case tells the media that it was a "tragic event, but that Mr. Fish appears to be justified."

    Crazy dog man's family is "connected" somehow back East and pressures the anti-gun scumbag County Atty Terrence Hance to file charges DESPITE a Grand Jury's refusal to indict.

    Mr. Fish is arrested and charged with 2nd degree Murder.

    During Mr. Fish's trial a great deal of emotional hay is made over the fact that he used a 10mm (gasp) "more powerful than the police use!!!!"

    Mr. Fish is found guilty.

    He is currently petitioning for a new trial. Based on some ridiculous prosecutorial misconduct and the fact that the AZ State Legislature changed the law during his trial and switched the burden of proof in a self-defense case BACK to the prosecution (where it always rightly belonged) and NOT on the person who had to defend himself, where it had been since modified in 1997.

    This website will anger you.

    http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/

    D.
  • competentonecompetentone Member Posts: 4,696 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by AZEX
    Please look up the "State of AZ v. Harold Fish" case which was just wrapped up here about 6 mos ago....

    During Mr. Fish's trial a great deal of emotional hay is made over the fact that he used a 10mm (gasp) "more powerful than the police use!!!!"



    Interesting, but without reading a transcript of the trial, I cannot conclude that this was any significant issue in his prosecution.

    I'd guess that his being armed with a firearm while on National Forest property, and questions about whether or not he "retreated" had more to do with his conviction than any comments the prosecutor made about the firearm and ammunition.

    I'm not saying that his conviction is proper, I'm just saying that I suspect the 10mm hollow point issue was a very minor factor when it came to his conviction. The other legal issues (carrying on National Forest property, not retreating when he may have had an obligation to do so) was what actually got him convicted. (Or it could just be a case of his getting a really dumb jury.)

    I would still argue that it is essentially "BS" to argue that the ammunition you choose will "get you in trouble" if you have to defend yourself with a firearm, even if this is a case where a prosecutor tried to use that issue to sway a jury.
  • AZEXAZEX Member Posts: 1,163 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Here's a cut and paste from their Motion for Retrial...

    "This ruling denied to defendant Fish any ability to provide a "complete defense." It prevented him from showing the decedent's capability of inflicting serious physical injury. It created an environment where the jury falsely believed that Grant Kuenzli was unarmed, allowing the prosecutor to argue that one of the two combatants had a powerful 10 mm gun loaded with hollow point bullets while the other had nothing. Under the Court's rationale, the State would have been allowed to deceive the grand jury into believing that the decedent was unarmed while carrying a loaded .45 caliber pistol concealed in his back pocket based solely upon the fact that the concealed loaded gun could not be seen by Mr. Fish."

    National Forest has nothing to do with it. National Parks have (Unconstitutional) restrictions on firearms carriage. Except for tracer or incendiary ammunition, or during fire restrictions, there is no issue with having any type of gun in the National Forest.
  • competentonecompetentone Member Posts: 4,696 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by AZEX
    Here's a cut and paste from their Motion for Retrial...

    "This ruling denied to defendant Fish any ability to provide a "complete defense." It prevented him from showing the decedent's capability of inflicting serious physical injury. It created an environment where the jury falsely believed that Grant Kuenzli was unarmed, allowing the prosecutor to argue that one of the two combatants had a powerful 10 mm gun loaded with hollow point bullets while the other had nothing. Under the Court's rationale, the State would have been allowed to deceive the grand jury into believing that the decedent was unarmed while carrying a loaded .45 caliber pistol concealed in his back pocket based solely upon the fact that the concealed loaded gun could not be seen by Mr. Fish."

    National Forest has nothing to do with it. National Parks have (Unconstitutional) restrictions on firearms carriage. Except for tracer or incendiary ammunition, or during fire restrictions, there is no issue with having any type of gun in the National Forest.


    The appeal issue is about the fact that the dead man had a screw driver in his back pocket, while the prosecutor had argued that he was "unarmed." It doesn't sound like it is any serious focus on the firearm/ammunition, just an attempt by the prosecutor to try to say that the "victim" was unarmed -- when, in fact, he had a weapon.

    Again, I'm not saying this case is not unjust, I'm just saying that I do not think it has much of anything to do with the firearm/ammunition. And even if it does, one case does not mean that a person is at some risk of prosecution because of the ammunition he uses in a self-defense situation. There are significantly more important issues in play, as I suspect is the situation with the case you present.

    Not sure about the National Parks carrying issue, but if you end up shooting an essentially "unarmed" person -- or one that the prosecutor argues is unarmed -- and you have not made an attempt to "retreat" first, while you're in public, you can expect a serious police investigation.

    My point again is that is it wiser to know the laws relating to self-defense rather than "worrying" that your hollow-point ammunition might get you "in trouble" if you have to defend your life.

    For all practical purposes the weapon you use is a non-issue when it comes to any questions about whether or not your actions will be considered "self-defense."

    Edit: I have to ask, do you think that if Harold Fish had shot and killed his assailant with a 22lr rifle (if he had been carrying one) that the prosecutor in this case would have never brought charges? Or that the jury would have found him "not guilty"?
Sign In or Register to comment.