Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Bullet weight??

Dang it's true what they say, nothing gets by you.




Yes, you've said many things before, and taken untold pages to do it. I can't say I'm sorry I missed that. But you're wrong to say that here. It's not a fool's game if you're trying to show that two bullets with identical KE can have much different capacities to wound and kill. In fact, it's probably the best way to show that. Which in turn would indicate that KE is not the best yardstick for determining the capacity to wound and kill.






I often see people writing about "transfer"of kinetic energy but no one seems to want to quantify it. Which seems odd for such an easy-to-quantify commodity. How much energy must be "transferred" for the bullet to be effective? And it's funny how "energy transfer" seems to vary in direct proportion to a bullet's deformation and the size of the wound channel, both of which can be quantified.

Anyway, I'm sure you could calculate an "exit velocity" for the FMJ as it passes through and exits that would result in a calculated KE "deposited" in the animal or test medium that would be identical to the KE "deposited" by the frangible bullet that doesn't exit. And it still wouldn't change the conclusion.

Make them identical bullets 77SMK vs 250 SMK, or Bergers, or FMJ's if you wish, with identical placement. No doubt in my mind which will more reliably produce terminal effects more quickly. The 77 might do it, the 250 will do it.

I was asking for the explanation, not advocating one.

Make them identical bullets, one .223 caliber and one .338 caliber. Got it.

The point is that, all other factors being equal, a projectile with significantly more KE at impact can be expected to do more damage than the same projectile with significantly less KE.

The concept isn't hard to grasp - most 5 year old kids have a sense of it. Apparently some adults have a really tough time with it, though.

Sooo... how big of a hole does it make?

I mean, I just want to know what the wound channel will be in a target. So, being that one has more or less energy, how big will the wound be?

LOL, it's so simple a 5 year old can understand it!

Only problem is, it's demonstrably false.

I guess that means you're not as bright as the average 5 year-old.

A B S O L U T E L Y !!
Concise !
Accurate !
Perfect Illustration !!

I don't know why that's SO HARD to grasp !

S M H (shaking my head)


Jerry

I'm SMH too. Has anyone said that absent energy, bullets can kill? If they have I've missed it, please point it out.

You did say, in your last post, that it is "demonstrably false" that "all other factors being equal, a projectile with significantly more KE at impact can be expected to do more damage than the same projectile with significantly less KE."

That is very much akin to saying that energy does not matter. And THAT, my friend, IS demonstrably false.

And for those that refuse to learn and therefore, by their own words are being "stupid", let me reiterate for the umpteenth time that neither energy or velocity alone are good predictors of anything. Velocity alone, however, tells even less than energy alone - much less. At least energy provides information as to the maximum amount of destruction (work) possible. Let me also reiterate that energy alone DOES NOT predict the destruction (work) the WILL be done, only what CAN be done.

Yes, I said that and what I said is true. You should be able to figure out that your blanket statement is not always true.




No, it is not.





Let you reiterate? It's not like we have a choice or anything.

Your question demonstrates a refusal to learn so by your own words you are being "stupid" by choice. Congratulations?

How big a wound channel will VELOCITY make? Kind of depends on a lot of other factors, doesn't it? Like mass and construction of the projectile, and the types and amount of target material encountered?

We know that with very low mass even light-speed velocity is not enough to cause any damage. Of course, the moment you consider a projectile's mass, when you talk about its velocity in relation to its ability to do damage, you are really talking about its energy. If you think otherwise you must have flunked grade school math, where kids learn anything times zero equals zero, and basic physics where they learn that E=1/2*m*v*v. Like it or not, we live in a world where Newtonian physics hold sway.

Velocity alone does not determine how much damage a projectile can do. A projectile's energy defines how much damage (work) is ***possible***, not how much will be done nor what the damage will look like.

Which particles with mass can travel through air at the speed of light at the earth's surface?

When I say "light-speed" and talk about our bodies being bombarded by billions of light-speed particles per second, I am rather obviously (to most people) talking about the impact speed of those particles, whether they are passing through the atmosphere, water, glass or whatever. Those particles have mass.

In a perfect vacuum (a massless and therefore gravityless environment) than exists even in outer space, the theoretical maximum speed of light is a bit higher than through earth's atmosphere but the particles must be without mass (and therefore without energy) to achieve it.

There is a maximum theoretical speed for light but there are many actual light speeds, depending on the mediums through which the light is passing. Pick one.

