Discussion in 'General Firearm Discussion' started by Mac_Fan, Aug 10, 2010.
I hate this phrase. Who's with me? Also, what phrase or terms that people use bug you?
I'm with you on that one. Nothing makes someone sound more ignorant to me faster than dropping that phrase.
Well, a .45 was pretty good knockdown power depending...if you carry a full size 1911 and it happens to be empty, i don't see someone not going down when you throw it at their head
That counts, right?
The term should be something like "drop power" as Myth busters has shown that even a 50 cal doesn't knock people over. Even then it's the shut down of the bodies systems that drops the person not the bullet impact.
"Assault Rifle" A term pretty much used by people that fear any rifle that has a pistol grip and detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds.
Then you are ignorant to alternative uses of this term. "Knockdown Power" is a perfectly legitimate term. I use it quite frequently when describing why I shoot a .45 instead of a 9mm.
Because .45 "knocks down" bowling pins, steel poppers, and dueling trees much better than most other calibers.
I prefer the term "Evil Black Rifle"
I'm guessing that a shotgun has "knock down power"......(guessing because I've never been shot by one, or shot someone)
A shotgun blast hitting someone is going to have the same force as you the shooter would feel as kick from the gun...simple physics!
Check this out................
YouTube - ‪Myths Revisited 2 - Blown Away‬‎
sorry for the threadjack........
Back to topic.................
I hate the terms "AK-47" and "automatic rifle" as used by the media. It is rarely, if ever, correct.
When hunting and I shoot a deer or elk they are knocked down most of the time, their system has not shut down at that point because some get back up and run. I would consider that knock down power.
I suppose if a bone was struck solidly there would be some type of push or transfer of energy, especially if the bullet had traveled through the first half of the body deforming in a large game animal and then struck a bone on the way out.
Power is energy delivered per unit time, e.g., Watts = Joules/sec.
"Knockdown power," if it means anything at all, refers to something about the RATE of ENERGY (0.5*mv^2) delivered to the target.
When you say "If it could knock down the target, then it would knock down the shooter," you're talking about MOMENTUM (mv) transfer. Yes, the momentum delivered to the slug is equal to the momentum in the gun's recoil.
I'm not really interested in transferring momentum to the target, for obvious reasons. If my target is wearing a ballistic vest, for example, he absorbs the same amount of momentum, but isn't seriously damaged.
No, it's the energy transfer that matters, and since it goes as the square of the velocity, there's a heckuva lot more energy in the departing slug than there is in the recoiling gun.
But as far as "knockdown" goes, you can't just count Joules when you compare the biological effects of slugs. My analogy is to explosives, where extremely powerful, shattering ("brisant") detonations may over-destroy the surface of a large target without penetrating its interior. That's why you use a low-velocity detonation like you get from ANFO when you're pushing over a building, and save the highly brisant explosives like PETN for hard targets like armor.
It's also why the FBI study says that +p rounds may be less effective than a standard load in the same caliber: Too much power means the energy is dissipated too quickly, before the slug reaches all the way into the target.
My $0.02; YMMV.
Chemist gave it to us insects in a form perhaps some of us coud grasp, but here's practicality: (I'll forward this with the certain knowledge that a bullet in itself does NOT have the power to "knock down" a decent sized animal.)
As young teens shooting gophers in Montana (sage rats to you Oregonians), we found repeatably and conclusively that using a Benjamin .22 pellet gun, with its slow moving projectile that would often not exit a gopher, the apparent "impact effect" was noticeably greater than that of a solid bullet .22lr, that would "zip" right through. At a range compatible with the air rifle, it was a much more effective killer than the rimfire cartridge.
I think this puts Chemist's postulates in layman's perspective.
Now: the 22lr has a heavier bullet and is traveling over twice as fast. Why would the 22 pellet kill better? My theories lean toward the shape of the projectile first. The "meplat" of the Benjamin pellet, while round-nosed, is a much broader surface than the relative "pointy" long rifle bullet. Handgun hunters have learned that a wide meplat (such as a wadcutter or semi-wadcutter) on lead bullets results in much more effective delivery on a live target. Round nose pistol bullets are not good killers.
Secondly, I would like to believe that the pellet is delivering ALL its energy into the gopher when it fails to exit. The long rifle bullet is only depositing the energy in the animal that is required for it to travel through with its relatively more pointy bullet. I would like to believe the pellet is actually depositing MORE energy in the animal than the bullet, despite the pellet's much less original "power" from the gun.
that term does not bother me at all,maybe because I"ve heard it for so many years.I think it is just fine.
what I do HATE is the word 'shotty' for shotgun .where the blazes did that horrible word come from?
It would seem that most guys with .45's argue the "knock down power" over a 9mm or a .40 but in a word.......myth. Regardless if you are hit with a .45, .40 or a 9mm you're gonna fall if you're not wearing a vest.
"Gun lobby" is a media word I hate because it seems to stereotype all hobbiest gun owners in to a class of fanatical anti government types
"stopping power" makes more sense to me than "knock down power". A .45 jhp, from what I know (which isn't much), will make a bigger wound cavity than say a 9mm jhp, Thus increasing the chances of stopping vital organs from functioning which in turn leads to stopping the threat. Thats my 2 cents...
Here's another peeve:
All of us who work in medical acoustics know very well that the speed of sound in 37°C saline is 1524 m/s, which equals 5000 fps! So unless you're talking about the muzzle velocity of your .50BMG, there's no way that your slug is going to induce hydrostatic shock in a living creature.
No, it's just an unfortunate misuse of the medical term "shock" in a mechanical context. The biological effect of a bullet should more rightly be called "neuromuscular shock."
Now, if you could strike an object with a projectile that's traveling faster than the speed of sound in that object, then you would indeed induce damage at the "hydrodynamic limit" of the material, where any material flows like a liquid. It's the theory behind those hypervelocity antitank rounds, for example: no explosive, just a mighty speedy pencil-shaped chunk o' tungsten. BTW, the sound speed in steel is 5900 m/s, or over 19,000 fps!
I hate the media term "Gunned down"
Knock Down Power= YouTube - Gun kick back
Why do we always get into stupid arguements over symantecs? If you know what the person is trying to say then the message is conveyed, communication. I deal with people who speak in ebonics all the time, if I sat there and tried to correct their english constantly nothing would get done. It's a phrase that conveys a meaning, take it for what it is and move along.
Same goes for everyone who hates "jump" or "kick" over recoil. Just let it go.
Separate names with a comma.