Borg vs KE (again)

[Tyyr]

The big differences between firing a fifty cal and being hit by one are that a) the firer is holding a weapon that weighs almost as much as he does and b) he's probably lying prone and leaning into the weapon in line with it (assuming it isn't vehicle-mounted), making it easier to absorb the recoil. The individual hit, on the other hand, is probably standing up and a lot lighter, and therefore much easier to knock off his feet at the very least.

I'm talking about a guy with a rifle, standing. You can do it. It's not pleasant or accurate but it can be done and the end result isn't the shooter's ass cartwheeling through the air.

Yes, a guy hit with a .50 cal (assuming it doesn't pass through which is actually very unlikely) would get moved quite a bit actually, 0.52 m/s. The problem of course is actually getting a human body to stop a .50 cal round which is... problematic at best.

What you see when people stagger and move about after being shot isn't the bullet knocking them around. It's people having reflexive reactions and/or losing their balance. It's not the bullets physically forcing them around. Yes, I realize that I am obliquely arguing that my "phasers knocking people around" justification is pretty flimsy as they could very well be doing the same thing. I can't prove a guy is dead and his movement isn't reflexive, so retracted there.

[stitch626]

One thing I can't figure out is the shot from TSFS. Where the Klingon is thrown many meters. Thats pushing it even by Trek standards.

[Deepcrush]

Tyyr, I hope at some point you catch on that what you just said was utter crap.

I also hope that you at some point catch on that you have me and Seafort agreeing against you, which should be a clue.

Another hope I have is that you go and try out a .50 cal impact and then after you get out of the hospital try to tell us that the yard or so backwards you flew was your own 'reflex' and not the round hitting you and supersonic speed and tossing you like a ragdoll.

My final hope is that you realize that talking against people who shoot people, have been shot by people and have seen people get shot... is really just not a smart thing to do.

[Tyyr]

Tyyr, I hope at some point you catch on that what you just said was utter crap.

I also hope that you at some point catch on that you have me and Seafort agreeing against you, which should be a clue.

Another hope I have is that you go and try out a .50 cal impact and then after you get out of the hospital try to tell us that the yard or so backwards you flew was your own 'reflex' and not the round hitting you and supersonic speed and tossing you like a ragdoll.

My final hope is that you realize that talking against people who shoot people, have been shot by people and have seen people get shot... is really just not a smart thing to do.

And Deep, one day I hope you meet a physics textbook and actually open it.

[Deepcrush]

And Deep, one day I hope you meet a physics textbook and actually open it.

If I do so it will only to be in order to show you what it looks like under the title page.

Otherwise, I fully expect to burn it...

...for the Emperor.

[Mark]

One thing I can't figure out is the shot from TSFS. Where the Klingon is thrown many meters. Thats pushing it even by Trek standards.

I always assumed that the phaser was on "Heavy Stun" and that was an intentional concussive effect of the phaser. Also, in retrospect, the planets instability could have led to imbalanced gravity, I suppose.

[Captain Seafort]

Or the neutrino stream happened to form a jet, producing that effect.

[Lighthawk]

The big differences between firing a fifty cal and being hit by one are that a) the firer is holding a weapon that weighs almost as much as he does

Barrett M82: Weight 30.9 lbs
Steyr HS: Weight 28.5 lbs
Armalite AR-50: Weight 34 lbs

While those are certainly heavy as far as hand held weapons go, they don't even mass 25% of a person's weight, even as skinny guy.

and b) he's probably lying prone and leaning into the weapon in line with it (assuming it isn't vehicle-mounted), making it easier to absorb the recoil.

True, but this only works because the energy involved isn't sufficient to toss a guy. If it was, going prone would only mean you got scrapped over the ground rather than tossed through the air.

The individual hit, on the other hand, is probably standing up and a lot lighter, and therefore much easier to knock off his feet at the very least.

