TexasCHLforum.com

Russell wrote:Holy bologna guys, 2 pages of comments about the physics of firing a gun on the moon?! Are you serious?!

Well, it's better than flaming each other over CHL Badges or Open Carry.

WildBill wrote:

Russell wrote:Holy bologna guys, 2 pages of comments about the physics of firing a gun on the moon?! Are you serious?!

Well, it's better than flaming each other over CHL Badges or Open Carry.

dont bring that up or we will be again

I wonder if it is legal to open carry on the moon if you are wearing your CHL badge? Does Texas have lunar reciprocity?

Actually the air resistance slows the slide down causes the muzzle climb to be less than it would in a vacuum.

Keith B wrote:I wonder if it is legal to open carry on the moon if you are wearing your CHL badge? Does Texas have lunar reciprocity?

who would arrest you if there wasnt

lunchbox wrote:

Keith B wrote:I wonder if it is legal to open carry on the moon if you are wearing your CHL badge? Does Texas have lunar reciprocity?

who would arrest you if there wasnt

The Aliens that live on the back side of the moon that we had a galactic war with and that why we have never been back.

Interesting that they place the matches dead last on the list, since they ignite pretty much the same way that gunpowder does and could be used to light something if there was something to light. Let's say, just for arguement, that the signal flares turn out to be useless in the oxygen free environment, you could pull the bullets from the ammo in the .45s and dump a pile of powder, which you could ingnite using a flaring match - no oxygen necessary.

Took that course a couple of different times, once you were a plane crash victim on the arctic tundra, and another time a ship wreck at a desert island. Having been involved in a survivalist group for a short while at the time, I had all kinds of alternative uses in mind for common objects, so I took kind of a lead in determining which items we would recover from the plane/ship wreck. My uses were noit all exactly right, but I came closer than anyone else even if for the wrong reasons. Had a real blast arguing with the instructor about the whys and wherefores of the various items, such as the poor propulsion potential of a .45 due to the rapid impulse energy of recoil.

At the end of the day one of my fellow students paid me what I considered to be the ultimate compliment when she asked "What are you, some kind of MacGuyver?" I had to look up who she was referring to, but it did feel good when I figured it out.

Jim, you just need the Mullet and you'd be set!

Keith B wrote:

txmatt wrote:

mr.72 wrote: Sure you will. Physics work the same. It's not like being under water where you have a viscous material preventing your mobility. As long as your center of gravity is distributed between your feet the same as it is here you are just as "firmly planted".

That seems correct assuming the muzzle velocity is the same, which it would probably be pretty close assuming the cartridge holding air thing worked (which we will assume because that makes this more interesting.)

Noting the reduced gravity and no frictional losses due to moving through air, the bullet would go a LONG way. Depending on the direction in which you fired it, it may not ever stop until it hit another object (in which case it may ricochet and continue going indefinitely), it may end up orbiting the moon, it may end up eventually in the ground on the moon if the angle is low enough for gravity to defeat the inertia of the bullet, it may go off into space and never stop, or it may end up caught in the earth's gravity and burning up in the earth's atmosphere.

Kind of an interesting thought.

Escape velocity on the surface of the moon is almost 8,000 ft/sec, and I am not aware of any handgun that comes close to that. Acceleration due to gravity on the moon is about 1.6 m/s so if you shot the gun from a height of 1.6 meters perpendicular to the ground it would take one second for it to impact the ground in a level area. Since it is essentially a vacuum, there would be negligible loses due to air resistance and it would then travel very close to the muzzle velocity times 1 sec: for .45 ACP that would be close to 1,000 feet.

As to ricocheting, the vacuum would not change the fact that the bullet and the ground would deform on impact absorbing most of the kinetic energy of the bullet.

Man, this forum has a bunch of geeks on it. I LOVE it!!!

You are NOT kidding. Who would have ever believed that this would get up to 3 pages?.....

Keith B wrote:Man, this forum has a bunch of geeks on it. I LOVE it!!!

Who are you calling a geek?

Just... WOW!!!

WildBill wrote:

Keith B wrote:Man, this forum has a bunch of geeks on it. I LOVE it!!!

Who are you calling a geek?

GEEKS WITH GUNS!!!!

Sounds like a great title for something.

Have to find out how many are or have been engineers - I useta was.

jimlongley wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Keith B wrote:Man, this forum has a bunch of geeks on it. I LOVE it!!!

Who are you calling a geek?

GEEKS WITH GUNS!!!!
Sounds like a great title for something.
Have to find out how many are or have been engineers - I useta was.

I'm not a geek, I'm a nerd.

jimlongley wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Keith B wrote:Man, this forum has a bunch of geeks on it. I LOVE it!!!

Who are you calling a geek?

GEEKS WITH GUNS!!!!

Sounds like a great title for something.

Have to find out how many are or have been engineers - I useta was.

I'm an Electrical Engineer and ran the Nuclear Reactors when I was in the Navy...I don't know that I would consider myself a Geek, but Geeks with Guns does have a ring to it.

WildBill wrote:I'm not a geek, I'm a nerd.

And I'm not geek or a nerd. Im a techie.