Talk:Physics of firearms

message: Just to pick nits:  The Mythbusters reference states they tested an M1 Garand.  I seem to remember that they used the same rifle as in the episode on testing bulletproof stuff - a WWI era rifle.  I think it was a Springfield.  Michael Daly 20:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can tell, it's an M1. Episode 34: Bulletproof Water, 360 Swing at Annotated Mythbusters video clip from Mythbusters Episode 34 Arthurrh 00:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected.  Thanks!  Michael Daly 23:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nitpick

message: Made some minor edits to the kinetic energy section to clarify that energy, as well as momentum, is conserved. E.g. "...allows significantly more KINETIC energy to be imparted to the bullet than to the shooter." Hope this helps. :-) Todd Johnston (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservation of energy

message: As a direct result of applying Newton's laws of motion, one can clearly see the force applied on the shooter/gun system is identical to the force applied on the bullet.
Energy is directly proportional to the force (F*t, when t is time of contact - identical to both bullet and shooter).
Hence one can clearly see the energy absorbed by the shooter/gun system is equal to the energy absorbed by the bullet.
And regardless of the latter reasoning, the algebra applied in the equations on this paragraph is wrong.
I unfortunately don't have the time to correct the issue right now, but it's important to note.
* By the way, the reason the shooter doesn't get nearly as hurt as the target (they absorb the same energy, don't they?) is because of the dramatic difference in area of impact between the two.
-- Mike
Energy is force x distance, not time.  Mark Thomasmj (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on conservation of energy

message: Article says: "Assuming the gun and shooter are at rest, the force on the bullet is equal to that on the gun-shooter. This is due to Newton's third law of motion (For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction)"
This seems incorrect, because it neglects the force of excess pressure that isn't transferred into the bullet.  Attaching a compensator to the end of the barrel has no effect on bullet velocity, yet reduces the recoil of the gun by as much as 75%, by reflecting excess gasses back in the direction of the shooter.  This would seem to indicate that the force of the gas is no less significant than the force of the bullet.  As such, it seems that the recoil force felt by the shooter would be much greater than the force of the bullet alone.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahastu (talk • contribs) 03:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservation of momentum

message: Seriously has anyone ever heard of a recoilless rifle? It seems like it was just forgotten about. Thedumbestone (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A gun can put less energy into the shooter than it puts into the bullet. 

message: "This example shows the target barely moves at all. That's not to say one couldn't stop a train by firing bullets at it, it's just completely impractical."? Why is this here? There is no previous mention of trains, nor any after the statement. While it is technically true and weakly relevant, I don't think it's needed here. If anybody has an opposing opinion, let me know. Gøøse060 (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trains? Huh?