Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Handgun Discussion
Army wants to dump the M9?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SoonerP226" data-source="post: 2584908" data-attributes="member: 26737"><p>There's a huge difference in mass between you and the can. </p><p></p><p>Any ballistic (i.e, not self-propelled) projectile carrying enough energy to knock a person off his feet starts with more than enough energy to knock the person firing the gun off his feet. It has to be that way, because the projectile begins losing energy the moment it leaves the muzzle. And every ft-lb of energy imparted into the projectile has to be imparted into the device from which it was fired (according to Newton's third law of motion--for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction), which is then transmitted, in the case of a man-portable firearm, into the body of the shooter. </p><p></p><p>Now, it is possible, in theory, to fire a projectile with enough energy to knock a person over without knocking over the shooter (f'rinstance, if you're braced and shooting something with a long impulse, like a BP rifle, and the projectile strikes an un-braced target with a short impulse, like hitting a trauma plate), but that stuff about flipping them backwards is one of two things: Hollyweird F/X or muscular reactions from the person being shot. Either way, it's not the energy (or momentum) of the bullet.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SoonerP226, post: 2584908, member: 26737"] There's a huge difference in mass between you and the can. Any ballistic (i.e, not self-propelled) projectile carrying enough energy to knock a person off his feet starts with more than enough energy to knock the person firing the gun off his feet. It has to be that way, because the projectile begins losing energy the moment it leaves the muzzle. And every ft-lb of energy imparted into the projectile has to be imparted into the device from which it was fired (according to Newton's third law of motion--for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction), which is then transmitted, in the case of a man-portable firearm, into the body of the shooter. Now, it is possible, in theory, to fire a projectile with enough energy to knock a person over without knocking over the shooter (f'rinstance, if you're braced and shooting something with a long impulse, like a BP rifle, and the projectile strikes an un-braced target with a short impulse, like hitting a trauma plate), but that stuff about flipping them backwards is one of two things: Hollyweird F/X or muscular reactions from the person being shot. Either way, it's not the energy (or momentum) of the bullet. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Handgun Discussion
Army wants to dump the M9?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom