Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: [OT] Re: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 12:56:49 -0400
At 04.55 08-20-99 -0400, you wrote:
>energy of the bullet. I've seen someone wearing a bullet-resistant vest
>stand ten feet away from a PSG-1 and get shot several times; he stood

???

What was he wearing, and what was the PSG-1 loaded with (I take it we are
talking about the HK precision rifle)?

The reason I'm asking is because unless there is somehting very quite and
very new out in the past six months, very little body armour will take
7.62x51mm very well. And even then, cracked ribs are a real probability
and and a fast trip to the floor, unless youa re buried up to your hips in
sand or concrete, is virtually gaurenteed.



Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 2
From: Tarek Okail Tarek_Okail@**********.com
Subject: [OT] Re: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 03:21:46 -0400
Kevin--

>What was he wearing, and what was the PSG-1 loaded with (I take it
>we are talking about the HK precision rifle)?

It was a demonstration for a very new kind of bullet-resistant
vest about a year ago. It was a combination of the new Spectra fibers
and some kind of gel-pack. It looked heavy, and I have the strong
impression it was designed for use by SWAT teams.
I don't think they ever defined exactly what kind of ammo was
loaded in the PSG-1, but I do know that it was a PSG-1 (very distinct
profile).

On the other hand, it has been a year, and my memory suggests
that my initial recollection may have been very wrong.
If I recall correctly, and this is by no means assured, they
first mounted the vest on a dummy and four or five people unloaded a
variety of weapons into it. None penetrated.
Then they demonstrated the close-range resistance of the vest,
which included a .44 Magnum being shot into it from a foot or two.
Again, no penetration.
Next, the guy puts on a new vest (safety first), and gets shot
with... gosh. Ah, now I remember. He gets shot multiple times with an
H&K submachine gun (9mm) in burst-fire mode from ten feet. Remains standing
the entire time.
The final demonstration is when they take the vest back off
the guy and mount it on the dummy. This is when they shoot the vest
multiple times with the PSG-1 from close range. The dummy didn't move
at all, just vibrated a little, and the dummy weighed less than anyone
present. There were impressive craters in the gel pack, and a slight
depression in the dummy about the diameter of a fist whereever it was hit,
but again, no penetration.

Despite my memory lapse, my point remains. "Knockdown" is a
result of the body reacting to the trauma of the bullet wound and not
an inherent result of simply being hit with a bullet.

Shadowmage
Message no. 3
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: [OT] Re: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 07:52:50 -0400
At 03.21 08-21-99 -0400, you wrote:
>vest about a year ago. It was a combination of the new Spectra fibers
>and some kind of gel-pack. It looked heavy, and I have the strong

OK, that sounds about right.

> I don't think they ever defined exactly what kind of ammo was

That is a real question. There are those blue, short-range things, and
they aren't supposed to have much more energy than a .44.

>loaded in the PSG-1, but I do know that it was a PSG-1 (very distinct
>profile).

Anyone who knows the name knows the look. <g>

>with... gosh. Ah, now I remember. He gets shot multiple times with an
>H&K submachine gun (9mm) in burst-fire mode from ten feet. Remains standing

Big boy, although he was also suspecting it. 9mmPara I can see. It was
just the 7.62mm I was having trouble with.

> Despite my memory lapse, my point remains. "Knockdown" is a
>result of the body reacting to the trauma of the bullet wound and not
>an inherent result of simply being hit with a bullet.

I wasn't thinking so much of "knockdown", as in terms of the old TKO
index, mut more in terms of being hit hard enough to push your center of
mass out boyond a point that your feet can realistically provide support
for, and stopping on the floor. (Physcis I, not Physology II <g>)




Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 4
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: [OT] Re: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 17:21:47 +0100
In article <199908210321_MC2-81D1-B75C@**********.com>, Tarek Okail
<Tarek_Okail@**********.com> writes
> Despite my memory lapse, my point remains. "Knockdown" is a
>result of the body reacting to the trauma of the bullet wound and not
>an inherent result of simply being hit with a bullet.

I had this argument here a few years back :) I see "knockdown" not as
being an inevitable result of the enormous impact of a bullet, because
that ain't so, but that combination of things like flinching from the sudden
impact, being hit while off-balance or moving or on poor footing, and so
on.
>
>Shadowmage
>

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 5
From: Tarek Okail Tarek_Okail@**********.com
Subject: [OT] Re: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 04:00:42 -0400
Paul J. Adam--

>I see "knockdown" not as being an inevitable result of the enormous
>impact of a bullet, because that ain't so, but that combination of
>things like flinching from the sudden impact, being hit while off-
>balance or moving or on poor footing, and so on.

Well, yeah. But the point I was trying to make is something
more along the lines of "If it doesn't have enough energy to push
the guy over no matter how well he's braced, the firearm doesn't have
enough energy to push *the shooter* over." It's a simple and obvious
consequence of "For every action, there is an equal and opposite
reaction," and that there should not be a minimum strength required
for shooting a firearm. <g>
Maybe I just don't express myself too well.

Shadowmage
Message no. 6
From: Tarek Okail Tarek_Okail@**********.com
Subject: [OT] Re: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 04:00:43 -0400
Kevin--

>That is a real question. There are those blue, short-range things,
>and they aren't supposed to have much more energy than a .44.

Yeah, but... they showed the results of hitting the vest with
a .44 magnum, and they showed the results of hitting the vest with the
7.62 NATO. The rifle did a darn sight more damage than the pistol. What
I was wondering was whether this was 7.62 hollowpoint or 7.62 ball.
And I did see the rim markings on the .44 mag shells, so they
were shooting .44 magnum.

>Big boy, although he was also suspecting it. 9mmPara I can see. It was
>just the 7.62mm I was having trouble with.

I'd estimate that he was 5'8" and maybe 170 lbs. with the vest.
He was standing casually, hands *inside the vest pockets.* This man was
not afraid of getting hurt.

>but more in terms of being hit hard enough to push your center of
>mass out beyond a point that your feet can realistically provide
>support for, and stopping on the floor.

Yeah, but in Shadowrun terms, I'd consider that a Quickness or
Reaction check (TN of 1/2 or 1/3 the weapon's power) to see whether you get
your feet under you in time, yet there are a whole lot of ways to
simulate that.
Realistically, even a .50 caliber bullet doesn't have the
energy to automatically knock someone down. If this were the case, the
shooter would be unable to fire the weapon without also being knocked
backwards. On the other hand, I don't know anyone who would volunteer
to be shot with a .50 cal to prove this point... <g> And since there's
no body armor that can withstand a hit from a .50 cal., anyone who is
shot with one is going to be hurt real bad, and is going to drop from
the pain, if nothing else.

Shadowmage

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about [OT] Re: Minimum strength requirements for firearms, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!