Talk:Bullet trap

Scope of article

How broad is the scope of this article intended to be? Does it include very specifically the bullet trap (i.e. where the bullet ends up from an aimed shot that has passed through a target) or does it also include the general range back stops/defence zone - and how should it address the grey area where a structure is both? It's at risk of creating significant duplication with the main Shooting range article.

Certainly as far as rifle/pistol, there are really two categories of range that could be considered:

Distinct Bullet Trap

• An airgun range would typically have an individual pellet catcher behind each target, with a wall or curtain behind it as part of the larger "defence zone" which would stop odd flyers, but is not expected to be shot - it is expected that all shots will hit the pellet catchers, with the wall/curtain there as a "backup" for negligent discharges or mechanical failure.
• Similarly on an ISSF 50metre range, each target will normally have a .22lr-suitable bullet trap behind each target, and the concrete wall is there as a backup (it would erode quite quickly if you kept shooting it in the same place) - the wall therefore will stop (trap?) bullets, but is not really the bullet trap per se (same as cross-range baffles - they will stop errant high shots from leaving the range area, but they're not expected to be struck in the course of normal shooting).

Integral Bullet Trap in Defence Structure

• A big earth/sand berm on an outdoor range acts both as bullet trap behind the target and as the general range defence structure for shots that miss the target itself (but even some of these will have a brick/concrete wall behind the sand berm designed to catch the most egregious high shots!)
• Practical shooting pits typically have a big sand berm around the course and shots (hits and misses alike) are absorbed by the range as a whole rather than target-specific traps. Likewise, the sloped blue trap and earth berm shown in the article are both the bullet trap for aimed shots passing through the targets, and the general back-wall defence for misses.
• Indoor ranges with full width/height snail/helical traps that cover the entire down-range wall/area.

N.B. Drawing mainly from UK/European knowledge, and using Chapters 2&3 of JSP403 Vol.2 (British Army Range Construction Guidelines, which quite explicitly separate out the "bullet catcher" from the "defence zone" or the "stop butt").

Given this, I assume we're keeping it quite tightly restricted to actual bullet trap design, rather than how they integrate with the larger range design/layout.

Hemmers (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• I took my cue on scope from the US Army publication, although I recognize the issue you describe. The Army focused on bullet recovery to avoid environmental contamination problems causing superfund listing of numerous bases. They seem to have investigated two types of firing ranges. The first was a classical range with fixed firing positions, and the second was the walk through urban combat training situation where targets and civilians unexpectedly appear in different directions as trainees move through a maze similar to action shooting events at civilian ranges.

Assumptions are typically made about the risk/probability of firing in different directions. There is generally an assumption that most bullets will strike in the immediate vicinity of the target, some may ricochet, and a few may be accidentally fired in directions firearms may be temporarily pointed. Bullet traps are typically designed to capture the first category, but unlikely to capture bullets in the last category; and the middle category is a grey area. Ricochet containment is a more important design feature for urban areas and action shooting scenarios than for rural rifle ranges firing over distances measured in hundreds of meters. Few ranges are designed with equivalent bullet containment in all directions. Reverse of the intended firing direction is typically the least anticipated, and perpendicular firing directions (either vertical or horizontal) receive variable attention. The number of bullets fired in reverse or perpendicular directions may be insignificant to heavy metal toxicity.

- Deceleration traps seem best adapted to toxicity abatement in ranges with fixed firing positions.

- Friction bullet stops constructed from the proprietary blocks seem especially well adapted to action shooting scenarios where the walls of the target maze are constructed of bullet stop blocks, and block replacement bullet trap maintenance may be coordinated with target repositioning or maze rebuild to form a different training scenario maintaining the element of surprise for individuals requiring refresher training.

- Separation of bullet materials from capture media for recycling and/or hazardous waste abatement may be difficult with friction and impact traps.

The shooting range article presently offers little description of bullet recovery. Health focus is on exposure by people using the range, rather than heavy metal toxicity measured in stormwater runoff, groundwater percolation, or long term land use on former range properties. Description of unusual bullet trajectories is similarly missing. Both issues may be politically contentious. A separate bullet trap article can discuss capture and recovery features independent of the issue of range planning for unusual bullet trajectories, and avoids the implication that all shooting ranges should practice recycling to avoid significant environmental impacts to runoff, groundwater, and long term land use. Thewellman (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I hadn't really considered the environmental side of it - that seems like quite a good demarcation since in terms of both routine range maintenance and environmentally you care about where the 99.9% of shots are going, their recovery and safe disposal/recycling. Wider defence structures that only absorb very occasional shots are unlikely to receive/need regular maintenance and indeed may not need touching during their working lifetime. So that seems like an expansion of the article based around the design and implementation of the core trap mechanisms would be best (to the exclusion of more general defence zones), which can then be used as a backer to improve the Butts/Backstop section in the shooting ranges article which is pretty cursory at the moment. I had started drafting some broader bits to add to this article that included defence and ricochet protection, but on this basis they might be better tweaked and used in the Butts section of the Shooting Range article and refer through to here where they talk specifically about bullet traps. Hemmers (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

References