I dont recall you saying anything about "accounting for the gun absorbing the backblast". So if there was an actual twisting, it wasn't deliberate. A .45...or at least the military m1911 had quite a bit of kick when you fired it...maybe civilian versions used different ammo that didn't have as much of a backblast to it? I am not really familiar with civilian weaponry...all my experience is with military hardware.
I haven't found anything on the net, maybe I am not using the right terms, but in the past I have read accounts of the Philippine Insurrection and trench warfare in WWI and the use of the M1911 in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam where that has been claimed. I'll have to search when I bring my computer to the library where I have better bandwidth. I am accessing the net right now via my cell(and Verizon said that there was no way to teather the Droid hehehe...yay PDANet!!!), so the bandwidth kinda sucks, so I can't review video very well. -----Original Message----- From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:04 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment 1. Nope, not anchored...just placed on the ground (to give an idea of the shape, if you looked from the right side, the profile would look like an 'L'), there was not even any extra weight used to give it more stability. If a bullet fired from a .45 can knock someone back a few feet, you would think it might at least cause the frame to rock or move, even just a little bit, but, nope, it went right through the 2x4s. 2. Patently false. I never said it was against the laws of physics that a gun could absorb backblast (for lack of a better term). I did say that in order for a projectile from a gun to knock someone back a few feet, the shooter would need to be knocked back a few feet. Even accounting for the gun absorbing backblast, it would not be enough to counter the affects against the shooter completely. Stop twisting what I have said, its dishonest. I have been pretty consistent in what I have argued, however, you have changed nomenclature so often I find it hard to keep up. Once again, where is some evidence (at this point, I think even something that does not meet Larry's exacting standards would suffice)? I think its time you just admit you were talking out your ass hoping no one would call you on it. On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Eric Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > > Not necessarily...the wooden frame was probably anchored (I am guessing) > > Without going back to re-read the entire convo... > > You said something to the effect a gun could absorb the energy of the > backblast (for lack of a better term). You did state that it was against > the laws of physics. You did not say, as part of that convo that knocking > someone back was against the laws of physics...that part of a different part > of the conversation. You specifically stated that it is against the laws of > physics for a gun to absorb the energy...I think you said that the shooter > would be thrown backwards.... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 4:26 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment > > > I never said that 'weapons don't absorb energy to reduce recoil' > Please shoe me where I said that. I did say it was against the laws of > physics, but I was referring to being able to knock someone back > several feet with a bullet frired from a gun. > > Now you are purposely taking my comments out of context, which is also > dishonest. > > We could end this debate if you could just provide some shred of > evidence that you are correct. > > I have fired a .45 at targets attached to wooden frames (made with > 2x4s), lying on, but not attached to, the ground. Because I am not > that good of a shot, I hit the frame several times. > > Based on what you have said, shouldn't the wooden frames been knocked > back a few feet? Instead, they barely moved as the bullets passed > completely through them. Care to explain how this happened? Maybe I > had the magic gun shooting the magic bullets? > > It is obvious you have no proof or evidence to support your > statements, why not just man up and admit you were/are wrong? > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Eric Roberts > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> You stated that it was a violation of the laws of physics. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 4:57 AM >> To: cf-community >> Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment >> >> >> Please show me where I said that. >> >> Attributing things to someone that they never said is dishonest. >> >> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Eric Roberts >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> This coming from the guy that claims that weapons don't absorb energy to >>> reduce recoil. Whatever. The article specifically states that some of >> the >>> kickback is the body's reaction to the force hitting it. Anyone who has >>> fired a .45 and seen it hit an object can attest to the force of the > blow. >> > > > -- > Scott Stroz > --------------- > You can make things happen, you can watch things happen or you can > wonder what the f*&k happened. - Cpt. Phil Harris > > http://xkcd.com/3 > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:323019 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
