24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 13 of 16 1 2 11 12 13 14 15 16
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,626
T
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
T
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,626
Originally Posted by smokepole
No. I asked the former sheep guide about bb's but he said they were no good.

Then he whipped out a calculator.

He punched in a few numbers and concluded you're a dumb ass.



Laffin my azz off!!!!!

BP-B2

Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,262
B
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
B
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,262
Great post JB. That was a cool read.


Semper Fi
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Originally Posted by smokepole
No. I asked the former sheep guide about bb's but he said they were no good.

Then he whipped out a calculator.

He punched in a few numbers and concluded you're a dumb ass.


Of course you did.

No, you selected a bullet, not based just on velocity, but mass as well.

If I flattened a BB to the same diameter as the bullet you chose, and could guarantee it would impact at the same velocity and flat-face first (same diameter as the bullet you chose) and would expand to the same diameter as the bullet you chose, would you expect it to be just as effective?

Same diameter, same expansion, same impact velocity, less recoil. If not, WHY NOT?


Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!

No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.

A good .30-06 is a 99% solution.
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,729
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,729
Originally Posted by Coyote_Hunter
If I flattened a BB to the same diameter as the bullet you chose, and could guarantee it would impact at the same velocity and flat-face first (same diameter as the bullet you chose) and would expand to the same diameter as the bullet you chose, would you expect it to be just as effective?


If a frog had wings, would it bump its ass when it landed?



A wise man is frequently humbled.

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Originally Posted by smokepole
Originally Posted by Coyote_Hunter
If I flattened a BB to the same diameter as the bullet you chose, and could guarantee it would impact at the same velocity and flat-face first (same diameter as the bullet you chose) and would expand to the same diameter as the bullet you chose, would you expect it to be just as effective?


If a frog had wings, would it bump its ass when it landed?



You won't answer the question because you can't do so without admitting you are wrong - that velocity is not the only thing that matters.

Last edited by Coyote_Hunter; 09/12/17.

Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!

No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.

A good .30-06 is a 99% solution.
IC B2

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,729
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,729
I won't answer the question because it's not only hypothetical and ridiculous, it's impossible.

But keep digging, it's the one thing you're good at.



A wise man is frequently humbled.

Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,173
G
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
G
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,173
Very cool John, a nice tribute to a HUNTER.

Regards, Guy

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Originally Posted by smokepole
I won't answer the question because it's not only hypothetical and ridiculous, it's impossible.

But keep digging, it's the one thing you're good at.


OF course it is hypothetical. And of course it is ridiculous - nobody in their right mind would choose a flattened BB at whatever velocity over a heavier bullet of the same diameter and velocity, even if both would expand to the same diameter. Because mass matters.

If mass did not matter, the flattened BB would be equally effective.

So keep dodging - it just confirms you know you are wrong. Velocity is not the only thing that matters.


Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!

No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.

A good .30-06 is a 99% solution.
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,729
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,729
Originally Posted by Coyote_Hunter
Velocity is not the only thing that matters.


Nice try Einstein. I never said it was. The size of the hole the bullet makes is what matters.

Calculate on that a while.



A wise man is frequently humbled.

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Originally Posted by smokepole
Originally Posted by Coyote_Hunter
Velocity is not the only thing that matters.


Nice try Einstein. I never said it was. The size of the hole the bullet makes is what matters.

Calculate on that a while.


Originally Posted by smokinrope

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


Manufactures DO have "different velocity" for different weights of the same bullet type. That is why Nosler does not recommend a 60g Partition for elk at velocity 'X' but does recommend heavier Partitions at velocity 'X' - and slower - for the same purpose, even though Nosler has only one specification for "Optimum Performance Range" for Partitions as a class of bullet - 1800fps to unlimited fps..

A bullet's maximum capability to destroy stuff (i.e. make holes) is very much tied to the energy it carries, not just its velocity. Bullet construction (cup-and-core, bonded, partitioned, mono's and various combinations thereof) is much less important than energy, which is why Nosler doesn't recommend a 60g Partition at any velocity for elk but does recommend a variety of heavier bullets of various construction types at much lower velocities for elk. Other manufacturers do the same with their bullets. They "get it".

You know that which is why you wouldn't use a 60g Partition at 1800fps but would choose a heavier bullet at that velocity instead. Mass matters. Velocity matters. Energy matters.


Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!

No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.

A good .30-06 is a 99% solution.
IC B3

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,729
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,729
Originally Posted by Coyote_Hunter
You know that which is why you wouldn't use a 60g Partition at 1800fps but would choose a heavier bullet at that velocity instead. Mass matters. Velocity matters. Energy matters.



LOL, good to see you were up early deciding how I choose my bullets. It's fascinating to watch you go from the ridiculous to the absurd, all while expounding on a subject you have no insight into and no way of understanding. I'll respond to a few of your "points" below but first, once again, try to wrap your pointy little head around this basic concept--not everyone thinks like you do. You're projecting. You like to post up tables of kinetic energy data so naturally you assume everyone considers kinetic energy very important. Not many others post that kind of data, including me. Ever wonder why?

It's comical how you keep talking about 60 grain and 500 grain Nosler bullets and pontificating on why I would choose one or the other. You think I base my decisions on energy but you're wrong. I'll show you conclusively that you're wrong which would be enough for most people to shut their yaps. But I have no doubt you will continue running yours, and in a perverse sort of way I look forward to your next harebrained tangent. It's fascinating to watch. But consider these points:

1) On the 60-grain bullet the reasons I wouldn't choose it are twofold. First, it would be a .223 bullet which is illegal for big game in my state. Which is also your state by the way. Second, it wouldn't make a big enough hole in my opinion. I realize that others may not share that opinion, but I don't believe it's my place to go on and on about how and why others choose the bullets they shoot. That's none of my business and just plain stupid.

2) On the 500 grain bullet, I wouldn't choose it because it results in more recoil than I want to deal with. Again, if someone else chooses to shoot one, more power to him, it's not my business to tell him how or why he chooses his bullet. Maybe he just likes the sound of "500 grain bullet." It's none of my concern.

3) Lastly, I don't shoot very many Nosler bullets so their data (the basis of your argument) are 100% irrelevant to my bullet choices.


Like I said, given the points above most would just shut their yaps but I do look forward to your next post detailng your theories on how and why I choose my bullets.







A wise man is frequently humbled.

Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,189
H
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
H
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,189
Jesus. Stick to discussions about bullets killing schit that don't involve physics. The discussion of physics here proves one thing: that modern public education is worthless.

First: Einstein. The energy of an object is its mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light. It need have no velocity to have energy. If you think it must be so, explain a fission weapon.

Second: Einstein part 2. Any object (particle) with measurable mass cannot approach the speed of light. In the equations, mass becomes an asymptotic line, meaning that as a particle with mass approaches the speed of light, its mass multiplies exponentially, with the upper limit being infinity. Basically, Einstein's equations showed that no object with mass can approach the speed of light, or it will end up outweighing the universe. Using the speed of light to define the energy of a thing with mass has nothing to do with its velocity. It is a misapplication of physics.

Third: force applied is the definition of work, and is not defined by energy, but by mass and velocity.


I belong on eroding granite, among the pines.
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,729
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,729
LOL, now you've done it!!



A wise man is frequently humbled.

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,707
M
Campfire 'Bwana
Online Content
Campfire 'Bwana
M
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,707
Originally Posted by HuntnShoot
Jesus. Stick to discussions about bullets killing schit that don't involve physics. The discussion of physics here proves one thing: that modern public education is worthless.

First: Einstein. The energy of an object is its mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light. It need have no velocity to have energy. If you think it must be so, explain a fission weapon.

Second: Einstein part 2. Any object (particle) with measurable mass cannot approach the speed of light. In the equations, mass becomes an asymptotic line, meaning that as a particle with mass approaches the speed of light, its mass multiplies exponentially, with the upper limit being infinity. Basically, Einstein's equations showed that no object with mass can approach the speed of light, or it will end up outweighing the universe. Using the speed of light to define the energy of a thing with mass has nothing to do with its velocity. It is a misapplication of physics.

Third: force applied is the definition of work, and is not defined by energy, but by mass and velocity.


The energy from e=mc^2 is what's available if the mass were converted into energy, a la a fission weapon. That's not the energy in play when a bullet meets a deer, atoms aren't being split in the hunting woods.

Force applied is not the definition of work. If you push very hard against the wall and nothing moves, a large force was applied but no work was done. Force applied over a distance is work, and it is the same thing as energy. It is momentum that is defined by mass and velocity.

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,729
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,729
Originally Posted by mathman
...... atoms aren't being split in the hunting woods.


No they're not. But who cares, they're being split right here on this forum!!!!



A wise man is frequently humbled.

Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,819
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,819
Originally Posted by HuntnShoot
Jesus. Stick to discussions about bullets killing schit that don't involve physics. The discussion of physics here proves one thing: that modern public education is worthless.

First: Einstein. The energy of an object is its mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light. It need have no velocity to have energy. If you think it must be so, explain a fission weapon.

Second: Einstein part 2. Any object (particle) with measurable mass cannot approach the speed of light. In the equations, mass becomes an asymptotic line, meaning that as a particle with mass approaches the speed of light, its mass multiplies exponentially, with the upper limit being infinity. Basically, Einstein's equations showed that no object with mass can approach the speed of light, or it will end up outweighing the universe. Using the speed of light to define the energy of a thing with mass has nothing to do with its velocity. It is a misapplication of physics.

Third: force applied is the definition of work, and is not defined by energy, but by mass and velocity.


Wow. We just jumped from Newtonian physics to quantum mechanics!
crazy

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,707
M
Campfire 'Bwana
Online Content
Campfire 'Bwana
M
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,707
More like Special Relativity if I remember right.

Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,189
H
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
H
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,189
If you push on a wall, you have exerted a force, and the wall will move. You may not be able to measure the movement, but the force can be measured.

Yes, when a fission reaction occurs, energy is released, from matter converted to energy. I listed that under Einstein because people keep bringing Einsteinian physics into this thing, and horribly so. Misapplication of physics equations solves nothing. That was my point.


I belong on eroding granite, among the pines.
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,707
M
Campfire 'Bwana
Online Content
Campfire 'Bwana
M
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,707
Still, force applied is not the definition of work. If it were, then a single mount of force applied would result in the same amount of work even if it were over different displacements.

Lifting a weight over your head takes work. Holding it there only requires force, there is no further change in displacement and hence no work.

Last edited by mathman; 09/13/17.
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,729
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,729
If you piss in the wind, bang your head against a wall, or engage in dialog with coyote hunter, is any work accomplished?



A wise man is frequently humbled.

Page 13 of 16 1 2 11 12 13 14 15 16

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
705 members (12344mag, 10gaugemag, 11point, 10Glocks, 160user, 117LBS, 87 invisible), 2,725 guests, and 1,293 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,695
Posts18,399,872
Members73,820
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.136s Queries: 15 (0.006s) Memory: 0.9175 MB (Peak: 1.0768 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-28 23:09:15 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS