If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New Republic)   Series of photos show what different guns look like when they're pointed right at you   (newrepublic.com) divider line 14
    More: Scary, Point Blank project, close-up, harmonic series, sports commentary  
•       •       •

5721 clicks; posted to Geek » on 02 Apr 2014 at 2:02 AM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-04-02 05:04:59 PM  
3 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH: See his farking thumb on top of the muzzle

...

Let's take a look:

img.fark.net

No, I don't see his thumb on top of the muzzle.The muzzle is several inches in front of his thumb.

Do you even know what a muzzle is?

Christ, get out of firearms threads.

demaL-demaL-yeH: ...where it would obscure the front sight?


The front sight is folded down you nitwit.


demaL-demaL-yeH: So you told all of fark that you are a sheep and linked the article that explicitly says you are


Actually, I told all of Fark that I don't use this technique because my equipment doesn't allow for it to be employed properly.  See:

Click Click D'oh: C Clamp isn't the way to go for me, but then again my work AR has an 11" barrel... so, that would be bad.



Could you possibly fail harder?  Would you like to try again?

demaL-demaL-yeH: and none of the people doing it correctly have their farking thumbs on top of the farking barrel

..

Lol, why do you think it's called the C Clamp method you buffoon?  What would a C look like if you CLAMPED it to the side of a rifle?  Would part of it cover the top of the rail?


demaL-demaL-yeH: ..nor are they grabbing the muzzle.

Again, do you even know what the muzzle is?  There are no pictures of anyone anywhere grabbing the muzzle.

So let's go through some of the expert shooter mentioned above and examine their technique:

Kyle Defoor:

i557.photobucket.com

Notice his thumb and arm position

Pat McNamara

i557.photobucket.com

Mike Pannone ... same thing
i557.photobucket.com

Kyle Lamb, another Delta guy

i557.photobucket.com

Jason Falla,. Australian SAS

i557.photobucket.com

And of course Jerry Miculek

i557.photobucket.com

So, go ahead.  Tell us that all these world renowned expert shooters are just doing it wrong.

Go on.
2014-04-02 11:20:06 AM  
1 votes:

fusillade762: violentsalvation: I think the first two are correct, the Desert Eagle and the S&W revolver

I think that's a "nope" on the revolver:

Smith & Wesson K-38:

[milpas.cc image 500x265]

[www.newrepublic.com image 416x624]

Unless that's some kind of custom handle.  Even then the rest of it looks wrong.  Looks more like a Colt Python.


I'm going with a S&W .357:

upload.wikimedia.org
2014-04-02 10:26:35 AM  
1 votes:

dittybopper: Jim_Callahan: So even though momentum is conserved in the separation of bullet and gun, the bullet's equal momentum carries much more KE than the gun's.

No, they carry the exact same amount of KE.  But the KE of a gun recoiling is absorbed over a much wider area, and the velocity is less because the gun weighs more than the bullet, but they have the exact same KE.

I doubt anyone would want to shoot a .30'06 Springfield with a sharpened spike for a buttstock.


... you may need to go review your high-school physics, man.  I can run over it real fast before I head out to work for you though.

For a classical system, momentum is conserved and you can simplify to p = m*v

Energy is also conserved, but we're adding energy from chemical conversion and gas-work which is more complicated and not really relevant to the problem, so ignore that for a while, and just remember that for kinetic energy E = m*v2/2

Initially, a gun firing is a one-dimensional problem-- gun goes backward, bullet goes forward, so we can neglect the difference between overall speed and velocity and just use a scalar number for v.

A heavy slug-style bullet of the kind you'd shoot at a person masses 20g or so and fires at about 400 m/s.  These numbers vary a lot, but they're in the ballpark and it makes the mass easier so meh.  A rifle weighs around 4 kg and a handgun weighs about half a kg.  Going to stick with the rifle because easier math and it illustrates the point better.

OK, so you shoot your bullet, and momentum is conserved: mbullet * vbullet = mgun * vgun.  Plug in your numbers and you have a backwards velocity of 20*400/4000 = 2 m/s.

Now you have all the factors to solve for kinetic energy, roughly.  For the bullet, you get basically what was mentioned earlier: .02(kg) *4002/2 = 1600 J.  But for the gun, it's 4*22/2 = 8 J.

The kinetic energy going back into your shoulder is thus significantly lower than that imparted by the bullet.

// Obviously the starting quantities vary and that changes the final numbers, but you get the point.
2014-04-02 10:14:06 AM  
1 votes:

tillerman35: doyner: Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.

People with guns don't kill people.  Widespread availability of guns kills people.


Look, we both know that you are trolling, but some people are liable to believe the bullshiat that you spew...  Why do you hate the world?
2014-04-02 08:17:26 AM  
1 votes:

brap: Looking straight into the coward's meatus.


Auditory meatus?

Superior Nasal meatus?

Vulvular  urinary meatus?

Or was that a Markley's Law violation?  Because the whole "gun as penis" thing is more worn-out than Ron Jeremy's dong.
2014-04-02 04:37:19 AM  
1 votes:
These people refer to themselves as "creatives".   That is all I need to know to hate them.
2014-04-02 01:39:50 AM  
1 votes:
Ah, so they fixed some of them. Though they still have the last two labeled as 1911s when they're not. And still apparently can't spell "Glock".
2014-04-02 12:36:45 AM  
1 votes:

doyner: John Buck 41: How can those be photos of a gun pointed at me when there's no one holding it? Oh, right. A clever ruse by the anti-gun nuts blaming the tool instead of the user.

Guns don't kill people.  People with guns kill people.


I fixed that. For YOU. And for anyone else who misunderstands this issue.
2014-04-02 12:34:40 AM  
1 votes:

doyner: John Buck 41: How can those be photos of a gun pointed at me when there's no one holding it? Oh, right. A clever ruse by the anti-gun nuts blaming the tool instead of the user.

Guns don't kill people.  People with guns kill people.


Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.
2014-04-02 12:26:35 AM  
1 votes:
They had the same photo spread in Vibe magazine last month.
Except all the guns were facing sideways.
2014-04-01 11:59:24 PM  
1 votes:

John Buck 41: How can those be photos of a gun pointed at me when there's no one holding it? Oh, right. A clever ruse by the anti-gun nuts blaming the tool instead of the user.


Actually, it's just an artist doing a composite image study. It's one of the oldest artistic endeavors: to view the known at an unknown or impossible angle. In this case, you can't actually photograph guns like that. It's just not how optics work. So he took many images of each one and combined them into those hyper detailed ones. He even says it's not political.

Grain of salt, etc. but this is really just a textbook photography project so I'm inclined to believe him.
2014-04-01 11:47:51 PM  
1 votes:

cretinbob: Let's count the Farkers who are going to jerk off to that

so far I think I see two.....


No one will jerk off to that, they'll be too busy mocking the author for misidentifying the pics.
2014-04-01 11:40:59 PM  
1 votes:
How can those be photos of a gun pointed at me when there's no one holding it? Oh, right. A clever ruse by the anti-gun nuts blaming the tool instead of the user.
2014-04-01 10:50:48 PM  
1 votes:
The captions on the guns are not correct.
 
Displayed 14 of 14 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report