Dinosaur Island (RAR).

[Majin Gojira]

In the Ankylosaurs' case, I wasn't actually thinking of size, so much as the massive layer of armor covering most of their bodies.

Now, I admittedly don't know how well that armour would stand up to rifle fire. I doubt anyone has ever put it to the test. But there are considerations other than bulk, here.

Well, a 9-Banded Armadillo shell can repel handgun fire, and that's only 1/10th of an inch thick.

Ankylosaur osteoderm scutes range in size from 1/2 an inch in diameter, to 14 inches. It's not as full coverage as that of a Glyptodont but largely thicker (1 inch all-around).

[The Romulan Republic]

Huh?

You posted something, and then reposted it a day later.

FIXED! I deleted his double post. All good! -- LadyTevar

[Elheru Aran]

Regarding dinosaur armour: obviously it can't be experimented with *now*, because the fossilization process would change the organic armour way too much.

That said: most armour in existing animals is toughened keratin, basically just highly evolved skin/hair/fingernail material. Ankylosaurus and a few other dinosaurs are exceptional in that the armour is actual plates of bone under the skin.

While say a 5.56mm round (M-16/standard NATO rifle round) could probably penetrate Ankylosaur armour... the question is how much actual damage it would do once through, what it would do if it impacted bone plates directly, and how much it would affect the animal within.

For comparison, turn again to say an elephant-- unless you're very lucky, a single 5.56mm round won't do very much at all to it. Certainly it might bleed out eventually if you hit an artery, but overall it's barely going to feel it. Even on smaller-but-still-big animals like say Cape buffalo, a round that size won't do much but annoy them unless it hits a vital. (I refer you again to my question about how people are going to know where to hit these dinosaurs...)

That's why you have to scale up to larger rounds. Rhinoceros might be a good comparison-- the recommended round is .416 or .450. In rifle size, that's a big round.



For comparison, 7.62, the last one there on the left... that's IIRC a .30, pretty standard deer round. You can see how much the rounds scale up.

Bear in mind that accuracy matters-- in hunting, it's bad taste to just pepper the target with rounds. Not only is it messy, it's unnecessary, cruel, and wasteful. That's why hitting the vital organs is a priority. And when we are talking about big, quite possibly dangerous animals, that means careful aim with heavy rounds. Miss the vitals you're aiming for, there's a decent chance said animal is going to come after you. Cape buffalo for example are rather legendary for going after the shooter. Hippopotami kill more people in Africa than most of the other dangerous animals... combined!

Unless we're talking mile-far sniping with a Barrett .50 or something like that, I would fully expect the first few hunting expeditions against large dinosaurs (and even some medium sized ones) to end badly indeed.

[Swindle1984]

The island represents a MASSIVE biological threat to the planet. There are extremely dangerous Alpha Predators on it. As in 'nothing alive on earth can stop some of them without modern weapons'.

Fall back, and recommend a tactical nuclear strike to contain the bio-threat.

What? The predators are no threat at all. They haven’t been since the Victorian era even for a small hunting party, and can be killed by normal big-game rifles without issue.

Really? Got hard proof of that? When's the last time you bagged a dinosaur?

We have no idea on how hand-held weapons will perform when it comes to dealing with a dinosaur. They are from a radically different environment than ours. Same gravity, sure. Atmospheric conditions were very different. We already know dinosaurs had much sense bones then us (at least, I believe they did). It stands to reason stronger tissues as well.

I'm not saying they're going to be bullet proof, but they could be very bullet resistant.

Not to mention that some species were rather heavily armored. (Ankylosaurioids and Ceratopians come to mind).

From what we know of dinosaur soft tissue, at least for ones like t.rex and raptors, it isn't any denser than that of, say, a moa or ostrich of the same size, and dinosaurs like apatosaurus are rather built like elephants in many regards. As far as tissue and bone density, there's no reason to believe dinosaurs were any tougher than modern, living animals on a similar scale.

A modern-ish hunting rifle should be able to dispatch smaller dinosaurs, and with proper shot placement could even take larger examples; rifles in .303 British, a caliber somewhat weaker than the American standard .30-06 for hunting, can and has been used to take elephants with a single shot. Presumably, dinosaurs will also have a vulnerable point such as the eye, carotid artery, sinus, etc. that allows for a military or hunting rifle to take one down with proper shot placement, allowing a bullet to penetrate the brain or major blood vessel; note that this does not mean instant death or even incapacitation, just eventual death. More powerful calibers, like .300 Winchester Magnum, .45-70 (in its modern incarnation), or .375 Holland and Holland, are also very common hunting rounds, and of course there are the dedicated big game calibers like .416 Rigby, .577 Tyrannosaurus, .600 Nitro Express, and .700 Nitro Express. Long range sniper rifles and anti-material rifles, such as .50 BMG (available in single-shot, bolt-action repeater, and semi-auto) are also available, and looking at the current market online, the most readily available ammunition in .50 BMG is military surplus Armor-Piercing Incendiary.

.600 Nitro Express has been the standard for large caliber elephant guns since around 1900. While lighter caliber rifles are used to get fatal shots on an elephant (targeting the heart, lungs, or brain), the .600 is typically used as an emergency backup weapon, not the primary weapon. When in dense foliage and no clear shot to a vital organ is available, the .600 is used to stop a charging, pissed off elephant in its tracks and has enough force to knock an elephant unconscious with a shot to the head that doesn't actually penetrate the skull, and can punch through the elephant's chest, muscle, bones, etc. and stop a charge by smashing its bones and muscles to pulp.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.600_Nitro_Express

The cartridge fires a .620 in (15.7 mm) diameter, 900 gr (58 g) projectile with three powder loadings, the standard being 100 gr (6.5 g) of cordite at a muzzle velocity of 1,850 ft/s (560 m/s), whilst there is also a 110 gr (7.1 g) loading which generates muzzle velocity of 1,950 ft/s (590 m/s) and a 120 gr (7.8 g) loading which generates a muzzle velocity of 2,050 ft/s (620 m/s).[1][5] The 100gr load produces 6,840 ft⋅lbf (9,270 J) of muzzle energy, the 110 gr load produces 7,600 ft⋅lbf (10,300 J) of muzzle energy, and the 120 gr load produces 8,400 ft⋅lbf (11,400 J) of muzzle energy.