A lot lighter based on what? The 30 extra pounds the gun gives the shooter? That's a difference in individual weight from height or girth easy, or from where a pack of gear. As for knocking him off his feet, yeah his center of gravity is higher so that is true technically, but only if he gets hit hard enough, which a bullet from a hand held weapon can't manage.

My final hope is that you realize that talking against people who shoot people, have been shot by people and have seen people get shot... is really just not a smart thing to do.

You know, I have to almost question that claim based on the current conversation. As Tyyr has stated, physics disproves your claims. You want to claim a bullet can toss a guy, prove it. As for mythbuster's failing, it was episode 25 and 38. Go on youtube and apply your so called expertise and let us know how they screwed it up, because I sure can't see what they over looked.

[Captain Seafort]

Barrett M82: Weight 30.9 lbs
Steyr HS: Weight 28.5 lbs
Armalite AR-50: Weight 34 lbs

While those are certainly heavy as far as hand held weapons go, they don't even mass 25% of a person's weight, even as skinny guy.

M2HB: 128 lbs

and b) he's probably lying prone and leaning into the weapon in line with it (assuming it isn't vehicle-mounted), making it easier to absorb the recoil.

True, but this only works because the energy involved isn't sufficient to toss a guy. If it was, going prone would only mean you got scrapped over the ground rather than tossed through the air.

Pushing someone backwards across the ground while they're braced to prevent it is a lot more difficult than knocking someone off their feet.

[Deepcrush]

You know, I have to almost question that claim based on the current conversation. As Tyyr has stated, physics disproves your claims.

Wrong, he's claimed that physics disproves it yet has given no evidence.

You want to claim a bullet can toss a guy, prove it. As for mythbuster's failing, it was episode 25 and 38. Go on youtube and apply your so called expertise and let us know how they screwed it up, because I sure can't see what they over looked.

First, if the show failed, watching the episode does nothing. Second, if you would like me to prove that weapons can indeed send a person off their feet and backwards. I'll invite you to come to the firing range and select from any weapon I've mentioned in this thread to which I will place a round in your (armored) chest at 30m. You can then decide for yourself if what I've said is true or not.

OR,

You could listen to those of us with living experience in the matter rather then a tv show and someone's temper rants on a subject to which he's not educated.

If you have a point of your own, please present it. IF you've seen a person hit by such a round and not get knocked over, please tell us such. Otherwise what you doubt or believe is simply not important. I don't mean this to be offensive, its simply true.

[Lighthawk]

M2HB: 128 lbs

Yes...and?

Actually, I've save us both the back and forth on that. Just because you found a gun that weighs as you said "almost as much as the shooter", that doesn't address the issue at hand at all. Your statement about the weight of the gun was tied into the idea of it being a cause of why the shooter of said gun isn't thrown backward by the energy of the shot. If that was true, then how exactly are the much lighter guns I found able to fired without bolting them to something?

Pushing someone backwards across the ground while they're braced to prevent it is a lot more difficult than knocking someone off their feet.

Yes, but if the energy needed to knock someone off their feet was present, it would still shove the person back even while prone, and likely break whatever the weapon was braced against, most commonly the shooter's shoulder.

[Captain Seafort]

Yes...and?

I never mentioned any of the others you mentioned - I was talking about the fifty cal, which was the weapon the argument was focussed on.

Just because you found a gun that weighs as you said "almost as much as the shooter", that doesn't address the issue at hand at all. Your statement about the weight of the gun was tied into the idea of it being a cause of why the shooter of said gun isn't thrown backward by the energy of the shot. If that was true, then how exactly are the much lighter guns I found able to fired without bolting them to something?

Lower muzzle velocity, smaller rounds, and therefore less energy.

Yes, but if the energy needed to knock someone off their feet was present, it would still shove the person back even while prone

No, it wouldn't - partially due to the much greater friction, partially due to the firer being braced and ready for the shot, rather than being hit unexpectedly.

likely break whatever the weapon was braced against, most commonly the shooter's shoulder.

