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

Velocity, Sherlock. If it depended on energy, there'd be a different velocity for each different weight of the same bullet.

Should I draw a picture?

You really are that dense. Thanks for removing any doubt.

There's lots of energy being expended here but not much work accomplished.

Are you kidding? The gravitational forces alone from the density of CH are enough to tilt the universe on its axis and set it spinning like a top..

So, same velocities for two bullets. You expect a .22 caliber 60g Partition at 1800fps to be just as capable of destruction as a .458 caliber 500g Partition at the same velocity?

After all, Nosler says they both have the same "Optimum Performance Velocity" of 1800fps minimum to unlimited fps.

The 60g Partition would have 432 ft-lbs energy with which to do work. The 500g Partition would have 3590 ft-lbs.

And you cal me dense...

You're such a tool...

He best never step on Guam...

Of course not. How on earth did you come up with that one? I haven't said anything remotely similar to that.


Or are you arguing with yourself now?




Ahh, now I see. You have me confused with "Cal."

nothing stopping you explaining why you consider it wrong.

A projectile is a projectile regardless of its design.

bullets pulverise, arrows efficiently cut , either way they divide tissue to clear a path.

a broadhead demonstrates how little force can be required to achieve ones objective.

You are the one arguing with yourself, to the point you are now agreeing with me -- that velocity alone tells you nothing.

Congratulations - you now "get it".

No, I'm not agreeing with you. Velocity alone will tell you whether you're operating within the bullet's design parameters for proper upset and wounding/killing.

See if you can wrap your pointy little head around that.

For a start, you've set velocity and acceleration as being the same thing.

So if someone wanted a projectile for hunting elk it would be a "waste of time" to calculate a 40g bullet at 1200fps has 128 ft-lbs energy and reject it out-of-hand accordingly?

In other words, it would not be a "waste of time" to shoot that bullet into " into tissue simulate and correlate that with live tissue results to know what the bullet will do"?

I don't need to do any such thing to know I'd prefer that same bullet at 4000fps and 1471 ft-lbs, regardless of its construction.

As I've stated all along, a bullet's energy provides information on the MAXIMUM amount of work (destruction) it can do, not what it will ACTUALLY do.

The ACTUAL damage caused (work performed) by a bullet depends on many other factors including types and amounts of target material, bullet construction, and so on. Are you going to shoot bullets into different "properly calibrated tissue simulate" corresponding to every different possible combination of target material and amounts thereof? I think not.

Instead you are going to come to some general conclusions about a particular bullet (which has a particular mass), its construction and a range of velocities over which it is effective. In other words, for each bullet you are in effect determining the range of energy required for that bullet to be effective.

I use 14.3g lead pellets in my air rifle, with a velocity somewhere around 1,000fps and 32 ft-lbs. I would never consider using them on elk but I would have much less of a problem using a 460g hardcast launched from my .45-70 at 1,000fps for that task. The 45-70 load carries 1022 ft-lbs. Instead I launch that bullet at 1812fps for 3354ft-lbs. While I've killed elk with my .45-70, I've never done so with that particular load - but I have no doubts it would be very effective. In fact, I think pretty much any bullet with 3354 ft-lbs would be fairly effective if it was efficient in transferring that energy (i.e. doing work by destroying tissue). Velocity alone is a meaningless quantity.

Knowledge of bullet construction, target material and energy (which requires information about mass) tells you quite a lot.

Knowledge of bullet construction, target material and velocity (which is the same information without the knowledge of mass and thus energy) tells you nothing. Even smokinrope now agrees on that when he agrees a 60g .22 caliber Partition and a 500g .458 caliber Partition, both at 1800fps, have vastly different destructive capability.

Which bullet? A 60g Partition or a 500g Partition at 1800fps? Nosler claims the same "Optimum Performance Velocity" for both (1800fps to unlimited fps).

The moment you specify a particular bullet you also specify a particular mass - and thus, for any given velocity, its energy.

Either mass does not matter, as you claim --- or it does, as you also claim.



Be on watch for the white-coat men...

If someone is that ignorant they have more problems than math.

You mean the people that claim velocity is the only thing that matters and mass is irrelevant?

Someone here equated willful ignorance to stupidity. Can't say I disagree.

Ray Wylie Hubbard quoted someone saying "The trouble with irony is not everyone gets it."

I find tremendous irony in the way you argue against yourself as much anything and appear to be hung up on semantics alternating with sheer density.

Congratulations!

Neither. The .223 bullet doesn't make a big enough hole and the 500 is ridiculous. I'd use one somewhere in the middle that makes a big enough hole without the recoil of a 500 grain bullet.

Which do you prefer? Let me guess, the 500.



I've made no claims about mass one way or the other, dimwit.

Show me where I've argued against myself.

Of course you have. The moment you throw mass into the calculation you are no longer talking about velocity alone but energy.

You are correct that at 1800fps for both I would prefer the 500g Partition over the 60g Partition - but why would you assume that if mass (and therefore energy) does not matter? If mass did not matter you would have no basis for making that assumption.


Nosler's "Optimum Performance Velocity" is 1800fps minimum for all Partitions, regardless of weight. All that tells you is that Nosler expects the Partitions to upset at that velocity - it tells you nothing about how effective Nosler expects Partitions with different masses to be against a particular target. If you call Nosler, I really doubt they would recommend the 60g Partition for elk.

You reject both the 60g and 500g Partition and say you would use "one somewhere in the middle". Something in the middle of .... what? 1800fps and 1800fps? No, 60g and 500g. In other words, you would choose a bullet with a different mass.

And why are you objecting to the recoil of a 500g Partition at 1800fps but not that of the 60g Partition at the same velocity? If velocity alone was the problem you would be objecting to the recoil of the 60g Partition as well.

Admit it or not, you use both velocity and mass an in your calculations - not velocity alone. Which means you are using energy calculations.

He is applying the Newton 2nd law of motion Force calculation not an Energy calculation.
F= ma.......presence of velocity/acceleration means the mass has direction, which energy does not.
one only achieves an energy value by means of the directional mass F calculation.

Coroners go about formally describing tissue damage as result of blunt force trauma or sharp force trauma,
not blunt ft/lb trauma or sharp ft/lb trauma.

this page 1 comment is correct:


and this comment is also true , even though nobody claimed energy was not required.


*****
Bullets expend energy as they travel through tissue, quantity of energy lost is equal to the work done on tissue
– such work is determined by forces acting over distance.

The directionless value of energy is only a measure of potential wounding, it is not in itself a mechanical action,
process, technique or instrument of wounding.