Because of the recoil forces generated by this cartridge, rifles chambered in it typically weigh up to 16 lb (7.3 kg).[1][5]

n 1914 and early 1915, German snipers were engaging British Army positions with impunity from behind steel plates that were impervious to .303 British ball ammunition. In an attempt to counter this threat, the British War Office purchased sixty-two large bore sporting rifles from British rifle makers, including four .600 Nitro Express rifles, which were issued to Regiments. These large bore rifles proved very effective against the steel plates used by the Germans, in his book Sniping in France 1914-18 MAJ H. Hesketh-Prichard, DSO, MC stated they "pierced them like butter."[7][8][9]

Stuart Cloete, sniping officer for the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, stated "We used a heavy sporting rifle - a .600 Express. These had been donated to the army by big game hunters and when we hit a plate we stove it right in. But it had to be fired standing or from a kneeling position to take up the recoil. The first man who fired it from the prone position had his collar bone broken."[10]

Prior to the 20th century and modern smokeless powders, many African big game hunters of the 18th and 19th century (approximately 1750 to 1880) used a "stopping rifle" for much the same purpose: a massive, heavy rifle (or smoothbore in some cases) used to stop a charging elephant/rhino/hippo at close range when a precision shot to a vital organ wasn't possible. Stopping rifles came in 10, 8, 6, 4, and rarely 2 bore. 8-bore was very common, while 4-bore was the standard for the big "oh shit kill it quick" guns.


Frederick Courtney Selous, for whom the Rhodesian Selous Scouts were named, posing with a 4-bore rifle

Using Courtney's 4-bore rifle as a standard for stopping rifles, we have the following information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_bore

The name, derived from an old English practice of bore measurements in gun-making, that refers to a nominally 4-gauge bore, that is, a bore diameter that would accommodate a pure lead round ball of approximately 1750 grains (1750 gr.) and approximately 1-inch (25 mm) calibre (more precisely, 1.053-inch (26.7 mm), that would precisely fit a pure round lead ball weighing a quarter of a pound. In practice the bore diameter varied greatly as, in muzzle loader days, shotgun gauges were custom made and often differed from the actual bore measurements. Commonly, 4 bores were closer to 0.935–0.955 inch calibre (closer to 5 gauge), pertaining to a 1400 grain alloyed lead ball.

The first 4 bores were probably single barrel muzzleloaders converted from British fowling pieces that were, in essence, slug guns. Loads (bullet weights and gunpowder loads) varied greatly. As the weight and strength increased, gunpowder loads went from 8 drams (0.5 oz) to a full ounce (16 drams), or more, of powder. The advent of rifling after about 1860 allowed longer conical projectiles to be stabilised, and, aside from accuracy, these provided even greater weight and penetration, with some hardened lead or steel bullets weighing as much as 2000 grains. The 4 bore was also occasionally used for shooting exploding projectiles. Although 4-bore firearms were commonly referred to as "rifles", smoothbore version of the weapon were actually more popular, and continued to be so throughout the era of four bore usage. Since dangerous game was shot at ranges under 40 yards, a smoothbore was sufficiently accurate, while at the same time providing higher velocities and lower recoil, and needing less cleaning. The prominent British gunmaker W. W. Greener even recommended against rifled firearms above the bore size of eight, with the four bores that he continued producing from then on being exclusively smoothbores.[2] The smoothbore also, at least until the advent of breechloading, could be reloaded faster.

With the advent of breechloading cases in the late 19th century the 4 bore came into its current guise, that being the well-known 4–4.5" brass case.

The cartridge brass case was around 4 inches (100 mm) long, and contained three types of loads: light at 12 drams, 14 drams at regular, and 16 drams of powder at heavy load. (Note: 1 dram = 27.34375 grains in the avoirdupois system, since 256 drams = 7000 grains = 1 pound of powder. Shotgun shells are still rated in terms of the same archaic dram measurements, relative to their equivalence of smokeless powder load to a black-powder load weighed in drams.) John "Pondoro" Taylor mentioned in his book African Rifles and Cartridges that the 12 drams (328 gr., 3/4 oz.) charge would propel the projectile at around 1,330 ft/s (410 m/s).[4] A double barreled rifle that would fire such a calibre would weigh around 22–24 lb bare, while the single-barreled version would be around 17–18 lb.[5]

This caliber was used heavily by the European hunters, notably so the British and Dutch Boers, in tropical climates of Africa and India. A single barreled smoothbore percussion cap musket of between four and six gauge called a "roah" was the standard weapon among Boer hunters, until the common acceptance of breechloading rifles among their ranks in the 1850s. Many of the earliest British hunters adopted this practice from the Boers, with Selous being the best known among them.

Meant to be used with black powder due to its size, it was unpopular due to the problem of thick smoke and a powerful recoil. Notable hunters that used the rifles included Sir Samuel White Baker and Frederick Selous, who used it consistently in his career as an ivory hunter of African elephants between 1874 and 1876 until the advent of the lighter, more accurate and less cumbersome Nitro Express calibers and cordite propellant. In the mid-1870s, Selous favoured a four bore black powder muzzleloader for killing elephant, a 13 lb (5.9 kg) short barreled musket firing a quarter pound bullet with as much as 20 drams (540 grains) of black powder. He could wield it even from horseback. Between 1874 and 1876, he slew exactly seventy-eight elephants with that gun, but eventually there was a double loading incident together with other recoil problems. He finally gave it up, due to it "upsetting my nerve".

