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