Knockdown Power?

[JohnKSa]

I think you're really giving that straw man hell!

I have no doubt that some people see the term as being a complete misnomer. However, based on the fact that it is very common to see people actually giving momentum transfer examples as proof of superior "knockdown power", both on the forums and in published works it seems clear that some people are still very confused on the topic.

In addition, part of what I'm pushing for is the use of a more accurate term in place of "knockdown power" since it is so obviously a misnomer.

 

[ATLDave]

I still think you're perceiving confusion where there isn't necessarily such. For instance, I think it's a not-unreasonable hypothesis that momentum, particularly in some velocity domains, is loosely correlated with a propensity to incapacitate. I'm not saying that's right, but one could have a very Facklerian view and believe that, all else being equal, the higher-momentum projectile will have a greater ability to penetrate and crush through things like bone. You might then refer to this as "knockdown power" while, again, having no confusion about whether the potential incapacitation is because someone was thrown from their feet by the mere impact.

But setting all that aside, what is your preferred term for: "the propensity to induce an immediate or near-immediate incapacitation sufficient to preclude (for whatever duration) further volitional offensive acts or movement"?

 

[Trunk Monkey]

The term "stopping power" belongs in conversations about disc brakes.

The term "knockdown power" belongs in conversations about boxers or UFC matches.

A baseball bat could fit in both conversations

 

[fastbolt]

A baseball bat could fit in both conversations

So could a thrown chair or bowling ball, but it sidesteps the actual issue, which is that unless someone is off-balance at the instant they're shot, and/or experiences a startle response that causes a muscular contraction in a manner that unbalances them ... they're aren't going to be "knocked down" by the normal impulse associated with the "kinetic energy" or "momentum" involved in a bullet impact. Many people fall forward or sideways when shot, or remain standing, sitting, etc.

This is like when some folks scientifically measure the "foot pounds of energy" generated in a typical boxer's punch or karateka's punch or kick, which can significantly exceed that generated in many firearms cartridges. It doesn't work the way people (or Hollywood) like to imagine.

When running patrol rifle classes, we often try to squeeze in some time to let the students have a friendly competition, involving members of 2 teams trying to knock down half a dozen bowling pins at 50yds. (Standard plastic covered wooden bowling pins.)

Each team member has to walk/jog/run 50yds to reach the firing line, and then is allowed one shot to hit one of the pins assigned to their team. Hit or miss with that one shot, they have to quickly return back to their team so the next shooter can try. It's a relay event. The first team to knock down all of their pins wins. No matter the duty/training ammunition selections used by the various students (usually from various agencies), virtually everyone is amazed that a bowling pin only wobbles and falls over when solidly hit by the 5.56/.223 from 50yds. (Glancing hits barely wobble the pins, which usually remains standing.) They seem to think that the impressive calculated "energy" somehow imbues their 55-75gr bullets with impressive "knockdown power".

 

[Trunk Monkey]

So could a thrown chair or bowling ball, but it sidesteps the actual issue, which is that unless someone is off-balance at the instant they're shot, and/or experiences a startle response that causes a muscular contraction in a manner that unbalances them ... they're aren't going to be "knocked down" by the normal impulse associated with the "kinetic energy" or "momentum" involved in a bullet impact. Many people fall forward or sideways when shot, or remain standing, sitting, etc.

This is like when some folks scientifically measure the "foot pounds of energy" generated in a typical boxer's punch or karateka's punch or kick, which can significantly exceed that generated in many firearms cartridges. It doesn't work the way people (or Hollywood) like to imagine.

When running patrol rifle classes, we often try to squeeze in some time to let the students have a friendly competition, involving members of 2 teams trying to knock down half a dozen bowling pins at 50yds. (Standard plastic covered wooden bowling pins.)

Each team member has to walk/jog/run 50yds to reach the firing line, and then is allowed one shot to hit one of the pins assigned to their team. Hit or miss with that one shot, they have to quickly return back to their team so the next shooter can try. It's a relay event. The first team to knock down all of their pins wins. No matter the duty/training ammunition selections used by the various students (usually from various agencies), virtually everyone is amazed that a bowling pin only wobbles and falls over when solidly hit by the 5.56/.223 from 50yds. (Glancing hits barely wobble the pins, which usually remains standing.) They seem to think that the impressive calculated "energy" somehow imbues their 55-75gr bullets with impressive "knockdown power".

Now I want to throw a bowling ball at somebody or a pumpkin



Knock down power

 

[JohnKSa]

I still think you're perceiving confusion where there isn't necessarily such.

I already stated that some people see the term as a complete misnomer. I suppose I should have added that some of those people continue to use the term even though they know it is misleading, perhaps because they haven't thought about it that much, or perhaps because they don't see it as being an issue.

But the fact that some people understand it doesn't mean that everyone does, or even that most people do. I would go so far as to say that many true gun enthusiasts understand that "knockdown power" taken literally, doesn't exist. But many gun enthusiasts clearly do believe in literal "knockdown power", and the general public as a whole probably has virtually no understanding that their perception of what bullet impact can do is totally without basis in reality.

For instance, I think it's a not-unreasonable hypothesis that momentum, particularly in some velocity domains, is loosely correlated with a propensity to incapacitate.

I agree. However that doesn't change the fact that a bullet doesn't have enough momentum to knock a person down--which is what this thread is (was?) all about.

You might then refer to this as "knockdown power" while, again, having no confusion about whether the potential incapacitation is because someone was thrown from their feet by the mere impact.

Assuming that is the situation, one is still left with the problem of having a name for something that appears to mean something it doesn't. If it isn't about knocking things down, why continue to use a name that says it is?

But setting all that aside, what is your preferred term for: "the propensity to induce an immediate or near-immediate incapacitation sufficient to preclude (for whatever duration) further volitional offensive acts or movement"?

By now it should be crystal clear that it certainly isn't "knockdown power"!

1. Whatever it is, it's not directly related to 'momentum transfer', in the sense of moving a target or knocking it down.

2. I don't know that there needs to be a simple term for that. The language is descriptive enough to explain what is meant even if there's not a catchy name/abbreviation/acronym for it.

3. Given that it currently can't be measured in a manner that provides quantifiable results that can be tied directly to real-world outcomes; I'm not entirely sure how worthwhile it is to talk about it, other than to note that no one has come up with a way to measure it. Making it seem like it's a quantifiable value inevitably leads to confusion, especially since there's already a strong desire for novices and uninitiates to believe that it's possible to assign calibers/bullets specific numbers that will tell them all they need to know about incapacitation effects.