/r/GunScience

Photograph via snooOG

GunScience for the science of guns the shooters who shoot them, whether at play, accidents, hunting, or right wing terrorists in mass shootings.


GunScience: for the science of guns and the shooters who shoot them, whether at play, accidents, hunting, or right wing terrorists in mass shootings.

Reddit's Gun Network:

/r/GunScience

383 Subscribers

0

Does using guns require far more strength and stamina than people assume? Were they really the revolutionary tools that allow less fit soldiers to fight en mass as equals (esp non-professionals such as militia and reservists) unlike prior weapons like pikes and shield-sword combo?

Saw this post now on Reddit.

The cliff notes version: Melee weapons are hard to use and require a significant amount of time to train in their use. Also the longer the user uses that weapon in combat the less effective they are because if you get fatigued you can’t stab as hard. Once firearms became the main weapon any peasant could become effective in their use after a few hours. Also the firearm works no matter how strong or weak you are. Moving into the 1970s after solider portable anti-tank and anti-air weapons were available then everything on the battlefield could be killed with one shot.

It reminds me of a debate I once saw on MyArmoury.com about how much strength a crossbow required to use and one poster wrote something along the lines that giant war bows required the most raw strength to use, crossbow requires a moderate amount of fitness, and guns required the least amount of strength and stamina to use effectively. To the point in some battles riflemen refused to bring swords with them because they felt swords were too heavy to transport around and it felt more comfortable just having rifles (reflecting their relative lack of athleticism compared to other unit types). Unfortunately MyArmoury.com is down right now so I can't get and quote the specific comments from that htread.

But I have often seen the cliche that the real reasons guns revolutionized warfare into a completely whole new level basically reflect the above statement with the more specific tidbit that it was much faster to train troops in mass numbers quite quickly because it was both easier and less physically demanding to whip them into combat states teaching them how to use guns and the military formations and other tactics that come with it unlike say long bow and arrows or mass rectangular square blocks or interlocked swords and shields walls. That an person of teenager years or older who's decently fit can bet sent to bootcamp and within a few weeks be ready to sent out to fight a town's defenders from pirates, American Indian raiders, wandering banditos in the deserts of Mexico, and other threats. Which in turn led to much larger armies than in the past.

Now I finally got around to using guns yesterday. I went to a Turkey shooting contest where shotguns where the stuff being used......... I was able to shoot as a contestant because my state has pretty loose gun laws even though I'm below 18 and have no gun permits or whatever. Hell in fact there were kids 10 ears old and younger who were shooting in the tournament!

When I got to finally shoot, the guns where very hard to hold! I could feel the kick back lift the front barrel upwards a few inches despite holding it very tight! In addition the gun moved back and hut my right shoulder and it hurt like hell! In fact My right arm esp the shoulder still hurts today from shooting in several rounds int he contest!

So I really have to ask is it true that guns were so revolutionary because they required far less strength, agility, and endurance to use than earlier weapons like halberds and crossbows? Because I swear using the shotguns required all my strength to prevent it from being knocked around a dangerous manner. God despite holding tightly as possible the force of each shot was so tremendous it was terrifying! Oh did I mention the kickback which hit my shoulder and also sort of did a kick that made an ouch sensation in my elbow area?

And I must add its not just me alone. I could see a lot of 6 feet tall adults also experiencing the kickback despite being far more experienced than I am on top of being much stronger and larger people with obvious muscular and big biceps!

So I'm now really skeptical of the claim guns needing less physical fitness especially raw strength to use than longswords and other weapons before the Renaissance. Can anyone clarify whats meant by these often repeated cliches?

0 Comments
2024/04/07
17:10 UTC

2

Texas Doctor Stabbed to Death with a Dozen People with Guns Witnessing and Failing to Protect

1 Comment
2023/11/01
01:33 UTC

2

Dumb people shooting guns

0 Comments
2023/09/02
19:20 UTC

2

Gunshot Residue On Corpse

I asked this on a previous post but thought I would get more information here. There was a case where a dead woman was tested for gunshot residue 12 years after she and her husband were shot and residue was found on one of her hands. I thought that gunshot residue would go away after such a long time.

0 Comments
2023/08/22
11:27 UTC

1

How far would it fly?

This seemed like the best subreddit to ask this. I know a decent amount about physics, but not a ton about guns that isn’t surface level. So I ask.

If you had a Sniper Rifle, loaded with 7.62(google says that average size). Then set it up with a bipod on a table or something like that. Then pulled the trigger remotely so that nothing is touching it. How far would the recoil/kick throw the sniper backwards? Or how can I calcite this accurately?

0 Comments
2023/04/25
21:16 UTC

Back To Top