That would be called 'falling down', not being knocked back a few feet. Visually, I think the distinction would be pretty obvious.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Medic <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well if a six foot man fell backwards and his feet remained planted wouldn't > his torso technically be "back a few feet" from where it was before he was > hit? > Just wondering what exactly needs to happen to the body to satisfy the > "knocked back a few feet" comment of Eric's. > > > On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:02 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> And yet, still nothing that states it will knock someone back several >> feet when hit by a bullet from the weapon. >> >> Will it knock them down? Shit yea. Will it knock them back a few feet? >> No way. Why? Because it is physically impossible to do so. >> >> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Eric Roberts >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > 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:322904 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