Although a weapon of immense power, the four bore was far less effective than its Nitro Express successors because of the low penetration of its projectiles and its immense recoil. The huge lead slugs fired by the gun were sometimes capable of stunning a charging African elephant to stop it on its tracks, or turn its charge (causing it to change direction to avoid the hunter) but it was generally unable to kill the creature outright with a frontal brain shot.[2] Chest and broadside shots were effective killers, as was the side shot on brain where the skull is thinner on elephant, however once again this did not help for instantly stopping an enraged elephant charging the hunter. On the other dangerous game species such as the Indian elephant, buffalo species and Rhino it was considered an excellent killer.

Modern Russian KS-23 shotgun is roughly 4 gauge.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_dtC6ZOR3w[/youtube]

Similar guns were used in the 1700's with flintlock mechanisms:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJvesjGissE[/youtube]

Prior to the 18th century, African big game hunting wasn't really a thing with Europeans, but they still had firearms that could deal with large beasts. Swivel guns were often mounted on small boats for defense against the enemy on shore (firing canister shot, effectively turning it into a large shotgun) or other boats (either canister shot for 'sweeping the deck' of sailors or shredding the sails, or solid balls for punching through the hull to sink it), and were also mounted on the walls of fortifications as something between a musket and a cannon for engaging attackers.

Wall guns are a similar concept and were in use from the 1500's to mid-1800's, and were basically oversized muskets intended for engaging attacking troops at long range and for punching through shields, armor, mobile fortifications, and siege engines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_gun

A wall gun's barrel could be over 4.5 feet (140 cm) in length with a bore of at least 1 inch (2.5 cm). This made them more accurate than the standard flintlock or matchlock musket. George Washington acquired several wall guns during the American War of Independence; tests showed that they were capable of hitting a sheet of common writing paper at 600 yards (550 m). Wall guns were part of the standard equipment of some artillery pieces at that time.[6]

During the Napoleonic Wars many of these guns were cut down and turned into blunderbusses. They fired lead shot and were used by naval boarding parties and coachmen as protection from highwaymen.

A breech-loading wall gun was issued to the French army in 1819 for the defense of towns. Improved caplock versions were introduced in 1831 and 1842,[7] as were muzzleloading versions. Bolt action wall guns firing metallic cartridges were used in India and China in the late 19th century.[8]



So as early as the 1500's, we had man-portable firearms capable of dispatching dinosaurs. How effective they would be would, naturally, vary depending on the firearm, ammunition/load, shot placement, and the dinosaur in question, but we most certainly had weaponry capable of dealing with dinosaurs in the Victorian era and prior. Even standard muskets (a 1770's era musket having pretty much the same range and firepower as a modern 12-gauge shotgun firing a rifled slug) could (eventually) kill a dinosaur, and if fired in volleys would likely deter even a big predator like t.rex from attacking. You also need to remember that muskets/rifles doubled as spears all the way up to WW2, with bayonets; I wouldn't want to be the poor bastard fending off a utahraptor or t.rex with a bayonet, but it gives you some means of defense even with an unloaded weapon.

Shit, a squad of pikemen could probably deter something like allosaurus from attacking, keeping it at bay while it tried to avoid the wall of sharp sticks jabbing at it.

So in conclusion, we've had the firepower to deal with dinosaurs for several centuries now, and firearms readily available to civilians can handle creatures up to and including t.rex. Bigger beasts like diplodocus and armored dinosaurs like ankylosaurus are up in the air.

[Elheru Aran]

Yes; as I pointed out earlier... the weak spot here isn't the weapons, it's the hunters going up against animals which they have no practical knowledge about. To be frank, even scientists won't have a GREAT idea of what dinosaurs in the actual flesh will be like, just guesses and approximations.

[Swindle1984]

Yes; as I pointed out earlier... the weak spot here isn't the weapons, it's the hunters going up against animals which they have no practical knowledge about. To be frank, even scientists won't have a GREAT idea of what dinosaurs in the actual flesh will be like, just guesses and approximations.

I'm pretty sure they all still have hearts, lungs, brains, and major blood vessels, and all in more or less the same places we expect them to be, just like all other vertebrate life and just like the birds, who are the evolutionary descendants of the dinosaurs. There's no reason to think their anatomy would be radically different from anything we're familiar with, particularly since we're familiar with the closest living relatives of the theropods like velociraptor, deinonychus, etc.

It's behavior we really don't know much about, and finding out that allosaurus is a pack hunter would really suck for whoever runs into them. Then again, how likely is any given dinosaur to continue the attack after loud noises and serious injuries like gunshot wounds? Would it deter them from attacking the bizarre animals they've never seen/smelled before and don't know anything about, or piss them off? If the latter... shoot it again.

[Majin Gojira]

I'm pretty sure they all still have hearts, lungs, brains, and major blood vessels, and all in more or less the same places we expect them to be, just like all other vertebrate life and just like the birds, who are the evolutionary descendants of the dinosaurs. There's no reason to think their anatomy would be radically different from anything we're familiar with, particularly since we're familiar with the closest living relatives of the theropods like velociraptor, deinonychus, etc.

You'd be surprised.

We have found mummified dinosaurs, and they show anatomy that is indeed far more bird like, but it will still be something for hunters to adjust too because, well, birds aren't normally that size.

IE: They have, the heart, lungs, and digestive system of a bird. This means they have massive lungs with multiple air-sacks, so a lung shot is not quite as debilitating as it is in mammals (and it means they can marathon-run like birds marathon-fly).

