The first post I posted that got you so hot under the collar was this statement
"I spoke to an army buddy in the Royal Engineers who reckons that yes - the kick on a SMLE is rough, it wouldn't be so bad on a cut-down. He tried to explain it to me - that the reduced barrel length would reduce the kick and if you held it two handed, not against a shoulder - it might not be as bad."
Which, Ok - isn't explained very well. Im sorry about that. He explained it properly, I just didn't transcribe it very well. But you needn't have jumped straight in, calling my brother in law an idiot and be incredibly patronising (you followed on by saying "Trench warfare in WW1 wasn't a free-for-all in the style of an 80s movie with Stallone or Arnie in it.") ... do you act that way to all "newcomers" on this forum? Not everyone can be a genius like you, Rob, and theres no need to try and belittle anyone who might not be one hundred percent accurate.
In one part I commented that "Since newtons law is no longer in play once it's out of the barrel." and you sniffily replied "Are you serious? Newton's Laws of Motion apply to every body/object in the universe all of the time.". So by your statement, when a car accident happens in, say, Texas, we should take into account a tree falling in Russia? Its a bit chaos theory but it wasn't what I meant and you knew it. Once the bullet is *out* and *away* from the barrel, the forces pushing backward (newtons equal and opposite etc) are severely decreased, and the bullet no longer exerts so much of a backward force on the gun. I didn't explain it very well, true - but I didn't expect to get chewed up about it.
Anyway, Rob, as I said - I'm sorry I caused such havoc in your forum. Perhaps you should have spent some of your 30 years, that you spent researching the war, developing your social skills a bit. I'd have thought someone who was a Walmart Retail Manager would have been a little more gentle towards people not as advanced as themselves.