And yet, still nothing that states it will knock someone back several feet when hit by a bullet from the weapon.
Will it knock them down? Shit yea. Will it knock them back a few feet? No way. Why? Because it is physically impossible to do so. On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Eric Roberts <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > I don't know if I will find a video of what it does to the human body since > that is a bit illegal ;-) > > Here's a site that has some vids on the effects of shooting various > objects... > > http://stoppingpower.info/.45/ > > and the wiki which state the round hits the target with and avg of 252 PSI > with a penetration of up to 27 inches into ballistic gel, depending on the > ammo used. I don't know what brand the military used and didn't see > anything stating it. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.45_ACP > > > This is what it replaced: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.45_Colt > > and this is what eventually replaced the m1911: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9x19mm_Parabellum > > > Eric > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 10:34 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment > > > Show me video. If this gun can do what you claim, there must be video > of it on the Internet...somewhere. If you cannot, then I guess we can > chalk it up to a flare up of your cranial rectitis. > > Your reply makes no attempt to disprove me. I guess your avoidance is > as close to a 'you are right, I am wrong' as we will ever get out of > you. > > On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Eric Roberts > <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: >> >> Go read up on the m1911 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 8:09 PM >> To: cf-community >> Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment >> >> >> I think you need to understand physics. >> >> There is no gun that can be held by one person, that when fired at >> another person, will knock that other person back a few feet. (Maybe a >> rail gun could do it, but I do not think there are any hand held rail >> guns...yet) If there is such a gun, I am sure you can find some video >> somewhere that proves me wrong. My challenge to you is to find such >> proof. >> >> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Eric Roberts >> <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: >>> >>> I think you need to study how guns work. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 4:08 PM >>> To: cf-community >>> Subject: Re: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment >>> >>> >>> OK...you keep believing in magic guns and bullets, I stay firmly >>> rooted in the real world. Sound fair? >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Eric Roberts >>> <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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:322874 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