Or it could mean that there's simply more lung to hit. I'm not 100% knowledgeable on how that would work in a multi-ton animal.

Beyond that, there are gastric ribs in many therapods, making getting to the heart more difficult than in mammals, and some dinosaurs have a skull thickness around their brain that can be measured in inches before you add a keratin sheath across their head.

That and the brains tend to be, well, rather small. A tyrannosaur, up to 50ft long, has a brain about 1/50th its length. I'd want a clean shot at it, rather than say, oh, trying to get off a shot as it charges to protect a nest or something.

But, again, I'm not saying there aren't small arms that can take them down, just that unless you have someone who studied their anatomy before going out, there are a few surprises to be had.

It's behaviour we really don't know much about, and finding out that allosaurus is a pack hunter would really suck for whoever runs into them. Then again, how likely is any given dinosaur to continue the attack after loud noises and serious injuries like gunshot wounds? Would it deter them from attacking the bizarre animals they've never seen/smelled before and don't know anything about, or piss them off? If the latter... shoot it again.

The thing about dinosaurs is . . . we have a lot of injuries in them that they survived that would have killed a mammal. A horse breaks it's leg, it's screwed. A Dinosaur breaks its leg, it can literally just walk it off. Their recovery ability is apparently similar to that of crocodilians. Birds are their closest relatives, but they retained a reptilian recovery rate.

So, a shot may drive it off from sound, smell, and pain. But it is more than likely to survive the injury and learn from the experience. The smarter dinosaurs of the time tend to range in intelligence between modern crocodiles and Komodo dragons, to turkeys. All of which can learn from experience.

[Elheru Aran]

Quick note re dinosaur anatomy: for obvious reasons we cannot make a conclusive pronouncement about what the soft organs looked like, barring some miraculous discovery of a well preserved carcass.

Given the obvious size differences, I've read hypotheses that they may have been closer to mammalian in how their organs functioned, i.e. may have been more warm blooded, may not have had quite as bird-like lungs, etc.

That said, the sheer size of some of them should be a barrier to putting them down, African poacher hail-of-fire strategies aside. Honestly it wouldn't be much different from hunting dangerous large game like hippos, buffalo, or elephants... except there'd be rather a bit more guesswork, and of course the behavior of the animal would be a total mystery. Shoot a T-rex, is it likely to turn tail and run, or will it view you as its next target?

Funnily enough, Jurassic Park probably got it right giving Muldoon a SPAS shotgun when he went out to face the Velociraptors. They're human-size, so slugs or heavy buckshot in a large gauge shotgun would probably put one down with a solid hit. But that particular example also proves my point to some extent... 'clever girl'

[Majin Gojira]

Quick note re dinosaur anatomy: for obvious reasons we cannot make a conclusive pronouncement about what the soft organs looked like, barring some miraculous discovery of a well preserved carcass.

Given the obvious size differences, I've read hypotheses that they may have been closer to mammalian in how their organs functioned, i.e. may have been more warm blooded, may not have had quite as bird-like lungs, etc.

Evidence has been presented that there are bone sacks in the bones of many types of dinosaurs (Sauropods and Therapods, in particular, the former for weight concerns alone), thus leading to a more avian breathing system being apparent. Some of it dating from the late Triassic (Coelophysis). There are more arguments for it than against it from what I've seen. A lot of it has to do with a lot of Saurischian dinosaurs having hollow bones.

Though I should note that the air sacks do not appear in Ornithischian dinosaurs. And the Coelurosaurian Dinosaurs (which includes raptors, and tyrannosaurs) most definitely had it.

Hell, one paper ("A Blueprint for Giants: Modelling the Physiology of Large Dinosaurs", F.V. Paladino, J.R. Spotila, and P. Dodson) ran the math and concluded that the large sauropods couldn't have gotten as big as they were without such a respiration system.

Funnily enough, Jurassic Park probably got it right giving Muldoon a SPAS shotgun when he went out to face the Velociraptors. They're human-size, so slugs or heavy buckshot in a large gauge shotgun would probably put one down with a solid hit. But that particular example also proves my point to some extent... 'clever girl'

In the book, he used a rocket launcher, but the science of the book was off even before it was printed and used the excuse (much like Jurassic World" did/does) that these aren't real dinosaurs anyway.

[Swindle1984]

Quick note re dinosaur anatomy: for obvious reasons we cannot make a conclusive pronouncement about what the soft organs looked like, barring some miraculous discovery of a well preserved carcass.

Given the obvious size differences, I've read hypotheses that they may have been closer to mammalian in how their organs functioned, i.e. may have been more warm blooded, may not have had quite as bird-like lungs, etc.

Having shot a number of wild game bird (primarily large turkeys), they're not particularly difficult to put down. You need larger birdshot with more power behind it than for hunting, say, doves, but buckshot would obliterate a turkey or goose. The problem here is determining if dinosaurs like the raptors in Jurassic Park (since we're all thinking it) have relatively robust mammalian bones, or hollow, delicate avian bones. Last I was aware, the jury was still out on that one. I can see arguments for both sides; t.rex would need strong bones to support its weight vs t.rex would need light bones to avoid being hindered by its own tonnage, etc.

That said, the sheer size of some of them should be a barrier to putting them down, African poacher hail-of-fire strategies aside. Honestly it wouldn't be much different from hunting dangerous large game like hippos, buffalo, or elephants... except there'd be rather a bit more guesswork, and of course the behavior of the animal would be a total mystery. Shoot a T-rex, is it likely to turn tail and run, or will it view you as its next target?

If we can guess the strength/thickness of the bones and tissue, we can determine if a modern African big game rifle would be able to do the classic heart/lung shot on a t.rex fairly easily. Some of these rifles have fired shots that passed clear through an elephant, and that's for calibers specifically designed to do as much tissue/bone damage as possible rather than poke a hole straight through; a military sniper/anti-material rifle would tend to overpenetration more than a big game rifle.

