If you fire a .50 cal rifle (they are used as sniper rifles) you dont move a bit because you have more leverage. It's why you can fire a .50 cal machine gun without ending up in the next county after a few rounds. Now if you were to take a 50 cal and try and Rambo it...yeah...you are going to get thrown back as the recoil on it isn't designed to absorb the energy. A .50 cal rifle, on the other hand, has recoil spring to absorb some of that energy directed back at you so the bullet will effectively have more of a punch than the rifle but will have on your shoulder...same goes with a m1911...re recoil springs and venting cause it to have less of a blowback, energy wise, than the bullet has punching power if that makes sense. Just for sake of argument, the bullet may exert 500 lbs of pressure on the target it hits, while you may only feel 50 lbs of pressure on your body from firing it because of venting and the recoil mechanisms. The energy coming back at you is absorbed by springs or vented and thus deflected in a different direction thus lessening it's effect on you.
-----Original Message----- From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 12:52 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment IIRC, the biggest gun they tested was a .50 caliber rifle. I do not have to fire a gun to know that any bullets it shoots cannot defy the laws of physics. On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Eric Roberts <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > Again...you obviously have never fired an m1911. The force the round exudes > when it hits a target is pretty intense. I dont know what weapons they > tested on Mythbusters (I would certainly like to see the episode), but they > obviously didn't test the m1911. When you fire it, it has a pretty hard > kick that causes your hands to go back and the gun to go up. That is one of > the several reasons why it is so accurate because you have to totally re-aim > for the next shot. Part of it is also because the round is so huge. It is > pretty useless at a distance, but close range, it packs a punch. Id dont > know if any of the other vets here used it as I think they are all much > younger than me and probably would have used the 9mm handgun the military > adopted. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 9:19 AM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment > > > Had to look it up, could not think of the reference at the time that > proves this is physically imposible, its Newton's Third Law of Motion > > On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Scott Stroz <boyz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> OK, earlier you said it it would 'knock him back a few feet'...that is >> physically impossible, without the shooter also getting knocked back a >> few feet. 'knock them on their ass' is quite a bit different than >> 'knock him back a few feet'. :D >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Eric Roberts >> <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: >>> >>> I guess you have never fired an m1911...it's doesn't knock you back at > all. >>> The army adopted the handgun during the Philippine Insurrection when the >>> Philippine Moros, who were hopped up on drugs, would keep on charging > when >>> hit by the revolvers that were previously used. The .45 cal round that > the >>> m1911 fired hit them and knocked them on their ass so they wouldn't get > back >>> up. The handgun was used up until the late 80's/early 90's when it was >>> replaced by the much less powerful (and more accurate at greater > distances) >>> 9mm. >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 7:21 AM >>> To: cf-community >>> Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment >>> >>> >>> Any weapon that will knock the bad guy back a few feet will also knock >>> you back a few feet. I know this because I saw it in Mythbusters. :D >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Eric Roberts >>> <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> If I were to have a firearm for self defense, I'll take the m1911 any > day. >>>> Screw the little 9mm handguns...I want something that would not only > kill >>> my >>>> opponent, but knock him back a few feet ;-) Which is one of the reasons > I >>>> won't own one. I wasn't trained to injure. I was trained to shoot to > kill >>>> (one shot one kill as the saying went) and I really don't want to be put >>> in >>>> that situation. I'll give my opponent a fighting chance and stick to >>> blades >>>> ;-) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Robert Munn [mailto:cfmuns...@gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 1:49 AM >>>> To: cf-community >>>> Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment >>>> >>>> >>>> I could go for either of those, or maybe the M4 shotgun. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox >>>> <zaph0d.b33bl3b...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I've got the Remington 870 Express. >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Scott Stroz <boyz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We have a Benelli SuperNova tactical shotgun. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:322858 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
