This last week on the Discovery Channel, the MythBusters did an experiment on the Hollywood type knock backs from being hit by bullets. They first used a pig carcus and precariously hung it so it could easily be knocked down. Any guesses on which caliburs knocked it down? Of course the "wimpy" 9mm didn't, but neither did the 45 ACP, 44 Magnum, .223, or .308. It barely moved for any including the entire cast all hosing it down with all these caliburs at the same time. Only thing that moved it, and just barely, was a shotgun slug.
Later on it was tried again with their crash test dummy and a bullet proof vest, because they thought rounds leaving the target was the reason there was no effect. With the vest the exact same results.
I always suspected this, because of Newton's laws the shooter would be knocked back/down just as hard as the target.
I'm a big fan of smaller faster moving bullets (like 223), and this is just more proof that the bigger caliburs don't really seem to have much advantage in combat.
I'd like to hear from anyone who thinks their experiments were invalid and why. I'm sure there are some reasons, but I couldn't figure out any myself, but I'm also biased towards the results they found too.
Later on it was tried again with their crash test dummy and a bullet proof vest, because they thought rounds leaving the target was the reason there was no effect. With the vest the exact same results.
I always suspected this, because of Newton's laws the shooter would be knocked back/down just as hard as the target.
I'm a big fan of smaller faster moving bullets (like 223), and this is just more proof that the bigger caliburs don't really seem to have much advantage in combat.
I'd like to hear from anyone who thinks their experiments were invalid and why. I'm sure there are some reasons, but I couldn't figure out any myself, but I'm also biased towards the results they found too.