Why the attitude between single stack .45 and 9mm?

[Evil-Twin]

So what you are saying is that an unencumbered bullet traveling at 900 fps and weighing 230 grains has the same reaction as the reaction of the energy absorbed by the slide, the slide spring. the gun frame, your arms and body is exactly the same as the bullet hitting a target.. if that was the case then putting a 100 lb weight on a 1/4 inch piece of rebar on your chest is the same as a 100lb weight on a 1 X 1 X 1 block of wood on your chest that would represent the absorption of a gun slide, a slide spring, the grip the hands, the arms and the body of the person shooting it. if you analogy was correct and there was no difference in action and reaction the shooter would feel the same thing as the target... which obviously is not the same. that 100 lbs ( 100 lbs per sq inch of energy is immediately transferred to 400 lbs per sq inch when the same 100 lbs place in a 1/4 inch dia rebar.

that's why a man 150 lbs can lift a car 3000 lbs with little force when the moment of angle changes.

 

[45_auto]

So what you are saying is that an unencumbered bullet traveling at 900 fps and weighing 230 grains has the same reaction as the reaction of the energy absorbed by the slide, the slide spring. the gun frame, your arms and body is exactly the same as the bullet hitting a target .... that 100 lbs ( 100 lbs per sq inch of energy is immediately transferred to 400 lbs per sq inch when the same 100 lbs place in a 1/4 inch dia rebar.

No, he said nothing about ENERGY. 1911 Guy specifically said "IMPACT", which is FORCE, not ENERGY. Some discussion and a few simple examples of IMPULSE, IMPACT, and FORCE here:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/impulse.html

Note the example of the airplane and the duck. If you want to calculate the amount of FORCE transmitted by the bullet impact you need to know how long the bullet takes to decelerate once it hits the target (this is because F=MA, as Newton figured out about 400 years ago). None the less, the MOMENTUM of the duck and the airplane will be the exact same, both before and after the impact, assuming a perfectly elastic collision. Not worth going any deeper here.

You appear to be confused about energy, momentum, and pressure (PSI). They are very different things. "100 lbs per sq inch of energy" is equivalent to saying something like "100 feet per MPH of distance". It doesn't mean anything, although it contains some common units.

It's actually the MOMENTUM that is conserved.

In other words, the MOMENTUM of the slide, the slide spring, the gun frame, your arms and body is exactly the same as the MOMENTUM of the bullet when it leaves the barrel.

The MOMENTUM of the target after the bullet hits it is exactly the same as the MOMENTUM of the bullet before impact. That's why ballistic pendulums work.

Simple example and explanation of a ballistic pendulum here:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/balpen.html

It's pretty basic physics. If you're actually interested in learning, here's a couple of examples using guns from my 1963 Schaum's Engineering Problems:

that's why a man 150 lbs can lift a car 3000 lbs with little force when the moment of angle changes.

I'm not sure what a "moment of angle" is, you appear to enjoy inventing your own terminology.

But the only way a 150 pound man can lift a 3000 pound car would be if he uses at a minimum some kind of "simple machine":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_machine

For example, since WORK = FORCE x DISTANCE, if he wanted to lift a 3000 pound car 1 inch by applying 150 pounds of force, he would need a lever with a ratio of 20 to 1. This means that he would have to apply a force of 150 pounds over a distance of 20 inches (150 x 20 = 3000 inch-lb) to lift the 3000 pond car 1 inch (3000 x 1 = 3000 inch-lb).

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Walt, I do not want to argue the point, but ballistic gel on a table has a high frictional coefficient ( friction keeps it in place )... with a 24" by 36" foot print... but put that gel on two legs supported only by 40 square inches of foot print ( 2 feet )...standing at a moment angle that would represent a 5' 5"standing person and all that ballistic stuff goes right out the window...

It may go out the window, but it doesn't get blown across the room. People DO get knocked over, and if they're moving when hit, their momentum has to be taken into consideration.

People hunting using large caliber handguns, when they hit a deer or large critter, typically don't claim to see their prey blown a great distance by the impact of a single shot. The target animal sometimes runs off, to fall later, perhaps bleeding out, or to be tracked for follow-up shots. The target also sometimes just drops in place.

DROPS IN PLACE?!

If a single, well-placed shot to the chest or central nervous system (spine?) can cause the target (be it a deer or a human opponent) to drop in place -- and there are MANY WELL-DOCUMENT EXAMPLES of that happening -- what causes the law of physics to suddenly suspend itself for a shot that should otherwise blow the target across the room? Why don't the targets that drop after being hit by a single shot to the chest ALSO end up across the room?

 

[Lord Teapot]

not sure, i carry both a single stack .45acp, and a doublestack 9mm, confidently for self defense, when i choose to, usually depending on what clothes i'm wearing. both have their advantages and disadvantages relative to one another when loaded with the same style ammunition. the .45 provides a higher liklihood of first shot manstopping, the 9mm provides more follow up shots before a reload.

 

[Evil-Twin]

I'm not sure what a "moment of angle" is, you appear to enjoy inventing your own terminology.

But the only way a 150 pound man can lift a 3000 pound car would be if he uses at a minimum some kind of "simple machine":

Simple machine = gun with bullets.