Not if they're holding it properly it wouldn't, although there are plenty of cases of inexperienced soldiers suffering broken/dislocated shoulders and collarbones due to failing to hold much less powerful weapons correctly.

[Lighthawk]

Wrong, he's claimed that physics disproves it yet has given no evidence.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is basic physics, anyone who's been through highschool has heard this, probably several times. This law is the basics for just about everything that moves, and I say "just about" simply to cover my ass, as far as I know, nothing would move at all without the truth of this.

This is actually very simple, if there was enough energy in a bullet to pick a human being up off his feet and throw him backwards, then the opposite reaction would do the same to the shooter (or more accurately in reality, rip the gun out of his hands). There isn't that much energy involved though, in fact the amount of pushing power of a bullet is somewhat less than that of the kickback, due to friction of air resistance.

I invite you to consider how a recoiless rifle works, and try to actually think through it. Maybe you can see the connection and how it relates.

First, if the show failed, watching the episode does nothing.

Who says the show failed? You, who haven't even watched it? I say it did a fine job and addressed all the relevant issues. And until you watch it, you have no standing to say they failed, unless you want to claim the power to pull the truth out your ass.

Second, if you would like me to prove that weapons can indeed send a person off their feet and backwards. I'll invite you to come to the firing range and select from any weapon I've mentioned in this thread to which I will place a round in your (armored) chest at 30m. You can then decide for yourself if what I've said is true or not.

What a wonderfully useless and impractical suggestion. Thank you for helping not at all. Again I say, prove it. Here, how about I give you some more likely to actually ocurre suggestions: Find a video or an official report, or basically anything that isn't just hearsay. You know, proof.

OR,
You could listen to those of us with living experience in the matter rather then a tv show

I realize that everything on tv isn't always highly accurate, but the mythbusters don't just pull stuff out of their ass. They are on the Discovery channel, a station dedicated to science and fact, and they not only do their best to abide by the scientific process (up till they blow stuff up for the fun), but when they goof up and get called on it, they admit it (or retest it to see). They did this twice, had their own gun experts, and did just about everything imaginable to cause their human stand in to go flying from a bullet. It didn't work. I'll take their well designed testing over your word.

and someone's temper rants on a subject to which he's not educated. If you have a point of your own, please present it.

I have, pay attention. Bullets don't have the force needed to lift a person off their feet and toss them. I have scientific law and a documented experiment (mythbusters) as my proof. You have...your word.

IF you've seen a person hit by such a round and not get knocked over, please tell us such.

I have, not in real life, but in historical video of war. They get shot and just drop where they stood.

Otherwise what you doubt or believe is simply not important. I don't mean this to be offensive, its simply true.

The same applies to you.

[Lighthawk]

I never mentioned any of the others you mentioned - I was talking about the fifty cal, which was the weapon the argument was focussed on.

Yes, and those were all guns that fired a fifty cal round.

Lower muzzle velocity, smaller rounds, and therefore less energy.

Try again. Same round, more or less same muzzle velocity, same energy.

No, it wouldn't - partially due to the much greater friction, partially due to the firer being braced and ready for the shot, rather than being hit unexpectedly.

I have no interest in doing the math on this one, so I let you have it. This does not however prove one way or the other about a bullet being able to toss a man anyway.

Not if they're holding it properly it wouldn't, although there are plenty of cases of inexperienced soldiers suffering broken/dislocated shoulders and collarbones due to failing to hold much less powerful weapons correctly.

I severely doubt the amount of force needed to pick a man up and throw him could be safely and repeatedly absorbed by the human shoulder, but again I have to give this one as the math and medical studies I'd have to trudge through to be able to say it is or is not so is well beyond the effort I want to give for an online debate.

[Deepcrush]

This is once again just a useless debate. A bunch of nobodies complaining about things they don't understand. We should just block/lock these threads as its nothing but a troll spawning ground.

Lighthawk, since you add nothing why do you even bother to show up?