Pick one? I thought that was pretty clear when I specified air, at the earth's surface. I'd draw a picture for you but I don't think it would help.

So again the question, which particles with mass travel at the speed of light through air, at the surface of the earth? Meaning, just above sea level.

I don't know... But I do know that I work with wound ballistics as part of my occupation.






I don't know how big of a wound channel velocity will make. Just like I don't know how big of a wound channel energy will make. Which is why using either to determine "effectiveness" is stupid.

I DO know what wound channel a bullet will make at a particular impact velocity by MEASURING the wound channel that is created.






"Possible" like "theoretical". I don't care about theoretical, I care about reality. If energy won't tell me "if" the bullet will upset, and it won't tell me "how" the bullet will upset, and it won't tell me how big the wound will be.... Why do I care what it is?

As far as velocity- do manufacturers list what "ft-lbs energy" a bullet takes to expand/upset? Or Velocity?

I need to know impact velocity because that tells me if the bullet will upset, and how it will upset.



Talking about "ft-lbs energy" with regards to wound ballistics is mental and ballistic masturbation.

All of them that do so. And there are countless trillions of billions of them.

And they're massless if they're traveling the speed of light.

Congratulations. Then you should know that without mass there is no wound channel.



Nowhere have I ever stated that velocity or energy can be used to determine “effectiveness” or the size of a wound channel that will be created. To the contrary, I’ve often stated that neither is a good predictor. What I have stated is that with all other factors being equal, a bullet of a given construction and mass and significantly higher energy is capable of and can be expected to produce greater damage than the same bullet with significantly less energy. And since mass and construction are fixed, velocity and energy can be used somewhat interchangeably.



Then you also can make a reasonable prediction of the wound channel your particular bullet type, which has a particular mass and velocity (i.e. energy) and construction, will make in an identical target. Velocity alone tell you nothing.



I have a bullet in my hand. What velocity will guarantee it will upset, how will it upset and how big will the wound channel be?

You cannot answer that because you don’t have enough information. Knowledge of the velocity alone is not sufficient.

When you examine a wound channel you are examining the result of work done by an amount of energy equal to or exceeding that determined by a particular bullet with a particular mass and velocity (energy) and construction impacting a particular target.



I put that question to Speer just last week regarding their 235g .375” bullet. The tech responded with ft-lbs. When I asked (because I was driving) for the corresponding velocity the tech had to pull out a calculator.

Many/most specify a velocity, but in doing so they are also referring to a specific bullet construction and mass. As I have stated before, if you are talking about a specific bullet mass and construction you can use velocity or energy somewhat interchangeably when trying to predict terminal results – but only because both are then known quantities with one and only one possible combination.



Denying that energy determines the amount of work that **can*** be done (potential destruction of tissue and bone) is ignorance on display. How much work is actually done is dependent on other factors as well.

Which is incorrect as I already pointed out. I can think of two examples off the top of my head, there are probably more:

1) An FMJ non-expanding bullet. Once it has sufficient velocity/energy to fully penetrate the medium you're shooting it through, adding more velocity/energy won't necessarily produce any more damage than the slower bullet.

2) A lightweight highly frangible bullet. If you shoot one at the optimum velocity/energy for optimum upset and maximum damage, and then increase the velocity/energy you will not necessarily get greater damage. Especially if the shot is into something tough like an animal's shoulder, the bullet with higher velocity/energy may just fragment and fail to penetrate with less damage.


And come to think of it, #2 is not just true for lightweight frangible bullets. Lots of cup and core bullets won't work optimally if they're driven too fast. And the same can be said for some of the soft lead conical bullets used in muzzleloaders.

So, using your methodology, I can throw a 460g bullet through a target, where it will probably make a non-circular hole, then pick that same bullet up, shoot it through the same target with my .45-70, where it will make a smaller, circular hole - thus proving the hand-thrown bullet has more destructive capability? No.

The rifle launched bullet clearly has more destructive capability but the target chosen is inadequate to demonstrate the difference. Take that non-expanding FMJ and launch it significantly faster and it will definitely do more damage to a target capable of demonstrating its full destructive power. Same with the frangible bullet.

There is a reason that kinetic energy weapons like the Navy's rail guns are not called "velocity weapons", even though they can launch their projectiles at Mach 7. The reason is that KE, not mass or velocity alone, determines their destructive capability.