Equa and opposite reaction. If the bullet could transfer that much energy to the axe then it would also have transferred that much energy into the firearm to get going, yet somehow you are able to hold onto a 9mm when you fire it.

The energy comes from the expanding gas when the primer ignites the powder. The least path of resistance is the end of the barrel where the bullet exits with that energy.
I surmise you dont own firearms.

I guess you forgot both what you wrote and the context in which you wrote it. Here is the original comment and your response:
The question wasn't about shooting a handheld object, it was clearly about the inability of LEOs in many actual events to hit a full-sized human target and the consequences of those missed shots to bystanders. You claimed that they are trained "under high stress" and then immediately "they miss under high stress". Therefore how can one conclude anything but that their "high stress training" is ineffective (according to your assertions)?

To claim that they are lousy shots because they fail in high stress situations is insulting because it ignores the immense complexity of what goes on in the human brain during such a situation.

For every anecdotal incident of people firing a whole bunch of rounds and missing there are incidents where cops hit with all or most of their bullets. To say the training is ineffective implies they are poorly trained, which is not the case (generally speaking.) Training as it is now represents the best known tactics based on statistical analyses of shootings by the FBI and other factors.

The training cops do receive has its limits of course because it is difficult to truly simulate the high stress an officer facing his own death will experience, so in that sense technically the training is ineffective, however training that simulates the actual fear someone faces in a shooting would be extremely dangerous and thus not practical.

The energy comes from the expanding gas when the primer ignites the powder. The least path of resistance is the end of the barrel where the bullet exits with that energy.
I surmise you dont own firearms.

I own many and when I shoot them they don't throw me backwards.

I surmise you didn't take physics in school. The force pushing the bullet forward is the same that pushes back against the gun. Equal and opposite reaction. Or do you still believe the movies when someone gets shot with a shotgun and it throws them through the window?

Are you arguing just to be funny or do you seriously believe what you are suggesting?

That cop is lucky he didn't shoot one of his co-workers or the bystanders directly behind his target. Tunnel vision kills.

Also he rolled straight up to the lady even though there were other officers on the scene. It's not fair to Monday Morning Quarterback with only the dashcam but what if those other officers were trying to gather information and/or talk the subject down and he rolled up and went straight to escalation? If I was a guy in the middle of trying to work things out peacefully and some cowboy jumped in and started blasting I'd be pissed.

That cop is lucky he didn't shoot one of his co-workers or the bystanders directly behind his target. Tunnel vision kills.

Also he rolled straight up to the lady even though there were other officers on the scene. It's not fair to Monday Morning Quarterback with only the dashcam but what if those other officers were trying to gather information and/or talk the subject down and he rolled up and went straight to escalation? If I was a guy in the middle of trying to work things out peacefully and some cowboy jumped in and started blasting I'd be pissed.

Good points. The guys in the background didn't seem to even run for cover when the firing started. We don't know what the responding officer new and didn't know so it is hard to tell whether it was a mistake for him to pull up like that. When dealing with someone that crazy it can be very hard to know what will set them off.

But I am sure all involved can use the videos to learn lessons about what they could have done differently.

I own many and when I shoot them they don't throw me backwards.

I surmise you didn't take physics in school. The force pushing the bullet forward is the same that pushes back against the gun. Equal and opposite reaction. Or do you still believe the movies when someone gets shot with a shotgun and it throws them through the window?

Are you arguing just to be funny or do you seriously believe what you are suggesting?

...
Not quite true. The equal opposing energy is dissipated in many ways, not just recoil.
Energy is distributed by recoil, heat, light, and the muzzle blast which includes the sound and tremendous destructive force of the expanding gas radiating from the muzzle. Theoretically, when you add all of that up it will equal your opposing force.
Simple physics, but not immediately obvious.

...
Not quite true. The equal opposing energy is dissipated in many ways, not just recoil.
Energy is distributed by recoil, heat, light, and the muzzle blast which includes the sound and tremendous destructive force of the expanding gas radiating from the muzzle. Theoretically, when you add all of that up it will equal your opposing force.
Simple physics, but not immediately obvious.

Very true, but I think my statement remains valid that the bullet hitting the axe would not knock it out of her hand.

Very true, but I think my statement remains valid that the bullet hitting the axe would not knock it out of her hand.

Sorry, no.....real world versus classroom.

