Yeah...knockback as in being knocked back...pretty simple... -----Original Message----- From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 6:24 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment
Debating with you is like playing Calvin-ball. When you are confronted with facts, you change the argument. So, now you are talking about 'knockback' instead of 'being knocked back a couple of feet'. Man up and admit you were talking out your ass. We have all been guilty if it a few times (some more than others), but at least have the fucking balls to admit it when you are called out for it. On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Eric Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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:322919 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
