Knockback The idea of "knockback" is a subset or simplification of energy transfer theory, and states that a bullet of sufficient caliber at sufficient speed which transfers all its energy to a subject has enough force, by sheer momentum of the bullet, to stop forward momentum of an attacker and knock them backwards or downwards. The idea was first widely expounded in ballistics discussions during American involvement in Philippine insurrections and, simultaneously, in British involvement in the Caribbean, when front-line reports stated that the .38 caliber revolvers carried by U.S. and British soldiers were incapable of bringing down a charging warrior. Thus, in the early 1900s, the U.S. reverted to the .45 Colt in single action revolvers, and later adopted the .45ACP cartridge in what was to become the M1911A1 pistol and the British adopted the .455 Webley caliber cartridge in the Webley Revolver. The larger cartridges were chosen largely due to the Big Hole Theory (a larger hole does more damage), but the common interpretation was that these were changes from a light, deeply-penetrating bullet to a larger, heavier "manstopper" bullet although another theory is that a faster smaller bullet will deliver more Hyrdostatic shock to the target, the latter is most likely true.
The "knockback" effect is however commonly "seen" in real-life shootings, and can be explained by physiological and psychological means. Humans encountering a physical hit, be it a punch or a bullet, are conditioned to absorb the blow by moving in the same direction as the force. The physical effect against a non-penetrating weapon is to reduce the force felt by the blow, and in addition, retreating from an attack increases the distance such an attack must cover, which in the case of non-projectile weapons such as fists or a knife, places the target out of range of further attack. In addition, there is a theoretical sociological explanation, that in modern civilization, with far greater separation by most individuals from violence, hunting, and combat, normal individuals may simply recoil, buckle, or fall backward when hit by a bullet, even when in pure physiological terms they are perfectly capable of continuing to charge. Although knockback is not possible with a handgun bullet, it can be an actual effect occurring in reaction to being hit by a massive slug, such as a rubber bullet or sandbag fired from a shotgun. The dynamics of a slug round are quite different than penetrating bullets; the projectile is here designed not to penetrate but instead to strike a hard, blunt force blow, and as the momentum carried by a shotgun cartridge is greater than practically any production handgun cartridge, the force imparted is comparable to a hard punch and is capable, by physics, of affecting a person's forward motion. In any case, due to conservation of momentum, the gun's recoil is always larger than the bullet's knockback, as some momentum of the bullet is lost during flight, and if the bullet penetrates through the target it will not have imparted all its momentum into the target. -----Original Message----- From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 4:35 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment Still waiting for any kind of proof I am wrong. You continue to tell me I am wrong, yet offer no proof. I have not found anything that supports your statement that some guns (specifically the m1911) can knock a person 'back a few feet' when they are hit with a bullet fired from said weapon. I can surmise that your lack of posting links to such evidence would indicate you have not looked or found such evidence. Either way, you continue to talk out your ass with nothing to support your position. I am asking...no, I am begging..for you to provide any proof at all to support your claim, to prove I am wrong - yet, you will not or cannot do so. On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Eric Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > > Not according to Scott the physics expert... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sisk, Kris [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 9:55 AM > To: cf-community > Subject: RE: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment > > > There are ways around Newton's third law in guns. The person firing the gun > doesn't necessarily have to absorb all the force of the gun firing. You > can't lessen the force but you can redirect it or aborb some of it in the > gun before it gets to the person firing it. That's a necessity with high > caliber guns. A 50 cal would be impossible to fire otherwise. > > -----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:322908 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
