True stories stopping man or beast - Page 3

mfree · April 6, 2006, 10:44 AM

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The force of a bullet striking a target can inflict no more overall force than that taken by the shooter and the weapon. The target may be *moved*, but definitely not *knocked* down, but may fall or appear to be moved or leap due to neuromuscular response.

Plain and simple physics, and inviolable.

Lurper · April 6, 2006, 11:56 AM

My two cents:
Physics - for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A bullet cannot knock a man down. It does not posses the necessary mass or velocity. The reaction you see is physiological.
While shot placement is critical, advocating the use of a .22 for self defense is suicidal/homicidal. Bigger bullets increase the chance of incapacitating your attacker (killing them is not what is important). Nothing is 100%, you can only strive to stack the odds that you control in your favor.

Here is data supporting the eficacy of larger calibers by the world's foremost expert:

Fackler, Martin L., M.D.: "FBI 1993 Wound Ballistics Seminar: Efficacy of Heavier Bullets Affirmed." Wound Ballistics Review, 1(4): 8-9; 1994.

Fackler presents findings from the 1993 FBI Wound Ballistics Seminar. The following is a short extract:

"The Firearms Training Unit of the FBI held a Wound Ballistics Seminar from 19 through 22 January 1993 at the FBI Academy.

"Thirty-seven forensic pathologists, trauma surgeons, law enforcement trainers, firearms examiners, and ordnance engineers met to discuss handgun bullet effects and bullet testing. This group unanimously affirmed the principles set down by the FBI workshop of 1987: primarily among these was that a bullet must possess the capacity to penetrate deeply enough to reach and disrupt vital body structures if it is to stand any chance of performing reliably in the variety of circumstances a law enforcement officer might meet in a gunfight. Since the 1987 workshop, most law enforcement agencies have adopted the more deeply penetrating heavier bullets. At the 1993 symposium, trainers from five large departments (California Highway Patrol, Indianapolis PD, San Diego PD, Louisiana State Police, and Amarillo PD) reported data showing excellent performance from bullets chosen using the FBI penetration criterion. Several of these trainers had polled their counterparts in other departments and found that their highly favorable observations and impressions of the heavier bullets were widely shared.

"The findings of this symposium are especially timely since it appears that three gunwriters have recently attempted to trump up a 'controversy' by claiming that the heavier subsonic bullets used by the majority of law enforcement agencies have been turning in a poor record in 'street' shootings. The story of how several senior trainers exposed this attempted fraud by these gunwriter/bullet salesmen was the subject of IWBA Bulletin No. 1, which accompanied the third issue of the Wound Ballistics Review."

Newgard, Ken, M.D.: "The Physiological Effects of Handgun Bullets: The Mechanisms of Wounding and Incapacitation."

samoand · April 6, 2006, 01:00 PM

The law of conservation of momentum (and yes, it's momentum that moves things and not energy) says that momentum equal to the one of the bullet is also delivered to the shooter. If you see a person hit flying (or even visibly moved) back, it's bodily reaction. Otherwise, the shooter would be flying (moved) in the opposite direction just as much as that unfortunate guy on the receiving end.

riverrat66: I'm not sure that "I have seen people shot and you didn't" rhetorics applies here. You don't have to see people shot to know physics for fifth graders, just like you don't have to see people jump a bridge to their death to know about laws of gravity. I thought Blackwater spoke accurately about how facts may differ from interpretations. Regards!

riverrat66 · April 6, 2006, 03:59 PM

In a highly charged and chaotic atmosphere like combat each combatant will have different recollections of exactly what took place. Your experiences may differ from mine but that does not mean they did not happen nor does it mean it is impossible for them to happen. Out of all the millions of men killed in combat is it not possible that a few may have been knocked off their feet by the impact of the bullet? Some of you are saying that no, physics will not allow it, one can not be knocked off their feet just because they've been shot, it just isn't allowed, period.

You guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill. I made the statement that:
The 30 caliber rifle bullets of this type are known to knock men down, and throw them off their feet back some distance and make an incredible wound.

Please show me where I say anyone went "flying through the air"? I did not say that. I said it was known to knock them down etc. and I did not say it happened every time or often. Many strange things happen and I could tell you more but God forbid I did because you guys would pick it to death because you read somewhere that it's not supposed to happen like that.

samoand,
It's not "I have seen people shot and you didn't" rhetorics" and wasn't meant that way.

Quote:

If you see a person hit flying (or even visibly moved) back,

Please re-read the post and try to get it right. I never said flying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pointer

CONCLUSION? We are arguing semantics like "impossible" or "never" as if they are absolutes without room for argument...

Obviously that's the way it is around here. Unless it's on the internet so some of these guys can read it, then it's impossible and can never be done!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurper

"Thirty-seven forensic pathologists, trauma surgeons, law enforcement trainers, firearms examiners, and ordnance engineers met to discuss handgun bullet effects and bullet testing.

The world's "foremost expert" was talking about handguns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwater OPS

It is true that some did not know they were shot (people I knew) and some that did not seem to react at all(other side).

Well, I could say something inappropriate and that I did not believe it but I won't. There are some individuals here that would not believe it because they have not read it on the internet or there has not been a study been done on it. I was shot with a AK47 and I knew immediately that I had been shot because it hurt like hell! No I did "fly thru the air" and I have no idea where that phrase came from. But I was knocked to my knees as I was shot in the lower back and that's all I'll say about that.

