The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old December 10, 2012, 02:07 PM   #26
45_auto
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 21, 2011
Location: Southern Louisiana
Posts: 603
Quote:
the other physics that hollywood producers cant grasp is that no one is thrown backwards by a small arms shot - for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If the BG is thrown backwards then the shooter must aslo be thrown backwards if he hangs on to his weapon.
You believe that all these guys getting thrown backwards were faking it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ged4lz_Fw2Y
45_auto is offline  
Old December 10, 2012, 02:53 PM   #27
Willie Lowman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2009
Location: Uh-Hi-O
Posts: 2,420
That video is not relevant to this conversation. Those people were shooting a big game rifle of some kind. The recoil energy is knocking them down because they don't know how to shoot big bore rifles.
Willie Lowman is offline  
Old December 10, 2012, 03:22 PM   #28
45_auto
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 21, 2011
Location: Southern Louisiana
Posts: 603
You don't classify a big game rifle as a "small arm"?. I didn't see anything over 20 millimeter (.79 caliber).

Regardless of their technique, SOMETHING was throwing them backwards. Do you believe that there is a certain "technique" for the target to use that will keep it from absorbing the same amount of recoil from the impact of the bullet?

Quote:
Guns are generally classified according to use, size, and tradition. This varies among the military services. The basic distinction is between small arms and artillery. Any gun below a 20-millimeter bore size is generally classified as a small arm.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...small-arms.htm
45_auto is offline  
Old December 10, 2012, 03:46 PM   #29
Willie Lowman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2009
Location: Uh-Hi-O
Posts: 2,420
It's not technique on the reciving end. It's smaller surface area, less mass and greater velocity. That all adds up to equal penetration and that won't throw a person to the floor. Life aint a John Woo movie and all the videos of rich Arabs dropping a .577 won't change that.
Willie Lowman is offline  
Old December 10, 2012, 06:29 PM   #30
45_auto
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 21, 2011
Location: Southern Louisiana
Posts: 603
Quote:
That all adds up to equal penetration and that won't throw a person to the floor. Life aint a John Woo movie and all the videos of rich Arabs dropping a .577 won't change that.
You believe that the bullet penetration equals the rifle movement????

If you understood simple physics (MV1 = MV2, assuming a non-elastic collision) and knew why a ballistic pendulum works the way it does, you wouldn't be wondering why the rich Arabs were dropping the rifle or what was happening at the other end.
45_auto is offline  
Old December 10, 2012, 06:31 PM   #31
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 469
Does "stopping power" work both ways?

Although the term "stopping power" is so nebulous as to be meaningless, in a word, the answer is "yes".

The problem is that it may not when you most need it.
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION
481 is offline  
Old December 10, 2012, 06:38 PM   #32
zombietactics
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 7, 2012
Location: Northern California
Posts: 336
I do "physics and stuff" for a living, and I am withholding comment, as I've come to be of the opinion that people are far more inclined to believe what they want, than to learn what is so.

Even so ... simple experiment for the uninitiated:
  • Buy an icepick.
  • Buy any good-sized roast.,
  • Place the pointy end of the ice pick on the thickest part of the roast.
  • Slam the palm of your hand on the back of the ice pick's handle.
  • Note that equal force is being applied at both ends of the ice pick ... you know, all that stuff about equal and opposite reaction.
  • Note that the pointy end of the ice pick penetrates the roast, and the handle does not penetrate your hand.
  • Figure out why, and you'll know why a rifle can knock the shooter on his butt, but the fired projectile can't.

Last edited by zombietactics; December 10, 2012 at 09:42 PM.
zombietactics is offline  
Old December 10, 2012, 07:17 PM   #33
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,071
Zombie, you are correct, logic shall never cloud the judgement of some.
Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old December 10, 2012, 07:26 PM   #34
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by 45_Auto
Regardless of their technique, SOMETHING was throwing them backwards. Do you believe that there is a certain "technique" for the target to use that will keep it from absorbing the same amount of recoil from the impact of the bullet?
This argument needs to end.

I know you believe it but it's simply not true.

The physics tell us otherwise, experiments confirm the math and real life confirms the experiments.

Watch this video

The guy gets shot, point-blank, in the chest, by a 7.62x51 (basically a .308), while standing on one foot.

Arguing that bullets knock people down is like arguing that the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese.

It's simply not true. Arguing that it is true has long ago crossed into the realm of silliness.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old December 10, 2012, 11:05 PM   #35
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,331
Quote:
You believe that all these guys getting thrown backwards were faking it?
They are not faking it, but that rifle is more or less an experiment in how much a human can take, it's not a commercial venture. It puts out about the same power as a .50BMG but without any muzzle brake, and without the 30-40lb weight of a typical .50BMG rifle.

However, even taking a bullet from a .50BMG won't knock you down.

Here's some photographic proof.

http://www.therallypoint.org/forum/i...p?topic=6290.0
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old December 10, 2012, 11:08 PM   #36
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,071
Using the same inaccurate thought, no bullet will penetrate a human since the butt stock doesn't blow the arm slap off the shooter???

Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old December 10, 2012, 11:25 PM   #37
orionengnr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2004
Posts: 4,985
Quote:
I don't remember the name of the study but it was done in Switzerland and they shot something like 200 goats to test lethality.
Strausborg (sp?) tests, chronicled in one (or more) of M&S's books. Some believe they were never actually conducted; others believe that their conclusions are largely irrelevant to actual human-v.-human armed encounters. At best, the conclusions are controversial and inconclusive.

Quote:
Because of that study I carry either MAGSAFES or GLAZERs (sic) and will not carry stuff like combat talons because of that studies (sic) data
Yeah, about 30 years ago I bought in to the MagSafe/Glaser PR hype.

Spent an awful of money on that ammo and shot a bunch of it (worked great on paper ). I kept reading...and in time, concluded that I was a perfect example of PT Barnum's First Law.

If you or anyone else can point me toward any reputable source that recommends using, or any LE that actually uses these rounds, I am listening.
orionengnr is offline  
Old December 10, 2012, 11:26 PM   #38
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,071
Lemme add...

The title might be misleading to some replying here... It doesn't imply "Does the gun harm equally at both ends"... Maybe this is the reason for the derailment of the original topic...

Maybe a re-read is in order for context comprehension???

Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 12:08 PM   #39
Willie Lowman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2009
Location: Uh-Hi-O
Posts: 2,420
To answer the OP, I haven't met anyone who fears the effectiveness of their sd round or thinks the evildoers in the night are superior shots with superior weaponry. Rather the opposite is what I hear and read on TFL. People here seem sure of themselves and confident in their choice of firearm/ammo. That is unless the topic is a rifle for sd then it's overpenetration ad nauseam.

Last edited by Frank Ettin; December 11, 2012 at 12:21 PM. Reason: remove insults
Willie Lowman is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 12:54 PM   #40
dayman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Location: The Woods
Posts: 1,078
Someone already beat me to it, but I believe our practice of assuming BG's soak up bullets and we go down after 1 is just looking at the worst possible outcome.
You don't want to depend on one bullet putting down the BG.
You don't want to depend on still being in the fight after you take one.

You should hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

For the opposing viewpoint (bullet proof good guys and bad guys that can't shoot and go down easy) you can watch pretty much any action movie.
__________________
si vis pacem para bellum
dayman is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 02:34 PM   #41
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,930
Quote:
You don't want to depend on still being in the fight after you take one.

Here's the mindset:

I will not quit.

Yeah, I might get hit. I might get hurt. I might have to do things I'd rather not do. I might have to force myself to do stuff that seems impossible. But I will not quit.

Unless I am dead, I am still in the fight.

Do not train yourself to quit. Do not train others to quit.

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 03:10 PM   #42
dayman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Location: The Woods
Posts: 1,078
sorry, I wasn't clear.
I didn't mean to say that you should expect to be done if you get hurt, just that it would be unwise to expect being able to keep going as a matter of course.

I would fully expect myself to keep fighting until the lights go out, but I've been caught by enough punches boxing to know the lights can go out earlier than one expects. So, for planning purposes it's best to assume that if you get shot you'll be down - not that you should quit, but that you could very well be unconscious, in shock, or dead.
There are far too many variables resulting for getting shot for it to be worth much effort deciding what you'll do after it happens.
__________________
si vis pacem para bellum
dayman is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 03:22 PM   #43
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,930
Maybe I wasn't clear.

I accept that I might get hit, but I won't allow myself to quit. If I am alive enough to know I was hit, I am alive enough to choose survival.

That's the mindset.

Of course, if you're not even alive or awake enough to know you were hit, that's a different thing. But I don't think it's helpful to tell people they have permission to just lay there and wait for rescue if they get hit. An overwhelming majority of those shot with handgun bullets survive, as do many of those hit by shotgun or rifle rounds. Equally, a surprising number of people who have survived extreme situations credit their mindset -- refusing to quit -- with their survival. That's the mindset I want for myself, and it's one I want to help other people reach.

Bottom line: I may get hurt. But if I have any say in the matter at all, I'm not going to just lie there and bleed. I'm going to do whatever it takes to get home safe to the people I love.

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 03:44 PM   #44
zombietactics
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 7, 2012
Location: Northern California
Posts: 336
The main takeaway is that - wait for it - bullets work about the same for the BG as the GG.

Beyond that, it goes something like this: "What do you propose to do to prevent yourself from getting shot/stabbed/clubbed?" If the answer to that question is some variation on "shoot him first" or "the first one to put accurate rounds on target wins!" ... you fail the exercise. Plenty of "inaccurate" hits to peripheral areas (femoral or brachial artery, for instance) have sent people to the morgue. Knowing that you plastered your opponent with 4 solid hits to the thoracic cavity (and then zapped him in the head) will be cold comfort to your widow and children in face of the fact that one of his "spray and pray" rounds tagged your carotid in the middle of the exchange.

Your gun is not a phaser, and it's not a deflector shield either.

The key to surviving an attack is to not get hurt. Being able to utilize your firearm with proficiency is only one piece of the puzzle, and arguably not the most important one.
zombietactics is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 06:05 PM   #45
PH/CIB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 281
"but theBG's guns & ammo has no problem striking us down like the Hammer of Thor?.....” SEEKER TWO

“A wide majority of people hit with handgun ammunition survive, as do significant numbers of those hit with rifle and shotgun fire. If you're alive enough to know you were hit, you are alive enough to choose survival: stop the bad guy so he doesn't hit you again, then stanch your bleeding and walk/limp/crawl/drag yourself to a phone where you can call for help. Stay awake and alert until help arrives.

Don't quit. Don't teach others to quit.” PAX

“Seeker you are 100% right, I've said so over and over again, in this forum. As someone who has actually seen the effects of a GSW on a person (Retired nurse) it takes a lot to incapacitate a determined human.
Sometimes only the catastrophic loss of blood is enough and death is the reason for the incapacitation. We used to look at at each other after we would see really severe trauma's from any source and ask ourselves how they even made it to us alive let alone pulled through.
This was not at all unusual. Here is a useful fact to add to this though, the ones who remained conscious and fought for life seemed to be able to take far more damage and live.” SCRUBCEDAR

“On the "good guy" side we have the example of LAPD Officer Stacy Lim who was shot in the chest with a .357 Magnum and still ran down her attacker, returned fire, killed him, survived, and ultimately was able to return to duty.” FRANK ETTIN

If I had any inclination to be a thief, I would run for political office, change the laws and become a legal thief, white collar crime beats violent crime any day of the week.

Unless I was a psychopath, as a thief, I would not want to hurt anyone as it would increase my jail time if caught and I definitely would not want to be hurt, so faced with an armed citizen I would get out of there or give up, however what if you are dealing with a psychopath?

I cannot agree with Pax and ScrubCedar more, the will to live is one of the strongest human drives, don’t ever give up, and I thank Frank Ettin for the info on Stacy Lim, she was incredible as was the other Medal of Valor stories of our Brave Law Enforcement Personnel.

While not civilian, here is a link to You Tube to a Good Guy who never gave up, every American who Loves their Freedom should watch it at least once, after President Reagan’s speech told in his own words, Green Beret Medal of Honor Roy Benavidez, unless you shut down the central nervous system or the heart, determined humans can take an incredible amount of punishment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oUtJxE4sjs
__________________
Life Member,,,Military Order of the Purple Heart, Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion, Amvets, Disabled American Veterans, 173rd Airborne Skysoldier Association, National Rifle Association, Member,,,IDPA, USPSA, Iowa Sheriffs and Deputies Association,,Website http://www.handgunholsters.net
PH/CIB is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 09:59 PM   #46
FireForged
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 1,186
There is no control over what the "bad guy" is going to be armed with so there reallly isnt much of a point in worrying about hyper specifics. I just imagine that it will be something equal to a romulan disrupter and go from there.
__________________
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance...
FireForged is offline  
Old December 12, 2012, 10:23 AM   #47
sfmedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2012
Location: Currently Erbil, Iraq
Posts: 106
.
[1] Please spell my name correctly. Sorry about the mispelled name

[2] And yes, our focus is handgun rounds. The focus of our discussions is self defense by private citizens, including the carrying of firearms by private citizens for self defense. That most commonly involves handguns. - whatever - my post was relevent to the thread as it was progressing

[3] All the material I cited and quoted very clearly relates to handgun rounds. No it wasnt - if it was I wouldnt have posted it

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfmedic
...The energy imparted by the bullet has to abide by the law of energy E=MC2 in the world of ballistic energy mass isnt the big dog on the block its Speed because the speed is squared...
[1] And that equation has absolutely nothing to do with the subject we are discussing, nor does it describe ballistic energy.

[2] That equation is useful do describe the energy produced in nuclear reactions when a small amount of matter is lost and is converted to energy.

[3] The factor "c" is not speed. It is rather the speed of light (roughly 186,000 miles/second). The speed of light is a common constant in many equations of physics, and the letter "c" is commonly used in physics equations to refer to the speed of light.

I used that as a general example that evryone knew I dont think the Ek=1/2mv2 would have been as widely known - but it still holds that you get more energy from the speed side of the column as opposed to the size side

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfmedic
...Because of that study I carry either MAGSAFES or GLAZERs and will not carry stuff like combat talons because of that studies data....
It is however my understanding that these bullets have very poor reputations for penetration. While they can make ghastly appearing superficial wounds, they sometimes do not adequately penetrate to major blood vessels or blood rich organs.

They dont over-penetrate either - a fast round leaving the body takes energy with it
sfmedic is offline  
Old December 12, 2012, 05:53 PM   #48
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfmedic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
...All the material I cited and quoted very clearly relates to handgun rounds.
No it wasnt - if it was I wouldnt have posted it...
The only quotations in my post (post 21) in any way addressing "shock effect" were the three from the book In Defense of Self and Others. The first, a quote from Dr. V. J. M. DiMaio refers specifically to, "...low velocity missles, e. g., pistol bullets...." The second refers specifically to, "...a handgun bullet...." And the third in context is clearly a continuation of the discussion from which the first two quotes were taken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfmedic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfmedic
...The energy imparted by the bullet has to abide by the law of energy E=MC2 in the world of ballistic energy mass isnt the big dog on the block its Speed because the speed is squared...
[1] And that equation has absolutely nothing to do with the subject we are discussing, nor does it describe ballistic energy.

[2] That equation is useful do describe the energy produced in nuclear reactions when a small amount of matter is lost and is converted to energy.

[3] The factor "c" is not speed. It is rather the speed of light (roughly 186,000 miles/second). The speed of light is a common constant in many equations of physics, and the letter "c" is commonly used in physics equations to refer to the speed of light.
I used that as a general example that evryone knew I dont think the Ek=1/2mv2 would have been as widely known ...
[1] So on one hand you have claimed in other posts to be an instructor, yet on the other hand you're willing to attempt to illustrate a point you're trying to make with a completely incorrect (for the purpose) and irrelevant equation, simply because you think people will recognize it? I would have expected someone who has experience as an instructor to use the proper equation and offer a brief explanation of what it means.

[2] Familiarity with the equation E=mc2 doesn't make that equation in any way applicable to the subject under discussion. Among other things, it has nothing to do with kinetic energy as expressed by E=1/2mv2.

[3] And how is E=mc2 a "general example"? It is a very specific equation addressing a very specific issue, and has nothing to do with kinetic energy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfmedic
...- but it still holds that you get more energy from the speed side of the column as opposed to the size side...
No, as a matter of fact the equation E=mc2 does not hold anything of the sort.

[1] It has nothing to do with the speed of anything. Matter (mass), for the purposes of that equation, could be at rest or in motion, but if in motion, the speed or velocity of the matter in not accounted for in the equation. The only speed referenced in the equation is the constant, "c", the speed of light.

[2] What the equation E=mc2 does hold is that if an amount of matter is converted to energy in a nuclear reaction (or similar process, e. g., the mutual annihilation of an electronic and positron with the resultant release of energy in the form of gamma radiation) the amount of energy thus produced would be equal to the mass of the matter converted to energy multiplied by the square of the speed of light.

[3] In any case the reference to "size side" is inaccurate. The issue is mass, not size.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old December 12, 2012, 10:44 PM   #49
seeker_two
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 31, 2002
Location: Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX)
Posts: 1,714
Where can I find that load that propells a bullet at c? And would it be considered a +P+ load?
__________________
Proud member of Gun Culture 2.0......
seeker_two is offline  
Old December 13, 2012, 11:44 AM   #50
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by seeker two:
Where can I find that load that propells a bullet at c? And would it be considered a +P+ load?
And can you imagine the recoil?
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION
481 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14147 seconds with 7 queries