Nowhere near the same situation, however the video below proves a bullet does have enough force to knock an object out of someone's hand

Sorry, no.....real world versus classroom.

Nowhere near the same situation, however the video below proves a bullet does have enough force to knock an object out of someone's hand

ah, man, lifer
why you gotta do that?
now he has to come up with another way to get the last word

Very true, but I think my statement remains valid that the bullet hitting the axe would not knock it out of her hand.

...
Oh yeah, absolutely true.
First of all, by the time the bullet reaches the axe it has lost energy.
Then it is fairly impossible to get all of that energy transferred to the axe.
If it hits the handle, it would probably pass through, imparting very little energy to the axe.
If it hits the blade it would most likely ricochet. Again, imparting very little energy to the axe.
If it hit the axe head square in the heaviest part, the bullet will probably splatter, redirecting a significant amount of energy in many different directions.

Re. The sniper hitting the revolver, assuming it was a 223 from 50 yds, the bullet had about 3x the energy of a 9mm at close range.
So imagine holding a revolver and it gets hit by 3 9mm rounds simultaneously only about 2 inches from your hand.
That would do the trick.

...
Oh yeah, absolutely true.
First of all, by the time the bullet reaches the axe it has lost energy.
Then it is fairly impossible to get all of that energy transferred to the axe.
If it hits the handle, it would probably pass through, imparting very little energy to the axe.
If it hits the blade it would most likely ricochet. Again, imparting very little energy to the axe.
If it hit the axe head square in the heaviest part, the bullet will probably splatter, redirecting a significant amount of energy in many different directions.

Re. The sniper hitting the revolver, assuming it was a 223 from 50 yds, the bullet had about 3x the energy of a 9mm at close range.
So imagine holding a revolver and it gets hit by 3 9mm rounds simultaneously only about 2 inches from your hand.
That would do the trick.

That's not even factoring into account weight either. The small revolver weighed probably a couple of pounds. The battle axe this lady wielded likely weighted 10 lbs, so even if the energy was transferred perfectly to the axe you would still see a fraction of the movement you saw in the video of the revolver being hit.

But some people are just so convinced that movies depict real acts. They probably think silencers are quitter than a whisper too.

here's an ax


go shoot it

DISCLAIMER: Do this on your own cognizance. I have never shot at an ax or someone wielding one so I have no experience in this matter. Nor do I care to shoot at an ax or someone with an ax. I would not wield an ax while confronting anyone and if I was shot at while possibly holding on to an ax, I'd drop the ax and run like a MF'er.

This is the last post I will make on this topic.

The video is what it is, a pistol being shot out of someone’s hands. The statement made was an object (axe) couldn’t be shot out of someone’s hands, the video rebuts this…period.

We can armchair quarterback this to the end of time; calibers can be changed along with barometric pressure, metal density, temperature, distance, hell lets throw in the Coriolis Effect while we are at it. Some things must be taken at face value.
Asking and offering opinions is one thing, continuing to argue and crossing the debate line with demeaning, smart ass remarks is another. Many, many times you have no idea whom you are responding to or their experience.

Internet forums are such interesting things. This forum is no exception, it is filled with three main types;

1.   Those with years of knowledge balanced by real world experience that don’t mind a healthy debate, however grow weary with recalcitrant postings.
2.   Those that are petulant, man-child keyboard operators dwelling in their moms basements( with no experience besides Google and Youtube)
3.   Those that are in the middle watching the show and learning.

This reminds me of a debate years ago regarding bullet damage to the body. An individual wanted to relentlessly argue the effects, so I asked if they have been shot and they replied no. They asked the same of me and my answer is yes, I have been shot. This person continued to argue my experience was wrong and X, Y and Z should have resulted.
Well guess what Twinkletoes, I'm not a block of ballistics gel. It happened and I don’t really care about trajectory, velocity, applied force, wound cavitation, etc.

Scientific data is great and I don’t dispute most of it, however it must be balanced with naturally occurring variables OUTSIDE of the lab. Again, real world versus classroom.

Over the years on Oahu the vast majority of shooters I have meet are a great bunch of guys with a small handful of tools. Most shooters are highly educated individuals that have tempered their institutional knowledge with experience, modesty and open-mindedness.

Like Ren posted; go shoot an axe with someone holding it, let me know how it works out.

Stepping off the soap box…….

This is the last post I will make on this topic.

The video is what it is, a pistol being shot out of someone’s hands. The statement made was an object (axe) couldn’t be shot out of someone’s hands, the video rebuts this…period.

We can armchair quarterback this to the end of time; calibers can be changed along with barometric pressure, metal density, temperature, distance, hell lets throw in the Coriolis Effect while we are at it. Some things must be taken at face value.
Asking and offering opinions is one thing, continuing to argue and crossing the debate line with demeaning, smart ass remarks is another. Many, many times you have no idea whom you are responding to or their experience.

Internet forums are such interesting things. This forum is no exception, it is filled with three main types;

1.   Those with years of knowledge balanced by real world experience that don’t mind a healthy debate, however grow weary with recalcitrant postings.
2.   Those that are petulant, man-child keyboard operators dwelling in their moms basements( with no experience besides Google and Youtube)
3.   Those that are in the middle watching the show and learning.

This reminds me of a debate years ago regarding bullet damage to the body. An individual wanted to relentlessly argue the effects, so I asked if they have been shot and they replied no. They asked the same of me and my answer is yes, I have been shot. This person continued to argue my experience was wrong and X, Y and Z should have resulted.
Well guess what Twinkletoes, I'm not a block of ballistics gel. It happened and I don’t really care about trajectory, velocity, applied force, wound cavitation, etc.

Scientific data is great and I don’t dispute most of it, however it must be balanced with naturally occurring variables OUTSIDE of the lab. Again, real world versus classroom.

Over the years on Oahu the vast majority of shooters I have meet are a great bunch of guys with a small handful of tools. Most shooters are highly educated individuals that have tempered their institutional knowledge with experience, modesty and open-mindedness.

Like Ren posted; go shoot an axe with someone holding it, let me know how it works out.

Stepping off the soap box…….

A lot of the misconceptions about ballistics, how guns work/perform, etc are heavily influenced by TV and MSM.  Like all of those shows where shotguns are able to blow people to the ground or the recoil throws them backward (Kevin Hart, which BTW makes me  ).  People with little to no first hand experience take that and believe it.  On top of that, there are those who latch onto "teachings" and "truths" expounded by "experts" on the internet.  Those are the types to parrot what they've heard and it's amazing at how adamant that they are about their opinions. 

No, I've never been shot.  At least with anything more than a BB gun.  I'm an owner/admin on another firearms forum and the discussion of whether or not a 22 lr was suitable/adequate for self defense.  You should've seen that debate/argument/debacle!  It was worst that the "best" discussions I've seen on 9 mm vs 45 acp, 1911 vs, Glock, etc.  It was truly amazing! 

Another one that I hear about all the time and see discussed often is the "why don't you just shoot them in the leg?"  Ever tried shooting something less than say 6" wide that is moving, likely toward you, under stress?  I guess it "can" be done.  That's another one of those ideas where many people think it would be reasonable, but reality likely shows that it isn't. 

2.   Those that are petulant, man-child keyboard operators dwelling in their moms basements( with no experience besides Google and Youtube)

I think you nailed it, the sort that just likes to argue, though whether it is male or female, who knows.  My only other exposure was a young female.

The use of Google was painfully obvious as she argued about things there was no way she could have any life experience with. 
[/quote]

I think you nailed it, the sort that just likes to argue, though whether it is male or female, who knows.  My only other exposure was a young female.

The use of Google was painfully obvious as she argued about things there was no way she could have any life experience with.

Word up!

I think you nailed it, the sort that just likes to argue, though whether it is male or female, who knows.  My only other exposure was a young female.

The use of Google was painfully obvious as she argued about things there was no way she could have any life experience with.

I get the feeling you are referring to me so I will answer.

I added my 2 cents about the topic to point out how ridiculous the idea it is for cops to try and disarm someone by shooting an item out of their hand. I think it is already general understood in the firearm community that this is not a realistic suggestion, so what I said was nothing radical, I started no argument. Rather, someone takes issue and starts to debate my point. But now I defend my original point and I get accused of just wanting to argue? So other people get to make rebuttals but when I do it you take issue?

Look at the exchange between me and old fart. A polite conversation where the only apparent concern was a better understanding of the science behind it. No sarcasm, no "arguing just to argue." I didn't introduce sarcasm or attacks to this thread.

If this was not directed at me then by all means, disregard my post.

What is your point?