You Can’t Take a Bullet for Someone Hollywood-Style, Because Physics

No matter how many times you’ve seen the movies and the TV shows that have a protagonist leaping in the path of a bullet, physics forbids such sacrifice.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


No matter how many times you’ve seen the movies and the TV shows that have a protagonist leaping in the path of a bullet, physics forbids such sacrifice. Because of a bullet’s radical speed, you can’t jump in front of it, but you could get in its way. It’s not as dramatic, but it does save lives. The Secret Service saved a president that way.

Bullets are fast—even a 9-millimeter handgun launches lead at Mach 1. And the bigger the bullet gets, the more grains of gunpowder it carries, the faster it goes. Modern rifles can fling the small pieces of metal at half the velocity needed to escape the gravitational pull of the Moon. Our weapons are so fast, in fact, that you couldn’t get in front of a bullet even if you saw it coming.

Thanks to due diligence done by the Discovery Channel’s Mythbusters, we already have a sense of the range at which moving in response to a bullet is possible. In their testing, Adam and Jaime established a “kill zone”—the distance at which you could not dodge a bullet given human reaction time.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


But to dodge (or jump in front of) a bullet in the first place, you have to see it coming. The Mythbusters estimated that you’d have to witness a bullet fired from over three football fields away in order to have enough time to dodge it. Any would-be hero with a reaction time longer than Jamie’s would need to see the bullet from further away—something that subsequent testing deemed impossible.

Hollywood makes it seem like average Joes and Janes can suddenly make that superhuman leap in front of lead for two reasons—speed and sight. But physics has no sympathy for your heroic aspirations. Optics doesn’t either. You are not that fast. You can’t see a bullet fired from that far away. If the testing that the Mythbusters did holds up, there is no way you could see a muzzle flash from much further than a hundred meters or so away. Point-blank shooters fire too close for you to even blink, and snipers worth their salt use bullets that suppress muzzle flash. Brightly flashing guns make for good shows and movies, but there is no such “take a bullet” cue in real life.

But you could stand in front of a bullet in anticipation of being a hero. It’s happened before.

Outside of the Washington Hilton on March 30, 1981, then president Ronald Regan enters his car amid the crowd gathered to hear his speech. John Hinckley, Jr emerges not with admiration but with bullets. Shots ring out. In a motion burned into reflex, Secret Service agent Tim McCarthy shifted from his alert position into one like a baseball catcher in front of the president. One of the next shots stuck McCarthy directly in the stomach. He then defined what it was to “take a bullet.” He made a full recovery.

The Secret Service, whose agents are probably at the heart of the trope to dive in front of bullets in TV shows and movies, never stopped a bullet that way. Agent McCarthy indeed took a bullet for someone, but only after a few shots rung out and only acting as a human shield. That’s what taking a bullet really looks like. Heroes are meat shields, not stuntmen.

--

Image Credits: Supersonic Bullet Shadowgraph via NASA/JPL

Screengrab from Discovery Channel’s Mythbusters

Assassination attempt photo uploaded to Wikipedia from the Ronald Regan Library Archives

Kyle Hill is a science communicator who specializes in finding the secret science in your favorite fandom. He has a bachelor's degree in environmental engineering and a master's degree in communication research (with a focus on science, health, and the environment) from Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Aside from co-hosting Al Jazeera America's science show, TechKnow, Hill is also a freelancer who has contributed to Wired, Nature Education, Popular Science, Slate, io9, Nautilus, and is a columnist for Skeptical Inquirer. He manages Nature Education's Student Voices blog, is a research fellow with the James Randi Educational foundation. Email: sciencebasedlife@gmail.com

More by Kyle Hill

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe