This could kinda be fun to think about but it becomes almost a catch 22 situation.
Newton's 2nd law: basically F=ma (Force = mass * acceleration)
3rd law: all actions have an equal and opposite reaction
With a constant acceleration while in the barrel to propel a bullet from rest to a certain velocity, there will be a steady, not-too-unpleasant force applied to the bullet, and a (equal and opposite) force applied to the firearm/shooter.
If we assume point blank range, and that the bullet does not pass all the way through the target, that same velocity that was reached must be slowed down from its peak back to zero fps by the target.
If the target is soft tissue, the bullet could take even longer to decelerate (negative acceleration) than it took to leave the gun barrel since it is passing through tissue over time. That means it would have lower acceleration, and therefore would apply lower force to the target than it applied to the gun/shooter system.
However, theoretically if the bullet impacted a target that did not give at all, such as some armor steel anchored such that it doesn't move at all from the impact, the negative acceleration of the bullet would be nearly instant. That means a huge number for acceleration which means a huge number for the force applied to the target, which could theoretically knock someone down. Of course the large force was only possible because the bullet impacted something immovable.
TLDR: A bullet could theoretically apply enough force to knock someone over, but only if they cannot physically be knocked over. Catch 22!
|