Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Killing versus stopping

This is correct regarding collisions, but it is important to note that although kinetic energy is not conserved in inelastic collisions, there is still an energy transfer from one object to another. In fact, an object can only have measurable momentum if it also has kinetic energy. When you mentioned that a wound channel is produced by direct applied force, this is indirectly saying that there is an energy transfer, since change in kinetic energy is equal to the force applied, integrated over the displacement of the tissue. Likewise, the change in momentum of the tissue is equal to the force applied, integrated over the time of interaction.

So there is no question that when a bullet strikes, there is a transfer of momentum, kinetic energy, and that there is a force applied which is responsible for these changes in the tissue. I think the reason that so many of us have become hyper-sensitive to the mere mention of the word "energy", is because of all the focus and emphasis that for decades was placed on energy as a metric of killing effectiveness, using distorted mechanisms and quantified thresholds. People used kinetic energy all wrong in trying to determine killing power, and now we can't stand when somebody brings it up. Kind of like our reaction to an over-played song coming on the radio (even if we liked the song when it was originally released).