I spent two years in combat in Vietnam and would have liked to share some of my experiences with you guys as it's a form of therapy for me to talk about them. Some of my experiences are really unique as they are unbelievable but after this experience I'm afraid to do that because some of the people around here would challenge me on everything I said.

Some people around here take all the pleasure out of posting on the FiringLine because they feel the need to pick on every word someone says just to show everyone what an expert they are on all subjects. They imply things that were never said. They edit their posts hours after they were originally posted to make themselves look better. Those people know who they are. Some people disagreed with what I said and that's OK but even with the knowledge of the so-called tests that everyone is throwing around that does not mean that what I said is impossible. To say that is being too narrow minded to say the least. If you were punched in the chest hard enough you would probably move back a step as you would if hit with a medicine ball as suggested by one poster. Why is it so difficult to think that maybe one could be moved back a step or two by being shot by a large caliber weapon? Just because a dead pig didn't move or some other vet didn't see the enemy move that someone else shot doesn't mean that it isn't possible.

I'm sorry if I'm rambling but at this point I'm very disillusioned about this entire experience.

Lurper · April 6, 2006, 04:13 PM

Rat, I think the point about the comments is that a bullet can't knock someone down. It doesn't change what you saw or your experience. I'm sure you saw many people appear to get knocked down, but it wasn't the bullet. Does that mean that they didn't get knocked down? No. I too am a veteran and I appreciate your service and sacrifice. I don't believe anyone here is attacking you personally, they are just expressing different opinions.

April 6, 2006, 10:44 AM	#51
mfree Senior Member Join Date: May 25, 2004 Posts: 506	For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The force of a bullet striking a target can inflict no more overall force than that taken by the shooter and the weapon. The target may be moved, but definitely not knocked down, but may fall or appear to be moved or leap due to neuromuscular response. Plain and simple physics, and inviolable. __________________ "If it's rare, strange, or odd, i want it." I drank the cool-aid. Coal Creek Armory

April 6, 2006, 11:56 AM	#52
Lurper Senior Member Join Date: March 21, 2006 Posts: 943	My two cents: Physics - for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A bullet cannot knock a man down. It does not posses the necessary mass or velocity. The reaction you see is physiological. While shot placement is critical, advocating the use of a .22 for self defense is suicidal/homicidal. Bigger bullets increase the chance of incapacitating your attacker (killing them is not what is important). Nothing is 100%, you can only strive to stack the odds that you control in your favor. Here is data supporting the eficacy of larger calibers by the world's foremost expert: Fackler, Martin L., M.D.: "FBI 1993 Wound Ballistics Seminar: Efficacy of Heavier Bullets Affirmed." Wound Ballistics Review, 1(4): 8-9; 1994. Fackler presents findings from the 1993 FBI Wound Ballistics Seminar. The following is a short extract: "The Firearms Training Unit of the FBI held a Wound Ballistics Seminar from 19 through 22 January 1993 at the FBI Academy. "Thirty-seven forensic pathologists, trauma surgeons, law enforcement trainers, firearms examiners, and ordnance engineers met to discuss handgun bullet effects and bullet testing. This group unanimously affirmed the principles set down by the FBI workshop of 1987: primarily among these was that a bullet must possess the capacity to penetrate deeply enough to reach and disrupt vital body structures if it is to stand any chance of performing reliably in the variety of circumstances a law enforcement officer might meet in a gunfight. Since the 1987 workshop, most law enforcement agencies have adopted the more deeply penetrating heavier bullets. At the 1993 symposium, trainers from five large departments (California Highway Patrol, Indianapolis PD, San Diego PD, Louisiana State Police, and Amarillo PD) reported data showing excellent performance from bullets chosen using the FBI penetration criterion. Several of these trainers had polled their counterparts in other departments and found that their highly favorable observations and impressions of the heavier bullets were widely shared. "The findings of this symposium are especially timely since it appears that three gunwriters have recently attempted to trump up a 'controversy' by claiming that the heavier subsonic bullets used by the majority of law enforcement agencies have been turning in a poor record in 'street' shootings. The story of how several senior trainers exposed this attempted fraud by these gunwriter/bullet salesmen was the subject of IWBA Bulletin No. 1, which accompanied the third issue of the Wound Ballistics Review." Newgard, Ken, M.D.: "The Physiological Effects of Handgun Bullets: The Mechanisms of Wounding and Incapacitation."

April 6, 2006, 01:00 PM	#53
samoand Senior Member Join Date: November 1, 2005 Posts: 211	The law of conservation of momentum (and yes, it's momentum that moves things and not energy) says that momentum equal to the one of the bullet is also delivered to the shooter. If you see a person hit flying (or even visibly moved) back, it's bodily reaction. Otherwise, the shooter would be flying (moved) in the opposite direction just as much as that unfortunate guy on the receiving end. riverrat66: I'm not sure that "I have seen people shot and you didn't" rhetorics applies here. You don't have to see people shot to know physics for fifth graders, just like you don't have to see people jump a bridge to their death to know about laws of gravity. I thought Blackwater spoke accurately about how facts may differ from interpretations. Regards!

April 6, 2006, 04:13 PM	#55
Lurper Senior Member Join Date: March 21, 2006 Posts: 943	Rat, I think the point about the comments is that a bullet can't knock someone down. It doesn't change what you saw or your experience. I'm sure you saw many people appear to get knocked down, but it wasn't the bullet. Does that mean that they didn't get knocked down? No. I too am a veteran and I appreciate your service and sacrifice. I don't believe anyone here is attacking you personally, they are just expressing different opinions.