Funnily enough, Jurassic Park probably got it right giving Muldoon a SPAS shotgun when he went out to face the Velociraptors. They're human-size, so slugs or heavy buckshot in a large gauge shotgun would probably put one down with a solid hit.

If a 12-gauge shotgun can put down something the size of deinonychus effectively, then any modern hunting rifle or battle rifle (semi/full auto rifle chambered for a full-sized rifle cartridge, such as the FN FAL in 7.62x51mm NATO, as opposed to an assault rifle chambered for an intermediate cartridge, such as the M16A2 in 5.56x45mm.) should be just as effective on them as on a person or large deer/pig.

And Crichton admitted that the 'raptors' in Jurassic Park were deinonychus in all but name; he called them velociraptor because the name sounded cooler. Velociraptors were, ironically enough, about the size of a turkey.

But that particular example also proves my point to some extent... 'clever girl'

And any African game hunter like Muldoon would have known better than to fall for that, especially since he knew how intelligent the raptors were. Having one animal (like a lioness) distract the prey while another flanks it is predictable and common hunting behavior which a professional like Muldoon should have known. He also would've had the reflexes to immediately shoot the flanking raptor when it burst out of hiding but paused to let him say 'clever girl' before attacking.

Which is why in the book, despite getting drunk while chasing after Rexy, Muldoon not only survives but also racks up the highest body count on the island.

Well, a 9-Banded Armadillo shell can repel handgun fire, and that's only 1/10th of an inch thick.

I'm gonna go ahead and say Citation Needed, because I've seen plenty of armadillos killed with a .22, and those aren't exactly renowned for their firepower. I would find it believable if a larger species, say, the giant armadillo, could deflect something like a 9mm or smaller caliber if it were a glancing shot rather than a direct hit, but only as a fluke, not as a regular, predictable occurrence. There's also a world of difference between a handgun and a big game rifle.

Standard 9mm NATO is a 124 gr (8.04 gram), 9mm/0.355" jacketed bullet with a muzzle velocity of 1,150 ft/s (350 m/s), producing 364 ft⋅lbf (494 J) of energy at the muzzle.

.600 Nitro Express, which is considered the standard for the big big game cartridges (as opposed to small big game cartridges, for which .375 H&H is the standard, and medium, where .416 Rigby is generally what everyone compares other calibers to), fires a 0.620"/15.7mm, 900 gr (58 gram) bullet at 1,950 fps (590 m/s) and produces 8,400 ft-lbf (11,400 J) at the muzzle. It also greater cross-sectional density and is typically made of harder material that doesn't deform as much, specifically to encourage deep penetration.

Methinks there is a world of difference between shooting something with a handgun and shooting something with a big fucking rifle. Besides the bruised, possibly dislocated, shoulder that is.

[Titan Uranus]

Couple things, real quick:

Karamajo Bell was an ivory hunter, not a trophy hunter. As long as the elephant died, he didn't much care how quickly it died. His main technique was in climbing a tree, waiting for a herd of elephants to pass underneath, and then just pranging them right through the back of the skull... a soft spot that's otherwise highly inaccessible from the ground. Braincase shots are otherwise nigh impossible unless you get them through the eye or the ear, both pretty small targets.

A modern day trophy hunter is more concerned about quick kills and intact skins, so they're looking to down elephants with a few large rounds, and they can't go climbing trees to do it either. Poachers tend to depend upon quantity of fire. Karamajo Bell was probably closer to the latter in that he tended to go lightly loaded (another reason for the light caliber rifle-- the weapon and ammunition weigh far less!) into the woods, and the overhead firing position he preferred allowed him to take advantage of both an easy target (from that very specific angle) and staying out of the line of vision of very large and dangerous animals.

My point was that shot placement matters much more than simple joules-on-target, or penetration, or however you want to measure stopping power. Just like practically every other living thing, not that the first teams on the island ought to go in with .30 cals only. And that with perfect shot placement the minimum force required is more likely to be a full caliber rifle, not an anti-tank gun.

More likely though, the dinos would be met with a fusillade of fire, not a single hunter's bullet.

You cannot fire .50 BMG from the shoulder? How peculiar. Barrett would like to have a word with you.

Not if you want to hit anything, no. The damned guns weigh between 23 and 30 lbs. And they hover around 4 ft long. Which is why that press shot has a bipod dangling from the barrel.

I wouldn't recommend going prone to fire a Nitro Express, either. You don't want to meet that recoil with a rigid torso...

Yeah, that was my screwup.

But that's my general nitpick over.

A more specific nitpick: How is a modern day hunter going to be familiar with the lethal spots of a dinosaur, particularly species with all kinds of interesting stuff in the way like frills, horns, skin flaps, etc? Sure you can make a general guess (vertebrate anatomy does tend to be fairly consistent) but beyond pure organ layout, how are they going to know, for example, that two shots to the heart WILL drop an Apatosaurus? Is it going to run you over within the next ten minutes? And so forth...

They can make reasonable guesses based on modern animals and paleontology. But I was primarily responding to the people claiming that dinos would require explosives and/or anti-tank weapons to kill. Which is just ridiculous.

No, it would not. It would require a big game rifles at worst, and more likely a normal .30 cal and a good shot.

Especially since these things won’t know to be scared of humans.

Christ, the largest Ankylosaur species is estimated to be between 4-8 tons, while male African Bush Elephants average 6.6 and can be 11.5 tons (females average about 3 tons).


Sauropods might be able to soak up a great deal of damage, as long as noone aims for the important bits, but that’s true of any animal larger than a dog.

It's like neither of you have considered dinosaurs as actual animals rather than as movie monsters.

