For the record, I’ve seen footage of people take multiple hits from an AK47 at close range (execution footage in Bosnia 
) and they didn’t fly all over the place, they just stood there, shook a couple of times and collapsed.
People flying all over the place from bullet wounds is for Hollywood.
Almost - remember that the area of a circle is related to the diameter squared, giving you a 60% better chance of hitting something vital. In addition, the area of the wound channel will be directly proportional to diameter - so someone hit with a .45 will also bleed out 30% faster.
A shotgun slug transfered a lot more energy to the target than a 7,62mm round.
True, was just thinking of a way to put it in simple terms. Made it too simple 
I don’t have the figures to hand Panzer but I think you’ll be surprised. A shotgun is slow and heavy while a rifle round is very fast. There is a lot of energy in fast rounds.
US officers were already carrying long arms to “blend-in” with their troops in WWII, they were probably doing so as early as the American Civil War…
Um, the FBI abandoned the 9mm long ago, after the 1986 Florida bank shootout in the link I provided. It was discovered during the autopsy that one of the gunmen had been shot numerous times with a 9mm parabellum and .38 special and they were able to keep going…
They stopped forcing agents to carry 9mm precisely because because it lacked “knockdown” power…
Also, could you explain why the British Army deemed the .455 Webley revolver to be too cruel to use against their fellow Europeans (even if they were Huns!), as the weapon was devised as a large caliber sidearm specifically to deal with “savages” in their colonial sphere…
Very true.
Correct, it concluded that “knock down” does not happen in the real world and the only way to quickly incapacitate an opponent with a pistol was to hit a vital organ like the heart or brain, or the central nervious system.
The best way to improve your chances of such a hit was to use a bigger bore calibre, ergo they dropped 9mm.
Hmm I gave up trying to understand the actions of the militaries a long time ago. That’s like asking why the British Army entered WWI with the lowest number of Machineguns of any modern army. Or asking why the Russians valued their Maxims more then their men, refusing to commit them to battle properly for fear of loosing them and as a result loosing the battles.
Or why the British officer class was originally reserved to the upper class that purchased commissions.
<shrug> lots of fun ideas and misconceptions out there.
You are correct Sir!
Another quality post. How do you know he’s correct? He doesn’t even state which 7.62 round he’s using. Is it 7.62x25? How about 7.62x39 or x51 or 54r or .30-06? Could he be using .308 norma magnum? or maybe .300 winchester magnum…
Gee bas,Entertaining as always. I think for such “quality” yours is the benchmark, mine pales in comparison.:rolleyes:
7.62mm NATO - 9.5 g, 852 m/sec, 8.1 kg m/sec
3" Magnum rifled shotgun slug - 28g, 536 m/sec, 15 kg m/sec
Hence, the most powerful rifled shotgun slug I can find has about double the momentum at the muzzle of a 7.62mm NATO cartridge. Since as a cartridge this is 50% longer and weighs about three times as much, I am mildly peturbed that anyone would find this a massive surprise.
It should also be noted that a rifled shotgun slug is only travelling at 298 m/sec at 100 yards, giving it a momentum of 8.3 kg m/sec - the NATO round in comparison will barely have slowed down at this range. In other words, the improved momentum transfer of a rifled shotgun slug is only valid out to about 100m.
I’ve no idea why anyone cares though - it’s completely irrelevant outside a coconut shy!
PDF, they are confusing energy and momentum again. I guess it is just too difficult concept to grasp that energy is not directly transferred in a collision, but is transferred “via” momentum.
It was this kind of woolly thinking that got the British Army interested in the ridiculous 4.85 mm, since they decided that the only important thing was projectile energy at the target. on a related note, I have my suspicions that the terminal ballistics of the HK 4.6 mm PDW cartridge is going to be rather poor when they finally have to shoot someone with it. Of course, any hole is better than no hole at all (fnar fnar) through body armour, but is it going to match 9 mm when dealing with an unarmed target?
My point was more that Panzer’s post was totally lacking of any relevant data to do a comparison against. At no time did he mention the range of the target or the actual calibres he’s shooting.
So it’s impossible to verify the truth of his post without making some serious assumptions like you illustrated (i.e. that he’s firing 7.62x51nato vs a 3" magnum slug).
Using your example and my .308win hunting ammo (Handloaded 180gr Noslers @ 2600fps*) at 100m they would be close to equal if not the .308win hitting harder.
*I may have the MV wrong, it could be 2500fps (but not less) it has been a while since I put them over a crynograph but they are hot and the 26" barrel helps too.
The law of physics that states that for ever action there is an equal reaction is a true law, however, that just means that when a charge of powder in a round is ignighted there is equal force aplied inside the round. By enclosing the round inside a chamber and having the breech block behind the round the only direction the expanding gasses can be released is through the barrel behind the bullet so the energy while equal at the point of ignition in all directions is forced down the barrel. The recoil felt by the shooter is the fraction of the detonation that is forced backwards by the resistance of the bullet traveling down the barrel. That is why a round can have high foot pounds of energy but not knock the shooter down.
Yes there were many officers even in the American Civil War that were carrying long arms to blend in with the troops, I was just pointing out that there were also some field grade officers that viewed the 1911 as their primary firearm into the 1960s. Certainly an outdated view well before the '60s for anyone that had been in combat but it was still a view held by some.
Now you are confusing energy, momentum, force AND pressure.
I wonder if you can also get acceleration and mass into the mix with your next reply 
Correct so far, even if it’s a statement of the blindingly obvious.
Confuses energy, pressure and high pressure gas. High pressure gas is forced down the barrel, pressure (ignoring dynamic effects) is equal in all directions at all points, and energy is a property of the gas.
Total unremitting nonsense. The felt recoil is an application of the law of conservation of momentum in a system (i.e. the total mass multiplied by velocity of a system is the same before and after the rifle is fired). The burning of the charge has nothing to do with the recoil, except for some tiny effect of the momentum of the expanding gases (the reason a muzzle brake does actually do some good). The frictional resistance of the bullet travelling down the barrel is of no relevance whatsoever, since the bullet and barrel form a closed system and all it does is stretch the barrel slightly.
As our small furry Dutch friend mentions, this demonstrates an inability to distinguish between momentum (which causes the felt recoil) and energy (of which foot-pounds is a rather awkward unit).
Given the fact that they are all related when discussing the workings of a firearm i am not getting them confused, rather just pointing out how a bullet that has 350 ft•lbf doesn’t have that same amount of recoil back on the shooter as was stated earlier…But this has gotten way off the original topic and I guess a large portion of that is my fault:neutral: