Pages: 1

 

2005-12-20 00:53:14
THA
im a fucking .....well not now
+609|7015|AUS, Canberra
i was just watching mythbusters,

the one where they test if a body will fly back like in the movies after being shot.

anyway, we all know that newtons law states every action requires an equel and opposite re-action right?

so on the show they said that for someone to fly a few meters back after getting shot in the chest, the shooter would have to fly back the same distance???

this to me doesnt make sense at all, as getting hit by the bullet in the chest and hit by the stock on the shoulder in my book are not comparable forces.

who agrees or dis agrees with mythbusters?
2005-12-20 01:02:29
5N1P3R
Member
+1|7012
no, u have it slightly wrong. the guy WONT fly backwards after getting shot due to newtons 3rd law of motion - for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The action force would be the bullet being fired by the gun. This bullet is given forward momentum. the equal reaction of this bullet moving forward would be the recoil.  (this would be easier to explain with a diagram)

Thus for the guy getting shot to fly backwards the energy in the bullet must be huge. If the energy applied to the bullet is huge, then there is also huge recoil. This huge recoil will then move the shooter backwards

As the bullet does not have that much energy, the guy getting shot will only move back by the same amount as the butt of the gun pushes on the shooter

I hope u understand what im saying. i dont think i explained this well

Last edited by 5N1P3R (2005-12-20 01:06:14)

2005-12-20 01:05:53
THA
im a fucking .....well not now
+609|7015|AUS, Canberra
yeh i understand about the recoil and such,

but what got me was that the two people had to fly back the same distance for this to work, when the two things impacting on the person are not of the same force?
2005-12-20 01:07:21
5N1P3R
Member
+1|7012
they are the same force. the force of the bullet is EQUAL AND OPPOSITE to the force of the butt hitting the shooter
2005-12-20 01:11:54
THA
im a fucking .....well not now
+609|7015|AUS, Canberra

5N1P3R wrote:

they are the same force. the force of the bullet is EQUAL AND OPPOSITE to the force of the butt hitting the shooter
but you lose force through the gun and with muzzle brakes and things like that, plus what if the bullet travels 500 metres before impact?
2005-12-20 01:16:38
5N1P3R
Member
+1|7012

the_heart_attack wrote:

5N1P3R wrote:

they are the same force. the force of the bullet is EQUAL AND OPPOSITE to the force of the butt hitting the shooter
but you lose force through the gun and with muzzle brakes and things like that, plus what if the bullet travels 500 metres before impact?
dont worry about bullet travel distance this relates to newtons 1st law, also dont worry about brakes and dampening etc

the recoil will always equal the force of the moving bullet. for example if the bullet leaves the gun with 100 newtons of force, the recoil will also equal 100 newtons, but the bullet will travel forward and the recoil (opposite and equal reaction) will travel backwards
2005-12-20 01:21:15
THA
im a fucking .....well not now
+609|7015|AUS, Canberra
i think mythbusters could have explained themselves better.
2005-12-22 19:52:03
Rapturesan
An African or European swallow?
+0|6972
The force of the explosion is enough to push a bullet (very small object) forward, but not enough to push a human (very large object). If you fire a gun you most likely won't be shot backwards like you see in the movies. You might stumble backwards a bit but you won't go flying across the room.
2005-12-23 06:52:58
=Robin-Hood=
A stranger in the dark
+213|7065|Belgium

And to make it all even more complicated, if you use a large calibre like the .50 of the M95 (irl only used when prone) or the mounted guns on the tank or helicopter, you will have a large explosion force, with enough recoil to really knock the shooter out of his shoes...
BUT (when using a hard tip bullet as in armour penetrating)

The target will not be kicked a few meters backwards... The bullet will just penetrate the body leaving a .50 calibre hole.

Please don't let me go into detail about what would happen if the bullet was to hit really hard body material as in skull and such, because that's too much realism and practical implications... Just stick with the Newton theory.

The complete version:

impact on gunner = force of projecting the bullet = impact on target - air friction force (indeed, the impact on target is smaller than impact on shooter, although that difference is very small, because... )

Cheers,
R

Last edited by =Robin-Hood= (2005-12-23 07:08:09)

2005-12-23 07:00:00
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6961
that was one of the best episode of mythbusters, i agree w/ newtons law.
mythbusters did say that the bullets did travel through the body, thus penentrating it. body will not fall unless u give it sum words of FPS_doug: headshot! headshot!

ps. mythbusters is not science night lol, so they dont explain that much
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2005-12-23 18:11:10
Stoned_Smurfz
The Mushroom Man
+1|7091|Australia
now wouldent it be due to the fact theres far less friction infront of the bullet alot of energy is turned into forward momentum?. the target doesnt have this option.. the bullet has its energy now, inorder for the bullet to stop its energy has to be transfered to something else.

think about it what do u think would happen if the bullet couldent travel forward cause the barrel was blocked? the shooter would be inalot more shit .

not only that bullets wernt designed to hurt people they were made to kill so usualy they blow big holes in you..

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard