Coyote Hunter, we're dancing around two sides of the same coin here. My example shows my point, though. Even though projectile 1 transferred 100% of its energy, that doesn't buy me ANYTHING on its own. Projectile 2 (identical energy up to impact) takes care of business with minimal energy transfer. That's the point of the statement that energy transfer is not a wounding mechanism. It does establish (among other factors) the *potential* of a projectile. Even with that given, it still isn't *doing* any wounding.
It is the transferred energy that accelerates and thus causes deformation (wounding) of the target. The amount of energy available, the amount and efficiency with which it is transferred and the time element for the transfer all play a role in determining the amount of deformation/wounding.
You say it is not the "wounding mechanism", basic physics says that without the energy transfer no wounding occurs.
My only concern is doing my best to make sure the deformation occurs in the right place. To that end I chose bullets that perform according to specific criteria that I believe increase the odds of a favorable outcome when things go south. Most any bullet will work when things go as planned.
Without the gunpowder in your cartridge no wounding occurs, but it isn't the gunpowder
doing the wounding.
Which is meaningful to determine the the nature and extent of the damage done by a projectile:
Bullet A transferred 3,000ft/lbs of energy to the target
Bullet B expanded to 0.650" diameter, penetrated 17" through the vitals, and left a permanent cavity that averages 1" in diameter
Clearly the figures for "energy transfer" are meaningless. Of course energy is transferred. Of course energy is required to create a permanent cavity. But energy transfer tells us jack squat about the wounding that's done.
This has been fun. I haven't had a good civil internet argument in a while. Makes me feel young & stupid again.
