Does the 3rd law of motion apply to the energy a bullet has when it exits the barrel of a gun?
For example 7.62x54R has a force of 3,779 J when it exist the muzzle, does that mean that the kick back onto your shoulder is also 3,779 J, or does the weight of the rifle mitigate the reaction force?
If so is there a way to calculate the force on the gun and the force imparted onto the person?
>>7712588
mass of bullet is small compared to mass of gun and mass of person
the 3rd law does apply, but for a small caliber like that, it doesn't amount to much kick.
there are some rifles that will bruise you pretty good if you shoot them enough times
also look up videos of rpg's bazookas, and other artillery. you'll clearly see people get knocked on their asses from the shockwave created from the explosion
>>7712588
Joules measure energy, not force.
>>7712588
yes, le gun magix dont remove physics .
also there's a lot more variables that go into the kick back onto your shoulder then just energy , there's the momentum of the gun moving back and hitting you there's the speed the energy is transferred to your soldier .
you could say when you shoot someone you get 'hit' with more energy then they are , its just that they are getting it all very fast and concentrated and you're getting it really slow and kinda spread out from the stock of the gun .
>>7712605
energy can be represented by their constituent forces. quit splitting hairs you insufferable prick
>Does the 3rd law of motion apply to the energy a bullet has when it exits the barrel of a gun?
Yes, why wouldn't it?
>For example 7.62x54R has a force of 3,779 J when it exist the muzzle, does that mean that the kick back onto your shoulder is also 3,779 J, or does the weight of the rifle mitigate the reaction force?
Joules are energy, not force. Presumably that number is the kinetic energy of the bullet in motion, but that has nothing to do with the kinetic energy of the recoiling gun. Overall energy of the system is conserved but that doesn't mean that the gun and the bullet both have to have the same kinetic energy. As for the force, yes an equal force is applied to the gun and the bullet while the bullet is being pushed through the barrel.
>If so is there a way to calculate the force on the gun and the force imparted onto the person?
I think what you're really interested in here is energy or momentum rather than force.
>>7712605
It's 2,787 ft/lbs of force, is that better?
>>7712611
>energy can be represented by their constituent forces.
stop
>>7712588
>does the weight of the rifle mitigate the reaction force?
The MASS of the rifle mitigates the ACCELERATION the shooter experiences. The force is the same both directions, but you "feel" the same caliber round less with a more massive firearm. This is why you experience much less recoil firing a .22LR out of a rifle than you do a pistol, for instance, why they generally don't make .50s for pistols like they do for distance rifles.
Also, modern artillery often has an opening out the back to diminish recoil, otherwise many rpgs couldn't practically be used on foot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle
>>7712608
>you could say when you shoot someone you get 'hit' with more energy then they are , its just that they are getting it all very fast and concentrated
But the person getting hit doesn't get much kinetic energy imparted on them from the bullet because that's an inelastic collision. Most of the energy instead goes into digging a hole through your body and deforming the bullet. If the bullet just imparted its kinetic energy onto your body instead then the bullet would push you away a bit and bounce off without actually hurting you.
>>7712588
No. The 3rd Law of Motion actually never applies to the energy of anything. It is a, statement about conservation of *momentum*, measured in kg-m/s.
However, if the bullet leaves with such and such momentum, the gun is indeed pushed back with the same amount of momentum. But because momentum is mass*velocity, and you have much more mass than the bullet, the acceleration of your shoulder is vastly lower.
>>7712621
>2,787 ft/lbs of force
>ft/lbs
>force
Why?
>>7712625
have you ever taken any physics course?
1. all motion derives from acting forces (netwon)
2. motion is necessary for transfer of energy
(thermodynamics)
3. the energy of any arbitrary system can be described by the motion of it's components
therefore, energy can be always be modeled by the forces that determine the motion that gives the system energy.
>>7712621
Force is pounds, essentially. Ft*lbs is energy.
>>7712653
he's describing a unit of force * distance you autistic cunt
>>7712611
>energy can be represented by their constituent forces
'no'
>>7712661
Joules measure energy, not force.
Shot an M1 garand as a kid... Bruised my shoulder pretty hard
>>7712588
Yes, the same number of Joules is applied to the firearm as is the bullet. But, the mass of the bullet is significantly less, creating a greater magnitude of acceleration than it will on the rifle. As a result, the acceleration of the firearm is far less than the acceleration of the bullet. Since joules are a unit where 1 joule = 1 Newton*1meter, and Newtons are defined as 1N=1kg*m/s^2, that means that when 3779J of energy are applied to the system, the kinetic energy of the projectile, while equal to the firearm, is entirely in its speed, whereas in the rifle it's distributed among the mass.
>>7712789
shouldve shouldered it properly
>>7712588
No of course not dumbass, physics doesn't apply here because guns are fucking magic.
>>7712974