If you don't know what moment of angle is then you need to do a little more reading of your cut and paste arguments that you apparently know little about

Moment of Angle ( MOA )

 

[Evil-Twin]

I would venture a guess that 98.0 % of all the people in this forum have never taken a life, let alone been involved in a life threatening exchange. Most of the discussion here is based on what they read or heard somewhere else. while statistic can be skewed, real life experiences are first hand knowledge and not something you find in a review or a book. that's why engineers go to school for six years, and spend six months in the field the last two years to actually learn practical application.. Book leaning engineers pale in comparison to those willing to get their hands dirty in a co-op real life environment.

The good news to be taken from this is that most people will never have the life altering experience of actually taking a human life.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I would venture a guess that 98.0 % of all the people in this forum have never taken a life, let alone been involved in a life threatening exchange. Most of the discussion here is based on what they read or heard somewhere else. while statistic can be skewed, real life experiences are first hand knowledge and not something you find in a review or a book. that's why engineers go to school for six years, and spend six months in the field the last two years to actually learn practical application.. Book leaning engineers pale in comparison to those willing to get their hands dirty in a co-op real life environment.

First-hand experiences lead some folks to believe in Ghosts (or alien experiments), too. I would note, however, that the real-world experience those engineers gain doesn't cause them to question physical laws and things like "equal and opposite reactions"; it typically helps them to better understand the practical value of their training. (We have a number of engineers participating here -- I'd be interested in how they respond your comments, above.)

Your first-hand experience is your experience, and it's clear you believe the things you stated -- and are not trying to be untruthful or mislead us. Nobody is questioning your honesty or your attempt to convey the truth of that experience as you know it.

That said, how do you explain one-shot stops (with any caliber round) that cause the persons stopped to drop and NOT FLY ACROSS THE ROOM (or its physical equivalent)? Why do the laws of physics that causes the FLIGHT in one case NOT cause it in other cases?

 

[Lord Teapot]

Simple machine = gun with bullets.

If you don't know what moment of angle is then you need to do a little more reading of your cut and paste arguments that you apparently know little about

Moment of Angle ( MOA )

http://schooltoolbox.weebly.com/simple--compound-machines.html

actually a gun is a compound/complex machine, as opposed to a simple machine, as it is made up of multiple simple machines working together. a bullet is several non-moving parts stacked on top of one another, in and of itself a bullet does not function as a machine, simple or otherwise.

 

[Kleanbore]

If the impact of a bullet was capable of knocking down a target, it would also knock down the shooter. Isaac Newton is your friend. Third law and all that.

Basic physics.

It's how rocketry works, how billiard balls behave, and how the ballistic pendulum in Problem 20.29 in the engineering text shown by 45_auto operates.

It has to do with the conservation of momentum.

By the way, Evil, energy is not measured in pounds per square inch.

 

[Evil-Twin]

First-hand experiences lead some folks to believe in Ghosts (or alien experiments), too. I would note, however, that the real-world experience those engineers gain doesn't cause them to question physical laws and things like "equal and opposite reactions"; it typically helps them to better understand the practical value of their training. (We have a number of engineers participating here -- I'd be interested in how they respond your comments, above.)

Your first-hand experience is your experience, and it's clear you believe the things you stated -- and are not trying to be untruthful or mislead us. Nobody is questioning your honesty or your attempt to convey the truth of that experience as you know it.

That said, how do you explain one-shot stops (with any caliber round) that cause the persons stopped to drop and NOT FLY ACROSS THE ROOM (or its physical equivalent)? Why do the laws of physics that causes the FLIGHT in one case NOT cause it in other cases?

First of all I am an engineer with two engineering degrees, one in Mechanical and one in Engineering energy management, one from Rowan University and the other from Georgia Tech.

The human body is not a Tinius Olsen test platform...

With a human being, apply force at the base of the human body, say at the ankle, then apply the same force at the head, the difference in these to is the moment of angle the MOA. the second point of reference is how much energy is absorbed into soft tissue. Shoot a 5 lb block of ballistic gel and a five pound 6 X 6 piece of wood both sitting on a table. Which one will you push off the table..? when applying the same force.. a human being is made up of both ballistic gel density, and 6X6 wood density... hit someone in the solar plexus or in the crown of the eye socket, ( the densest part of the human anatomy ), and the results will be much different . the distance from the ankle to the head from the point of bullet discharge is called the MOA. Push the ankle with five pounds of force and there will be little movement.. use the same five pounds of force and apply it to the forehead and the head will move back several inches.
I think rather than getting too passionate with this thread, I will yield to popular belief, and I will just keep using what I feel to be the best choice for my personal defense, based on my experience and hope others fair as well as I have after 70 years of life.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Your first-hand experience is your experience, and it's clear you believe the things you stated -- and are not trying to be untruthful or mislead us. Nobody is questioning your honesty or your attempt to convey the truth of that experience as you know it.

Seriously, I don't know what Evil Twin's motivation is but without proof of dishonesty I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he is like many people whose perception of an experience is a distortion of the reality of the experience. Better scientific understanding of this perceptional distortion is part of the reason why eyewitness testimony is now known to be far less reliable than believed in the past. Not so seriously, what Evil Twin has described only happens in places like this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070215/

 

[Sam1911]

And with those last two responses I think we're at the end of what is going to be achieved through polite conversation.

By the time we get to whipping out and measuring our degrees and the breadths of our experiences, and accusing each other of living in fantasy land, we probably aren't in a recoverable position.