In the Ankylosaurs' case, I wasn't actually thinking of size, so much as the massive layer of armor covering most of their bodies.

Now, I admittedly don't know how well that armor would stand up to rifle fire. I doubt anyone has ever put it to the test. But there are considerations other than bulk, here.

This armor?
Now, there are others with better coverage, but this is the best that I could easily find and confirm to be from a museum and not somebody's drawing.


You might notice that it stops half way down. I think that's because most of the Ankylosaurs' predators were taller than it.

In the Ankylosaurs' case, I wasn't actually thinking of size, so much as the massive layer of armor covering most of their bodies.

Now, I admittedly don't know how well that armour would stand up to rifle fire. I doubt anyone has ever put it to the test. But there are considerations other than bulk, here.

Well, a 9-Banded Armadillo shell can repel handgun fire, and that's only 1/10th of an inch thick.

There is precisely a single man who shot an armadillo with a .38 and claims it ricocheted and hit him. This weighed against dozens of trivially easy-to-find videos of armadillos being killed by .22s, air rifles, and bows. In addition to my own anecdotal experience.
I put it to you that he either missed and hit a rock, or covered up a failed suicide attempt by blaming an armadillo.

Ankylosaur osteoderm scutes range in size from 1/2 an inch in diameter, to 14 inches. It's not as full coverage as that of a Glyptodont but largely thicker (1 inch all-around).

Most of them seem to be very small, from the museum skeletons, and the large ones are rather thin and almost look like they are for display.

Regarding dinosaur armour: obviously it can't be experimented with *now*, because the fossilization process would change the organic armour way too much.

That said: most armour in existing animals is toughened keratin, basically just highly evolved skin/hair/fingernail material. Ankylosaurus and a few other dinosaurs are exceptional in that the armour is actual plates of bone under the skin.

While say a 5.56mm round (M-16/standard NATO rifle round) could probably penetrate Ankylosaur armour... the question is how much actual damage it would do once through, what it would do if it impacted bone plates directly, and how much it would affect the animal within.

For comparison, turn again to say an elephant-- unless you're very lucky, a single 5.56mm round won't do very much at all to it. Certainly it might bleed out eventually if you hit an artery, but overall it's barely going to feel it. Even on smaller-but-still-big animals like say Cape buffalo, a round that size won't do much but annoy them unless it hits a vital. (I refer you again to my question about how people are going to know where to hit these dinosaurs...)

That's why you have to scale up to larger rounds. Rhinoceros might be a good comparison-- the recommended round is .416 or .450. In rifle size, that's a big round.

For comparison, 7.62, the last one there on the left... that's IIRC a .30, pretty standard deer round. You can see how much the rounds scale up.

Bear in mind that accuracy matters-- in hunting, it's bad taste to just pepper the target with rounds. Not only is it messy, it's unnecessary, cruel, and wasteful. That's why hitting the vital organs is a priority. And when we are talking about big, quite possibly dangerous animals, that means careful aim with heavy rounds. Miss the vitals you're aiming for, there's a decent chance said animal is going to come after you. Cape buffalo for example are rather legendary for going after the shooter. Hippopotami kill more people in Africa than most of the other dangerous animals... combined!

I agree with all of this, except to say that ethical hunting is different from killing an animal in self defense, the latter has a much greater margin for cruelty on account of necessity.

Unless we're talking mile-far sniping with a Barrett .50 or something like that, I would fully expect the first few hunting expeditions against large dinosaurs (and even some medium sized ones) to end badly indeed.

The favored poacher weapon in Africa is the AK, right? I think you're assuming a few ethically-hunting explorers like in the 19th century. Where I picture something more like a squad of mercenaries charged with protecting some scientists doing illegal research, getting spooked by something and flipping their giggle switches.

*snip*
You also need to remember that muskets/rifles doubled as spears all the way up to WW2, with bayonets; I wouldn't want to be the poor bastard fending off a utahraptor or t.rex with a bayonet, but it gives you some means of defense even with an unloaded weapon.

Dude, I agree with most of what you said, but this is just silly. A bayonet, even in a formation, is not going to be a significant defense against a Rex. I'm not even sure most bayonets could physically penetrate to the vital organs, without taking into account the massive advantages in speed, power, and reach that the Rex has. There's a reason that the drill for disciplined infantry encountering elephants was to get out of the way, not to hold the line. A Rex is going to be bigger, faster, and very importantly, scarier than an elephant.

Shit, a squad of pikemen could probably deter something like allosaurus from attacking, keeping it at bay while it tried to avoid the wall of sharp sticks jabbing at it.

I mean, maybe. If by squad, you mean enough to form a pike wall that cannot be easily circumnavigated. And if it doesn't use it's mass to bull through and get to the musketeers/arquebusiers shooting it to death. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any uses of elephants against pike and shot, but I think that there would be problems with keeping the pikemen in formation and preventing them from running away from the giant goddamn dragon.

So in conclusion, we've had the firepower to deal with dinosaurs for several centuries now, and firearms readily available to civilians can handle creatures up to and including t.rex. Bigger beasts like diplodocus and armored dinosaurs like ankylosaurus are up in the air.

Ankylosaurus armor has rather poor coverage, the shear amount of flesh of the large dinos, Rex included, is probably better protection.

[Sky Captain]

I think any serious expedition into Dinosaur Island would also have a machine gun in addition to large caliiber rifles just to be sure. A scientific expedition would not hunt for sport, they would want self defense. In a situation where there is no time to aim for specific spots like being charged by large dino in low visibility situation a machine gun may work better than rifle.

[Elheru Aran]

The favored poacher weapon in Africa is the AK, right? I think you're assuming a few ethically-hunting explorers like in the 19th century. Where I picture something more like a squad of mercenaries charged with protecting some scientists doing illegal research, getting spooked by something and flipping their giggle switches.

