MovieChat Forums > 100 Million BC (2008) Discussion > dinosaurs were not bulletproof!

dinosaurs were not bulletproof!


I almost stopped watching this piece of crap, when they shot at the....mutant trex (it looked like some kind of zombie thing) and it didn't die.

reply

I suppose it could depend on the caliber of the bullet and the thickness of the hide of the dinosaur. Aren't rhinos and crocodiles bulletproof to a certain degree? Of course my information comes from movies and television shows so it's pretty iffy.

...and if you disagree with me then you, sir, are worse than Hitler.

reply

Luckily, it was only immune to bullets, not to spears or arrows.

reply

No dinosaurs were nt invulnerable, so at a point some armanent would have worked against them.

reply

You dudes are sooooo wrong on this one.

Answer me this: How many dinosaurs died from gun violence...that is, outside of this movie?

Answer: None that we know of.

That's right, zero. Zilch.

Ever see a 'raptor in a museum with a fossilised glock strapped to his chest?

Didn't think so. And you KNOW that if bullets worked on dinos, the raptors would be rolling like gangstas that way.

So, clearly then, bullets and guns were not a threat to dinosaurs while pointy, sharp things like claws and teeth were. Thus it follows that spears & arrows WOULD work.

Questions? Anyone? No?

I rest my case.

reply

Ever see a 'raptor in a museum with a fossilised glock strapped to his chest?


oh man, this made me laugh. Thanks for that!

SpiltPersonality

reply

I'm sick of seeing so many movies where monsters aren't even scratched by bullets or explosives.

All glory to the Hypnotoad.

reply

It was painful to watch, but I think I remember the assault rifles being a H&K knockoff, which would make them 9x19, or perhaps an AR receiver, which would put them at .223, or NATO 5.56x45. Either way, it's perfectly plausible, even in this piece of crap movie. A 9mm pistol cartridge would have probably bounced off, and even the .223 rifle cartridge would not have done the trick most likely. Go hunt big game in Africa with an AR-15, and you'll get laughed off the continent, that's if the elephant or cape buffalo that you just emptied a mag into doesn't get pissed and kill you first.

reply

7.62 x 56 would have done much better. But if the had suspected what they'd be up against a couple of .50 anti material rifles may have proved prudent.

reply

ALMOST????

reply

They might as well have been!

Compared to human skin, their hide was almost like armor plate.
A properly thrown spear (or an arrow from a powerful bow) could have hit a tender spot and brought it down.

Remember Isaac Newton:
f = ma

A bullet is moving fast enough to melt itself. If fired from any distance, by the time it reaches its target the point has flattened to do considerable damage to the flesh (and organs) of most of today's animals.

A spear or arrow, while traveling much slower, has considerably more mass to concentrate on a point that hasn't melted and flattened out.

"Answer simple. Question very hard."
— Inspector Sidney Wang — "Murder by Death"

reply

Bullets don't travel fast enough to melt.

Hunting ammunition does damage because the bullet is designed to expand upon impact. It uses soft lead or copper.

Military ammunition is required by international law not to expand. It's designed with a full metal jacket of gilding metal 95% copper 5% zinc over a lead and/or steel core.

reply

Thanks for the info.

Next dumb question: Was that so during WW II ?

---
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things,"
Of atoms, stars and nebulæ, of entropy and genes.
---

reply

A bullet melting as it traveled would immediately become ballistically unstable and completely useless as an aimable projectile. The reason that bullets deform is because they hit things at high speed. Jump in a lake from a dock and you barely notice the water. Jump from a bridge and you're gonna go splat.

reply