True stories stopping man or beast

[riverrat66]

Pointer,
I have heard of things like that happening. That is truly remarkable but I'm wondering has that guy sobered up?

 

[riverrat66]

JohnKSa,

I will not get into a debate with you over this subject but let me ask you something. Did you ever shoot a man with a 7.62/308 cal. (M-14) or any kind of a firearm for that matter? I have many times and while it did not happen every time, there were times it did knock them down and throw them off their feet some distance. I don't mean throwing them thru the air like in the movies but knocking them off their feet as in backward several inches maybe even feet. If I shoot you in the chest with a M-14 do you think you'll just stand there and clutch your chest and then lay down like in the cowboy movies? I can guarantee you you're gonna move. You're gonna move backward, sideways, in some direction besides down! You're not going to just stand there and take the full impact of the shot.

If you've had real personal experiences like the one I described please share them with us. I know what I did experience as fact whether you believe it or not. Shooting a dead pig as opposed to a living man is not quite the same regardless of how many "tests" one does.

 

[Pointer]

has that guy sobered up?

Unknown???
But I doubt it...

It's been so long he might even have died...

 

[JohnKSa]

If I shoot you in the chest with a M-14...I can guarantee you you're gonna move.

It is entirely possible, even probable, that a person hit with a rifle round will REACT by jumping, dodging, clasping one's chest, diving for cover, reflexively jerking, etc. It is NOT physically possible for them to be thrown around by the force of the impact.

Shooting a dead pig as opposed to a living man is not quite the same regardless of how many "tests" one does.

Shooting a dead pig is a perfect test for showing that the force of bullet impact alone is insufficient to cause any significant movement. Which forces us to the conclusion that if a live person moves significantly from being shot, it is a REACTION--a movement caused either by voluntary motion, reflex action or the interaction of damaged nerves and muscle. NOT simply the force of the bullet acting upon them.

AND, getting right to the heart of the matter (and the topic of this thread), since the FORCE of the bullet impact is not what's actually moving them, the caliber used is either totally or largely irrelevant to the amount of REACTION.

I'm not necessarily questioning your experience or veracity, but I am telling you that your interpretation of your observations is contrary to fact.

 

[Blackwater OPS]

If you've had real personal experiences like the one I described please share them with us. I know what I did experience as fact whether you believe it or not.

Generally I don't answer questions like this, I think think it is rude to ask, but I suppose it is valid in this case. Yes, I have been in combat and I have seen people shot. They ALWAYS fall in the same direction they are moving when hit, if they fall at all.

I have used and m14, an m249, as well as an m16 and I have NEVER seen a person knocked back, although I have seen a sort of whiplash effect on head shots. I have seen a person hit with a Mark 19 shell as close range, it was an HE round which had not armed, and it went though him without exploding. He was not knocked back, so I think it is fair to say what you are suggesting is impossible.

One thing I can tell you from years of LE work and interviewing witnesses to the same events, memory can be a funny thing sometimes, I do not doubt that you belive what you are saying, but perhaps it was not what it appeared to be.

 

[riverrat66]

If you think it's "rude to ask" which BTW the question was not directed at you don't you think it's rude to make a statement like this? "memory can be a funny thing sometimes, I do not doubt that you believe what you are saying, but perhaps it was not what it appeared to be. "
Maybe you should read this HERE

They ALWAYS fall in the same direction they are moving when hit, if they fall at all.

I just gotta ask. What do you mean "if they fall at all"? Everyone I ever shot ALWAYS fell. What happens if the enemy is standing still? Did he fall straight down or is it too rude to ask that question?
So in other words you have seen men shot and other then dying they have not reacted at all. I mean to not even fall backward but in every instant, you say 100% of the time "I have NEVER seen a person knocked back". I think it is fair to say what you are suggesting is impossible.
This was the statement I made and why is it so had to believe?

You're gonna move backward, sideways, in some direction besides down! You're not going to just stand there and take the full impact of the shot.

I did not say one would do back flips or go flying through the air. What is so difficult about understanding what I meant.

 

[JohnKSa]

So in other words you have seen men shot and other then dying they have not reacted at all.

1. Not everyone who is shot dies.
2. It is common for shooting victims to say that they didn't even know they were wounded until later. That is quite consistent with someone getting shot and not reacting at all.

I did not say one would... go flying through the air.

Yeah, actually you did.

throw them off their feet back some distance

But it sounds like at this point we're all in agreement that the force of a .308 bullet impact won't knock someone to the ground, or throw them off their feet and backwards, or make them fly through the air.

 

[riverrat66]

Correct, not everyone who is shot dies but when shot with the M-14 which is what we were talking about there is a very good chance of that. But then I'm sure you'll disagree about that also.

It is common for shooting victims to say that they didn't even know they were wounded until later. That is quite consistent with someone getting shot and not reacting at all.
Absolutely 100% wrong! I have NEVER seen anyone shot with a M-14 that did not know it!

And finally,

"go flying through the air" AND "throw them off their feet back some distance" aren't even close to being the same thing!

You certainly do like to put your own spin on things don't you?

 

[Blackwater OPS]

So in other words you have seen men shot and other then dying they have not reacted at all.

I have, in fact, seen men shot and not die at all. 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).

If someone is off their feet and at that point travels some distance in a rearward direction, I would have to say "flying" is what they are doing. Perhaps floating, I don't know what you saw.

Simple physics here, an object weighing as little as a bullet needs a certain amount of energy(velocity) to move something as big as a person who weighs thousands of times as much. There is no gun on earth that can do this. The difference in weight of a .308 to a .223 in respect to a human body is trivial. The flesh may be damaged or destroyed but the bulk of it is not going to move.

As it has been said, if you could make the bullet move fast enough to do this, you would be moved an equal amount in the oppsite direction. This is an object fact I'm afraid. If you could disprove it, you could make a great deal of money authoring physics books.

 

[Pointer]

JohnKSa

It is NOT physically possible for them to be thrown around by the force of the impact.

I generally agree with your posts but I have trouble with this statement.

If one is smacked with a softball at say, 860 fps it won't penetrate through one but it is very likely that it will "knock" you off your feet by the force of impact... as opposed to a BB at the same speed with the same POI...

Therefore, A bigger projectile is more likely to move the "target" than a smaller projectile...

On that hypothesis... somewhere between 100fps and "penetration speed" and somewhere between .223 and 30mm... it is possible for a projectile to "throw" one around...

riverrat and Blackwater

when shot with the M-14

They will most likely "know they've been hit" much sooner than with a .223 if they are not killed outright. Regardless their mental state.

There is a reason that many, many soldiers in Vietnam "chose" the M-14 over the .223 and it was not just because they didn't like, or didn't trust, the AR.

There is also a reason why the military is currently working on a new BIGGER round for the AR.

IF and I repeat, IF either one can "move" the target or rip up bone and flesh better than the other... it is the 30 (7.62) over the 22 (5.56).

That is why the bigger bullets are used against thick hides and heavy bones and why some countries in Africa and some states in the US and elsewhwere, have legal requirements for minimum bullet sizes.

If the bullet is moving really fast it will punch right through... but if it hits a heavy bone off center it could at least turn the individual a little bit.

The right projectile with the right velocity will push you back...
witness, a medicine ball at 5 miles an hour.

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

So far, I have been able to agree with the principles each of you have proffered and I can do this if I don't pick at your choice of words and phrases and simply try to understand you.

Thank you all for being gentlemen in this discussion... It is refreshing to learn from such people.

Does anyone know where I can get a CCW that shoots medicine balls?

 

[mfree]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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!

"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.

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]

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.