Yeah, the context of the hunting does matter. A bunch of PMC guards will deal with a dangerous animal very differently from a hunting party where you have maybe two-three rich guys, a couple of professional hunters, and a few dudes humping the heavy stuff.

Of course, in this situation, one has to wonder if any kind of hunting would be allowed anytime soon. This is the ONLY place on Earth (as far as we know, I don't think TRR is going to develop the situation any further as IIRC he's on sabbatical from the board) that has dinosaurs; it's a scientific gold mine. Unless there's oil under it or something, and even then, the scientists will scream bloody hell if anybody steps foot on it after they learn about it.

EDIT: fixed tags

[Simon_Jester]

Quick note re dinosaur anatomy: for obvious reasons we cannot make a conclusive pronouncement about what the soft organs looked like, barring some miraculous discovery of a well preserved carcass.

Given the obvious size differences, I've read hypotheses that they may have been closer to mammalian in how their organs functioned, i.e. may have been more warm blooded, may not have had quite as bird-like lungs, etc.

Having shot a number of wild game bird (primarily large turkeys), they're not particularly difficult to put down. You need larger birdshot with more power behind it than for hunting, say, doves, but buckshot would obliterate a turkey or goose. The problem here is determining if dinosaurs like the raptors in Jurassic Park (since we're all thinking it) have relatively robust mammalian bones, or hollow, delicate avian bones. Last I was aware, the jury was still out on that one. I can see arguments for both sides; t.rex would need strong bones to support its weight vs t.rex would need light bones to avoid being hindered by its own tonnage, etc.

Given that the tyrannosaurus presumably was carrying several pounds of meat per pound of bone mass, I suspect that extra bone weight would pay off considerably in strength.

Furthermore, hollow bird bones are almost certainly a flight adaptation. They are at best dubiously useful for any animal optimized to move around on land. And the closest cladistic relatives to proto-birds like archaeopteryx would have been the raptors, and raptors aren't nearly heavy enough for light bones to be an advantage for weight-saving reasons.

So my bet is on dinosaurs having dense bones.

That said, the sheer size of some of them should be a barrier to putting them down, African poacher hail-of-fire strategies aside. Honestly it wouldn't be much different from hunting dangerous large game like hippos, buffalo, or elephants... except there'd be rather a bit more guesswork, and of course the behavior of the animal would be a total mystery. Shoot a T-rex, is it likely to turn tail and run, or will it view you as its next target?

If we can guess the strength/thickness of the bones and tissue, we can determine if a modern African big game rifle would be able to do the classic heart/lung shot on a t.rex fairly easily. Some of these rifles have fired shots that passed clear through an elephant, and that's for calibers specifically designed to do as much tissue/bone damage as possible rather than poke a hole straight through; a military sniper/anti-material rifle would tend to overpenetration more than a big game rifle.

We'd have to know some fairly specific details about the heart/lung anatomy to be confident, especially since precise heart placement may be uncertain beyond "somewhere in this big chest cavity between the ribs." From looking at a human skeleton would we be able to tell that he heart was slightly but only slightly left of the centerline?

[Elheru Aran]

We'd have to know some fairly specific details about the heart/lung anatomy to be confident, especially since precise heart placement may be uncertain beyond "somewhere in this big chest cavity between the ribs." From looking at a human skeleton would we be able to tell that he heart was slightly but only slightly left of the centerline?

To be fair, a T-rex heart was probably pretty sizeable, and you could be reasonably certain that if you shot several rounds between the collarbone and the bottom of the ribcage, you would at least perforate the lungs and possibly the heart as well. The question is how much of an incapacitating injury it would be, particularly if it did not penetrate the heart directly but only nicked it, for example. There have been humans shot in the heart who have survived (albeit usually with prompt medical care).

Crocodilians might be a useful comparison.

https://gothunts.com/how-to-hunt-crocod ... placement/

Interestingly enough, the Nile Crocodile is not widely thought of as a sporting animal in most hunting circles. But that is slowly changing, and with good reason. The crocodile is extremely intelligent, wary, and better adapted to a home that man finds it difficult to hunt in: water. He is widely distributed in Africa and even small pools of water should be approached with extreme caution because you just never who’s at home. Usually, crocodiles are hunted from a blind on the bank once a big male has been found. Be sighted in “dead nuts” because you have to hit the brain, or the spinal column just behind the skull and neither is a large target. Crocodile hunts are often done as a croc, hippo combo hunt. It’s surprisingly challenging and you should plan on at least 10 days to find and take a big one.

Most crocs are taken by baiting. Big males are territorial, which hunters can use to their advantage. Local tribesmen will know where every big croc lives, along with his preferred basking sites. Cruising by boat using good optics is another good way to find a trophy crocodile. Once a good male has been found, either a bait will be put out or a stalk will be made if the croc is on the shore. A basking croc is a prime candidate for a stalk, as that is when they are at their most vulnerable. Bait will be chained up near the basking site and blood and entrails will be thrown into the water. A very well concealed blind (crocodiles have amazing eyesight) will be built nearby, usually within 80 yards. Once a big croc finds the bait, he will defend it vigorously… and now it’s time to hunt.

No other game animal on the planet requires such precise first shot placement. Only two shots are effective in anchoring a Crocodile; a shot placed into his golf ball sized brain or one that hits the spinal column just behind the head.

Hunting crocodiles requires precise shot placement, and an accurate, scoped rifle is an absolute must. Do not try to take on crocodile with an open-sighted rifle under any circumstances. Large crocodiles are truly enormous, and will break up all but the best of bullets. Only premium soft-points should be considered when hunting crocs. Some pros suggest solids for the tough bone structure of a really big croc, but today’s premium bullets are capable of killing the largest of crocs, provided they are shot with an adequate cartridge.

“I have tackled big crocs with my 7 mm magnum, which is fine for the brain shot, but the .375 is a better choice for the neck shot, and probably the best choice for a really big crocodile. As always, consult your P.H. on caliber selection prior to your trip and heed his advice on what gun and ammo to pack for this unique safari.” -Dave Fulson

If you are bowhunting, shoot your croc just front of mid-body. If your arrow hits a bit high, it will still be solidly in the lungs, and if you are a tad low you will hit the heart. A shot just behind the shoulder as if you are shooting a North American animal misses everything.

When you shoot a croc through the lungs they quickly crawl out of the water so they don’t drown. A lung shot crocodile is easily recovered.

The last bolded line does emphasize that even with a modern day (albeit of ancient heritage) animal, anatomical differences can put off your ability to kill them quickly and reliably. And, while we don't know what dinosaur scales were like (mostly, IIRC we do have a general idea for at least some species), some at least were probably as thickly scaled as a crocodilian on some portions of their anatomy.

I realize dinosaurs and crocodiles are fairly different genera, but I suspect they're close enough to make the comparison useful in some ways. At the very least, it does confirm that you need to be reasonably familiar with the soft tissue anatomy and you have to use an appropriate caliber if you are attempting to conduct an ethical hunt.

[Simon_Jester]

Recommended reading:

A Gun For Dinosaur, by L. Sprague de Camp

[Majin Gojira]

Given that the tyrannosaurus presumably was carrying several pounds of meat per pound of bone mass, I suspect that extra bone weight would pay off considerably in strength.

Furthermore, hollow bird bones are almost certainly a flight adaptation. They are at best dubiously useful for any animal optimized to move around on land. And the closest cladistic relatives to proto-birds like archaeopteryx would have been the raptors, and raptors aren't nearly heavy enough for light bones to be an advantage for weight-saving reasons.

So my bet is on dinosaurs having dense bones.

You bet wrong.

This is a cross section of a near-adult Tyrannosaurus rex



They're thicker than bird bones, but still hollow.

Yeah, that cavity is not for thick marrow. Marrow like that is a mammalian trait.

[Majin Gojira]

I realize dinosaurs and crocodiles are fairly different genera, but I suspect they're close enough to make the comparison useful in some ways. At the very least, it does confirm that you need to be reasonably familiar with the soft tissue anatomy and you have to use an appropriate caliber if you are attempting to conduct an ethical hunt.

Honestly, the more I've researched about dinosaurs, the more it's become "Cherry pick the best traits between birds and crocodiles and you'll probably have your answer".

[Simon_Jester]

Given that the tyrannosaurus presumably was carrying several pounds of meat per pound of bone mass, I suspect that extra bone weight would pay off considerably in strength.

Furthermore, hollow bird bones are almost certainly a flight adaptation. They are at best dubiously useful for any animal optimized to move around on land. And the closest cladistic relatives to proto-birds like archaeopteryx would have been the raptors, and raptors aren't nearly heavy enough for light bones to be an advantage for weight-saving reasons.

So my bet is on dinosaurs having dense bones.

You bet wrong.

This is a cross section of a near-adult Tyrannosaurus rex...

Okay, so the question then is, how does that bone configuration (more rugged than a bird, but still with substantial hollow spaces) impact the reaction to firearms?

[Majin Gojira]

Okay, so the question then is, how does that bone configuration (more rugged than a bird, but still with substantial hollow spaces) impact the reaction to firearms?

Hard to say. I suppose an ostrich would be a good baseline to work with, but I doubt any catastrpophic breaking will occur.

The thing to keep in mind is that we have evidence of them healing from bad breaks before. Again, similar to crocodiles.

[Simon_Jester]

The thing is, ostriches evolved bone fragility (for flight), then evolved for running. I suspect their skeletal structure is rather different from that of the dinosaurs they are distantly descended from (but which may have occupied broadly similar niches).

as, say, the anatomy of whales is to their piscine ancestors. Mammals evolved away from aquatic life; when they returned to the sea they did not re-evolve anatomy identical to that of their distant ancestors.

[Majin Gojira]

The thing is, ostriches evolved bone fragility (for flight), then evolved for running. I suspect their skeletal structure is rather different from that of the dinosaurs they are distantly descended from (but which may have occupied broadly similar niches).

as, say, the anatomy of whales is to their piscine ancestors. Mammals evolved away from aquatic life; when they returned to the sea they did not re-evolve anatomy identical to that of their distant ancestors.

That's fair, though that would imply the bones would be more robust than the formerly flight-oriented ones.

[Simon_Jester]

The thing is, ostriches evolved bone fragility (for flight), then evolved for running. I suspect their skeletal structure is rather different from that of the dinosaurs they are distantly descended from (but which may have occupied broadly similar niches).

as, say, the anatomy of whales is to their piscine ancestors. Mammals evolved away from aquatic life; when they returned to the sea they did not re-evolve anatomy identical to that of their distant ancestors.

That's fair, though that would imply the bones would be more robust than the formerly flight-oriented ones.

I'd expect it, as long as it conferred some evolutionary advantages. Since ostriches kind of live or die on their leg strength, I'd expect their leg bones to be quite strong and durable.

[Zixinus]

A question: could dinosours, and the plants they bring with them, even survive the modern air mix? Wasn't there different levels of oxygen and other gases back then? Or am I confusing it with a different geological era?

[Majin Gojira]

A question: could dinosours, and the plants they bring with them, even survive the modern air mix? Wasn't there different levels of oxygen and other gases back then? Or am I confusing it with a different geological era?

While there was a difference, it isn't substantial enough to hinder or harm creatures from today going back, or creatures from then going forward.