captbruubaker
Inactive
Actually if you watch Last Man Standing with Bruce Willis you will find that it is absolutely true. Because it was Bruce Willis it must be true!!!!!!
can .45 caliber knocksomeone off their feet?
- Thread starter Doug.38PR
- Start date
Knock down?
A 155mm howitzer will do it!! Well actually it converts the body into very small particles! But you get the message.
A school trustee, who stole money, committed suicide on TV a few years ago, stuck a big revolver barrel in his mouth, fired the shot, using a good VCR unit, I was unable to catch movement, one frame there, next frame, gone.
Instant, gravity collapse, no stagger, no step, no nothing, collapse, that is knockdown power, clean off the brain stem whilst standing.
Same as dropping a 200 lb bag of flour.
A 155mm howitzer will do it!! Well actually it converts the body into very small particles! But you get the message.
A school trustee, who stole money, committed suicide on TV a few years ago, stuck a big revolver barrel in his mouth, fired the shot, using a good VCR unit, I was unable to catch movement, one frame there, next frame, gone.
Instant, gravity collapse, no stagger, no step, no nothing, collapse, that is knockdown power, clean off the brain stem whilst standing.
Same as dropping a 200 lb bag of flour.
They tested this on Mythbusters.
They hung a man sized pig from a toggle that could easily be dislodged by a light push.
Then they shot it with various firearms. 9mms, .45, various submachine guns, rifles, etc. At one point three of them were shooting it with submachine guns simultaneously.
The only thing that dislodged it from the toggle was a 12ga shotgun. Even then, the slow mo didn't show it getting knocked back, it just got bumped enough for it to pretty much fall straight down.
They decided that too much energy was getting wasted by bullets going stright through the pig so they put a bullet proof vest on it and repeated the test.
Same results. Only the 12 ga dislodged it and it fell pretty much straight down--no significant movement backwards.
Amazing that experiments bear out what the mathematics and science predict, eh?
They hung a man sized pig from a toggle that could easily be dislodged by a light push.
Then they shot it with various firearms. 9mms, .45, various submachine guns, rifles, etc. At one point three of them were shooting it with submachine guns simultaneously.
The only thing that dislodged it from the toggle was a 12ga shotgun. Even then, the slow mo didn't show it getting knocked back, it just got bumped enough for it to pretty much fall straight down.
They decided that too much energy was getting wasted by bullets going stright through the pig so they put a bullet proof vest on it and repeated the test.
Same results. Only the 12 ga dislodged it and it fell pretty much straight down--no significant movement backwards.
Amazing that experiments bear out what the mathematics and science predict, eh?
I remember seeing an old video where a guy with a bullet-proof vest allows himself to be shot.
He is standing on one leg and is shot with a .308 rifle from a few feet away.
It did not knock him down! I don't think a .45 is going to pull it off if a .308 don't have the juice. The video was Deadly Weapons: Firearms & Firepower, they used to have it playing, on a loop, at a gun store here years ago. 
He is standing on one leg and is shot with a .308 rifle from a few feet away.
It did not knock him down! I don't think a .45 is going to pull it off if a .308 don't have the juice. The video was Deadly Weapons: Firearms & Firepower, they used to have it playing, on a loop, at a gun store here years ago. Dwight55:
No, actually that's in line with what I've experienced. After all, I actually have shot M203 with grenade rounds, I know what the recoil is like from them. So, yes, I can well believe that there is actually enough KE in a 40mm grenade to knock somebody down. Of course, if the grenade detonates as designed that's all she wrote dear John...
JohnKSa:
"Amazing that experiments bear out what the mathematics and science predict, eh? "
After all, that's why they call them laws. Not only that, these are really straightforward ones.
No, actually that's in line with what I've experienced. After all, I actually have shot M203 with grenade rounds, I know what the recoil is like from them. So, yes, I can well believe that there is actually enough KE in a 40mm grenade to knock somebody down. Of course, if the grenade detonates as designed that's all she wrote dear John...
JohnKSa:
"Amazing that experiments bear out what the mathematics and science predict, eh? "
After all, that's why they call them laws. Not only that, these are really straightforward ones.
“ No, there is not a (big) difference in energies.”
“…bullet simply cannot knock a man down. If it had the energy to do so, then equal energy would be applied against the shooter and he too would be knocked down.”
“energy cannot be created or destroyed.”
Momentum is NOT energy.
Energy is MV^2/2, and is measured in lbf*ft.
Momentum M * V and is measured in lbm * ft/sec
They are not interchangeable in calculations.
The ‘tungsten rod in the barrel’ is a poor example, since you are now involving energy, and not just momentum.
