I don't know if I will find a video of what it does to the human body since that is a bit illegal ;-)
Here's a site that has some vids on the effects of shooting various objects... http://stoppingpower.info/.45/ and the wiki which state the round hits the target with and avg of 252 PSI with a penetration of up to 27 inches into ballistic gel, depending on the ammo used. I don't know what brand the military used and didn't see anything stating it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.45_ACP This is what it replaced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.45_Colt and this is what eventually replaced the m1911: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9x19mm_Parabellum Eric -----Original Message----- From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 10:34 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment Show me video. If this gun can do what you claim, there must be video of it on the Internet...somewhere. If you cannot, then I guess we can chalk it up to a flare up of your cranial rectitis. Your reply makes no attempt to disprove me. I guess your avoidance is as close to a 'you are right, I am wrong' as we will ever get out of you. On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Eric Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > > Go read up on the m1911 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 8:09 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment > > > I think you need to understand physics. > > There is no gun that can be held by one person, that when fired at > another person, will knock that other person back a few feet. (Maybe a > rail gun could do it, but I do not think there are any hand held rail > guns...yet) If there is such a gun, I am sure you can find some video > somewhere that proves me wrong. My challenge to you is to find such > proof. > > On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Eric Roberts > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I think you need to study how guns work. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 4:08 PM >> To: cf-community >> Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment >> >> >> OK...you keep believing in magic guns and bullets, I stay firmly >> rooted in the real world. Sound fair? >> >> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Eric Roberts >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> If you fire a .50 cal rifle (they are used as sniper rifles) you dont >> move >>> a bit because you have more leverage. It's why you can fire a .50 cal >>> machine gun without ending up in the next county after a few rounds. Now >> if >>> you were to take a 50 cal and try and Rambo it...yeah...you are going to >> get >>> thrown back as the recoil on it isn't designed to absorb the energy. A >> .50 >>> cal rifle, on the other hand, has recoil spring to absorb some of that >>> energy directed back at you so the bullet will effectively have more of a >>> punch than the rifle but will have on your shoulder...same goes with a >>> m1911...re recoil springs and venting cause it to have less of a > blowback, >>> energy wise, than the bullet has punching power if that makes sense. > Just >>> for sake of argument, the bullet may exert 500 lbs of pressure on the >> target >>> it hits, while you may only feel 50 lbs of pressure on your body from >> firing >>> it because of venting and the recoil mechanisms. The energy coming back >> at >>> you is absorbed by springs or vented and thus deflected in a different >>> direction thus lessening it's effect on you. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 12:52 PM >>> To: cf-community >>> Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment >>> >>> >>> IIRC, the biggest gun they tested was a .50 caliber rifle. >>> >>> I do not have to fire a gun to know that any bullets it shoots cannot >>> defy the laws of physics. >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Eric Roberts >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Again...you obviously have never fired an m1911. The force the round >>> exudes >>>> when it hits a target is pretty intense. I dont know what weapons they >>>> tested on Mythbusters (I would certainly like to see the episode), but >>> they >>>> obviously didn't test the m1911. When you fire it, it has a pretty hard >>>> kick that causes your hands to go back and the gun to go up. That is > one >>> of >>>> the several reasons why it is so accurate because you have to totally >>> re-aim >>>> for the next shot. Part of it is also because the round is so huge. It >>> is >>>> pretty useless at a distance, but close range, it packs a punch. Id >> dont >>>> know if any of the other vets here used it as I think they are all much >>>> younger than me and probably would have used the 9mm handgun the > military >>>> adopted. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 9:19 AM >>>> To: cf-community >>>> Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment >>>> >>>> >>>> Had to look it up, could not think of the reference at the time that >>>> proves this is physically imposible, its Newton's Third Law of Motion >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> OK, earlier you said it it would 'knock him back a few feet'...that is >>>>> physically impossible, without the shooter also getting knocked back a >>>>> few feet. 'knock them on their ass' is quite a bit different than >>>>> 'knock him back a few feet'. :D >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Eric Roberts >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess you have never fired an m1911...it's doesn't knock you back at >>>> all. >>>>>> The army adopted the handgun during the Philippine Insurrection when >> the >>>>>> Philippine Moros, who were hopped up on drugs, would keep on charging >>>> when >>>>>> hit by the revolvers that were previously used. The .45 cal round > that >>>> the >>>>>> m1911 fired hit them and knocked them on their ass so they wouldn't > get >>>> back >>>>>> up. The handgun was used up until the late 80's/early 90's when it > was >>>>>> replaced by the much less powerful (and more accurate at greater >>>> distances) >>>>>> 9mm. >>>>>> >>>>>> Eric >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 7:21 AM >>>>>> To: cf-community >>>>>> Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Any weapon that will knock the bad guy back a few feet will also knock >>>>>> you back a few feet. I know this because I saw it in Mythbusters. :D >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Eric Roberts >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If I were to have a firearm for self defense, I'll take the m1911 any >>>> day. >>>>>>> Screw the little 9mm handguns...I want something that would not only >>>> kill >>>>>> my >>>>>>> opponent, but knock him back a few feet ;-) Which is one of the >>> reasons >>>> I >>>>>>> won't own one. I wasn't trained to injure. I was trained to shoot to >>>> kill >>>>>>> (one shot one kill as the saying went) and I really don't want to be >>> put >>>>>> in >>>>>>> that situation. I'll give my opponent a fighting chance and stick to >>>>>> blades >>>>>>> ;-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Robert Munn [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 1:49 AM >>>>>>> To: cf-community >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I could go for either of those, or maybe the M4 shotgun. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've got the Remington 870 Express. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We have a Benelli SuperNova tactical shotgun. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:322869 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
