From: russell-watson@att.net
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 22:10:02 -0500, "laro" wrote:
>
>"Gerald Clough" wrote in message
>news:3F456179.5040005@texas.net...
>> Right. It would violate some basic physics. If it was enough to throw
>> the man-mass target back, it would have thrown the shooter back as well.
>
>Is that correct, Gerald? I'm not experienced in that sort
>of business, but I would expect that a slug from a 1911
>at short range would knock the recipient of same back
>just a few inches. Not so?
>
>(of course, I don't mean it would knock a person back
>across a room or over a car hood, just 'back'.)
>
>I didn't see the movie referred to (yet) and maybe there
>was an overly-dramatic screen gunfight.
>
Nope. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A
bullet that will knock a man back a certain distance, even inches, has
to do the same to the shooter, even the venerated 230gr .45 ACP, my
absolute favorite round in the history of firearms, as fired from my
favorite handgun, the M1911 that you mentioned in your post. I saw a
demonstration of body armor where one guy shot another one with a .308
(7.62x51mm NATO) at point-blank range and the guy didn't flinch. In
Hollywood, even if he wasn't killed, he would have been knocked back
several feet. Just don't happen in the real world.
The bad thing about the gunfight in "Open Range" is that most of the
shooting is realistic. Guys get hit, and depending on how bad it is
they either keep standing, fall to their knees, or fall all the way to
the ground. There's only a couple of instances of the person getting
thrown backwards, which are made only more obvious by the otherwise
excellent action.
'97 FLSTF
To reply by e-mail, remove nospam from address.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
