That's some funny stuff starman. You're FOS and you know it.

You're one of those guys who likes to throw around technical-sounding terms in hopes that people will be impressed and think you know what you're talking about. The only problem is, you're using the terminology incorrectly and it shows just the opposite:

Originally Posted by Starman
Todays modern bullet fatigue modelling programs also allow you to create a test media with multiple/varied composition.


"Bullet fatigue??"

"Fatigue," as it applies to metals means damage to and weakening of the internal structure due to cyclic loading.

So how many times do you have to fire a bullet into an animal before it gets "fatigued?"

Bullets don't fatigue from cyclic loading, they deform plastically, once.


Then you want to castigate someone for not using a modeling program that by your own words is only available to a select few because it's an "expensive capital investment."

How does that make sense.

Finally, you cite an example of a modeling program that has a variety of uses in engineering analysis. It is by no stretch of the imagination a "bullet fatigue modeling program," and calling it that is like calling your PC a "bullet fatigue data processor."

So let's see you cite one case study where Abaqus was used to successfully model bullet deformation as the bullet passes through an animal. By "successfully," I mean, producing results that were meaningful and agreed with empirical observations.

I won't hold my breath waiting.



A wise man is frequently humbled.