When an engineer analyses a problem involving forces a sketch called a ‘free body diagram’ is used to account for all the forces in a simple way. Think of the gun hanging from a thread and fired. Bullet moves one way, gun moves the other, momentum (NOT energy) must be conserved. If the gun weighs 60 times more than the bullet, the gun will have 1/60th of the bullets velocity.
This reminds me of the drawing showing a pair of mule teams pulling opposite directions on a pair of jeans. The pants see the exact same load as if one pair pulled and the other was attached to the mountain. Mule team pulls 1000 lbf North, mountain must be providing 1000 lbf South or the pants would be moving.
A 40mm will only knock someone over from surprise and not being set up to absorb the blow like the shooter was.
I fired a .375 H&H at a deer that ran across a private range where I was checking the rifle. I had already fired 3 shots with the accompanying recoil with out incident. A followed the deer and fired with the rifle 90 degrees to the line between my feet. And promptly was sitting on my but. No way to absorb the recoil.
“…bullet simply cannot knock a man down. If it had the energy to do so, then equal energy would be applied against the shooter and he too would be knocked down.”
“energy cannot be created or destroyed.”
Momentum is NOT energy.
Energy is MV^2/2, and is measured in lbf*ft.
Momentum M * V and is measured in lbm * ft/sec
They are not interchangeable in calculations.
The ‘tungsten rod in the barrel’ is a poor example, since you are now involving energy, and not just momentum.
When an engineer analyses a problem involving forces a sketch called a ‘free body diagram’ is used to account for all the forces in a simple way. Think of the gun hanging from a thread and fired. Bullet moves one way, gun moves the other, momentum (NOT energy) must be conserved. If the gun weighs 60 times more than the bullet, the gun will have 1/60th of the bullets velocity.
This reminds me of the drawing showing a pair of mule teams pulling opposite directions on a pair of jeans. The pants see the exact same load as if one pair pulled and the other was attached to the mountain. Mule team pulls 1000 lbf North, mountain must be providing 1000 lbf South or the pants would be moving.
A 40mm will only knock someone over from surprise and not being set up to absorb the blow like the shooter was.
I fired a .375 H&H at a deer that ran across a private range where I was checking the rifle. I had already fired 3 shots with the accompanying recoil with out incident. A followed the deer and fired with the rifle 90 degrees to the line between my feet. And promptly was sitting on my but. No way to absorb the recoil.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
Nope.
In fact, I was disappointed after just having watched "Open Range" finally, which is overall a good movie - but there were two hokie occasions in scenes when Duvall's shotgun blew someone up off their feet and through the air 6 or 8 feet. A shotgun can't do that - not even close, and a handgun certainly can't.
In fact, I was disappointed after just having watched "Open Range" finally, which is overall a good movie - but there were two hokie occasions in scenes when Duvall's shotgun blew someone up off their feet and through the air 6 or 8 feet. A shotgun can't do that - not even close, and a handgun certainly can't.
TheeBadOne
Moderator
About the only shoulder fired weapon I can think of that can "knock someone off their feet"
novus collectus
Moderator
What about: bazooka, panzerfaust, CHICOM type 36 57 mm recoiless rifle fired from the shoulder(and other recoilless rifles), and the TOW missile, etc.
novus collectus
Moderator
Just made me think. A .45 will knock someone off their feet......if it is strapped to the front of a car that hit them at 20 mph.
It will knock them over......if they are one of those Chinese gymnasts who balance on one foot standing on a knife blade while juggling four bowling balls.
It will knock them of their feet......... if they are a 40 pound midget standing in the microgavity of the moon.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I've seen tapes of guys hit with a paintball who fall straight down. It's psychological.
As far as the energy impulse of recoil. Years ago, I did something stupid. A friend had a Winchester 1300 with the pistol grip only. We fired it from our waist and then I, as a mental giant, decided to bring it to eye level to aim it. Firing regular buckshot. Well, I ate the gun. But I didn't fall down. I stood there, put the gun down and just cursed myself out.
I also know several other (including a well known national trainer) who have eaten the 12 gauge the same way. So if the recoil whack of a 12 gauge, equivalent, to the energy of the round, won't knock you over, I doubt a pistol will.
As far as the energy impulse of recoil. Years ago, I did something stupid. A friend had a Winchester 1300 with the pistol grip only. We fired it from our waist and then I, as a mental giant, decided to bring it to eye level to aim it. Firing regular buckshot. Well, I ate the gun. But I didn't fall down. I stood there, put the gun down and just cursed myself out.
I also know several other (including a well known national trainer) who have eaten the 12 gauge the same way. So if the recoil whack of a 12 gauge, equivalent, to the energy of the round, won't knock you over, I doubt a pistol will.
Ha - I remember duck hunting from a canoe, tracking some Woodies around until I couldn't turn anymore and ended up holding the shotgun like a pistol just with my hands - recoil pad in front of my mouth - OUCH! fat lip (and I missed too - just to make it worse!).
When talking about (pistol) recoil, don't forget the mass of the slide, the barrel, and the recoil spring. If I remember correctly, a recoiless pistol can be created using a heavy enough spring, it just that it couldn't be operated by hand.
When talking about (pistol) recoil, don't forget the mass of the slide, the barrel, and the recoil spring. If I remember correctly, a recoiless pistol can be created using a heavy enough spring, it just that it couldn't be operated by hand.
brickeyee
Not only that, it would require a bullet that did not expend it's energy deforming, and a human target that offered sufficient surface physical resistance. Bullets tend to want to pass through people - not "knock them down".
In essence, trying to "knock someone down" with a bullet is like trying to do the same with the sharp end of a spear.
Not only that, it would require a bullet that did not expend it's energy deforming, and a human target that offered sufficient surface physical resistance. Bullets tend to want to pass through people - not "knock them down".
In essence, trying to "knock someone down" with a bullet is like trying to do the same with the sharp end of a spear.
Ben Swenson
New member
I don't think so.
CastleBravo
New member
It is amazing to read posts by alleged grown-ups that are basically appeals to magic. No wonder so many jobs are going overseas, people here can't comprehend Junior High science class stuff that was figured out by Newton over 300 years ago. Maybe they can out-source gun forums to India, too?
xXStarScreamXx
New member
I know, i have to teach older guys at gun stores this all the time when they start up on their 45 banter.
"When talking about (pistol) recoil, don't forget the mass of the slide, the barrel, and the recoil spring. If I remember correctly, a recoiless pistol can be created using a heavy enough spring, it just that it couldn't be operated by hand."
Life does not exactly work this way.
There are two things to consider. Momentum and energy.
Momentum determines the velocity the gun recoils with.
Energy is the KE the gun moving with the recoil velocity posses. The energy can be dissipated over a short distance (requires a lot of force applied quickly) or over a longer distance (requires less force applied for longer). A large mass is required to act against for a gun to be made ‘recoilless’. Something has to hold the non-recoiling portion in position against the springs used to store and release the recoil energy.
Artillery anchors to the earth, stores the energy in springs and hydraulics, and then returns to battery. The actual energy is dissipated as heat in the springs and hydraulic fluid. The advantage is that aiming remains consistent from shot to shot since the base did not move (much, the earth still compresses slowly but surely).
Keep in mind the old demonstration of momentum. A weight is hung from a string, and then another string is attached to the weight. Yanking quickly on the bottom string will break it even though the two sections of string have the same strength. A slow pull might break either one. The momentum of the weight reduces the actual force seen by the upper string. The same type of thing must be in place to allow fro transfer of the recoil KE to the storage mechanism.
CastleBravo,
You have no idea of how bad it is sometimes. I have a little office toy on my desk that rocks a wire framework back and forth. I have lost count of the engineers who think it does not need a battery (perpetual motion has been achieved!).
Engineers using the weight of an object in KE equations (lbf is weight, lbm is slugs), let alone th confusion over when to use Newtons and when to use kilograms in calculations.
Or the new engineer that used narrow traces for high current and used inadequate clearances between high voltage traces. He had no real concept of what these things mean.
Life does not exactly work this way.
There are two things to consider. Momentum and energy.
Momentum determines the velocity the gun recoils with.
Energy is the KE the gun moving with the recoil velocity posses. The energy can be dissipated over a short distance (requires a lot of force applied quickly) or over a longer distance (requires less force applied for longer). A large mass is required to act against for a gun to be made ‘recoilless’. Something has to hold the non-recoiling portion in position against the springs used to store and release the recoil energy.
Artillery anchors to the earth, stores the energy in springs and hydraulics, and then returns to battery. The actual energy is dissipated as heat in the springs and hydraulic fluid. The advantage is that aiming remains consistent from shot to shot since the base did not move (much, the earth still compresses slowly but surely).
Keep in mind the old demonstration of momentum. A weight is hung from a string, and then another string is attached to the weight. Yanking quickly on the bottom string will break it even though the two sections of string have the same strength. A slow pull might break either one. The momentum of the weight reduces the actual force seen by the upper string. The same type of thing must be in place to allow fro transfer of the recoil KE to the storage mechanism.
CastleBravo,
You have no idea of how bad it is sometimes. I have a little office toy on my desk that rocks a wire framework back and forth. I have lost count of the engineers who think it does not need a battery (perpetual motion has been achieved!).
Engineers using the weight of an object in KE equations (lbf is weight, lbm is slugs), let alone th confusion over when to use Newtons and when to use kilograms in calculations.
Or the new engineer that used narrow traces for high current and used inadequate clearances between high voltage traces. He had no real concept of what these things mean.