Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 11 of 14 1 2 9 10 11 12 13 14
#12266741 - 09/12/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: smokepole]  
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,094
The_Yetti Offline
Campfire Guide
The_Yetti  Offline
Campfire Guide

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,094
Widefield, CO
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!!!!!


Got a shotgun, a rifle and a 4 wheel drive, a country boy can survive!


AIH 300 L
 
#12266766 - 09/12/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: DLALLDER]  
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,034
beretzs Offline
Campfire Guide
beretzs  Offline
Campfire Guide

Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,034
Northern Va
Great post JB. That was a cool read.


Semper Fi
#12266784 - 09/12/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: smokepole]  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,390
Coyote_Hunter Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Coyote_Hunter  Offline
Campfire 'Bwana

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,390
6491 Feet Above Sea Level
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 Endowment 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.
#12267001 - 09/12/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: Coyote_Hunter]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,482
smokepole Online content
Campfire Kahuna
smokepole  Online Content
Campfire Kahuna

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,482
Colorado
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.

#12267060 - 09/12/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: smokepole]  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,390
Coyote_Hunter Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Coyote_Hunter  Offline
Campfire 'Bwana

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,390
6491 Feet Above Sea Level
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 Endowment 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.
#12267076 - 09/12/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: DLALLDER]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,482
smokepole Online content
Campfire Kahuna
smokepole  Online Content
Campfire Kahuna

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,482
Colorado
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.

#12267090 - 09/12/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: Mule Deer]  
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,982
GuyM Offline
Campfire Guide
GuyM  Offline
Campfire Guide

Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,982
Washington - dry side
Very cool John, a nice tribute to a HUNTER.

Regards, Guy

#12267115 - 09/12/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: smokepole]  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,390
Coyote_Hunter Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Coyote_Hunter  Offline
Campfire 'Bwana

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,390
6491 Feet Above Sea Level
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 Endowment 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.
#12267162 - 09/12/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: Coyote_Hunter]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,482
smokepole Online content
Campfire Kahuna
smokepole  Online Content
Campfire Kahuna

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,482
Colorado
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.

#12267245 - 09/13/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: smokepole]  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,390
Coyote_Hunter Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Coyote_Hunter  Offline
Campfire 'Bwana

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,390
6491 Feet Above Sea Level
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 Endowment 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.
#12267451 - 09/13/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: Coyote_Hunter]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,482
smokepole Online content
Campfire Kahuna
smokepole  Online Content
Campfire Kahuna

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,482
Colorado
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.

#12267459 - 09/13/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: DLALLDER]  
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,659
HuntnShoot Online happy
Campfire Ranger
HuntnShoot  Online Happy
Campfire Ranger

Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,659
15 min from elk, MT
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.
#12267487 - 09/13/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: HuntnShoot]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,482
smokepole Online content
Campfire Kahuna
smokepole  Online Content
Campfire Kahuna

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,482
Colorado
LOL, now you've done it!!



A wise man is frequently humbled.

#12267519 - 09/13/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: HuntnShoot]  
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 27,191
mathman Online content
Campfire Oracle
mathman  Online Content
Campfire Oracle

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 27,191
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.

#12267871 - 09/13/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: mathman]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,482
smokepole Online content
Campfire Kahuna
smokepole  Online Content
Campfire Kahuna

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,482
Colorado
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.

#12267963 - 09/13/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: HuntnShoot]  
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 5,072
southtexas Offline
Campfire Tracker
southtexas  Offline
Campfire Tracker

Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 5,072
Texas
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

#12267965 - 09/13/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: southtexas]  
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 27,191
mathman Online content
Campfire Oracle
mathman  Online Content
Campfire Oracle

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 27,191
More like Special Relativity if I remember right.

#12267983 - 09/13/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: mathman]  
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,659
HuntnShoot Online happy
Campfire Ranger
HuntnShoot  Online Happy
Campfire Ranger

Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,659
15 min from elk, MT
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.
#12267998 - 09/13/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: HuntnShoot]  
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 27,191
mathman Online content
Campfire Oracle
mathman  Online Content
Campfire Oracle

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 27,191
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.
#12268285 - 09/13/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: DLALLDER]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,482
smokepole Online content
Campfire Kahuna
smokepole  Online Content
Campfire Kahuna

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,482
Colorado
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.

#12268305 - 09/13/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: Mule Deer]  
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 19,312
CrimsonTide Offline
Campfire Kahuna
CrimsonTide  Offline
Campfire Kahuna

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 19,312
Kentucky
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
One of the best hunters I've ever known was a guy who bought a RCBS press and two sets of dies while he was still in high school in the 1950's. The dies were for the .250 Savage and .30-06, because the two centerfire rifles he owned were a .250-3000 Savage 99 and a "sporterized" South American Mauser in .30-06. Both had their original open sights.

He bought the cheapest 100-grain .25-caliber and 180-grain caliber bullets he could find in local sporting goods stores, and used the "middle" load of IMR4320 in his Speer manual. He was married to a woman who was an enrolled member of the Montana reservation they lived on, so could hunt big game on the rez under the same regs as tribal members. He also hunted coyotes, foxes and whatever other furbearers he could every winter, and every fall drove 600 miles across Montana to hunt elk near the Idaho panhandle, where he killed a bunch of 'em, usually with the .30-06 but sometimes with the .250. I hunted with him quite a bit, both in eastern and western Montana. Witnessed him killing deer at 150-200 yards, often running, and he always got an elk back when elk weren't nearly as abundant as they are today--and often several, because this was back when many hunters shot enough elk for everybody in camp, if they had a chance. He didn't really care much about trophy antlers but killed some big-antlered deer and elk anyway, because he loved to hunt, so hunted hard.

He never hunted outside Montana, where he was born, and was also the only handloader I've ever known who actually did it to save money. When he died, he was still using the same rifles, press and dies he'd purchased in high school, the press mounted on a 2x12 screwed down across the back of his livingroom closet. I don't believe he ever shot a group in his life other than when sighting-in his rifles the first time. After that they always shot right to the same place with the same charge of IMR4320 and the cheapest bullets he could buy.


Thank you for taking the time to type that up. I really enjoyed reading it. When you said used the "Middle" load of 4320, I got a chuckle, because I remember back to loading my first handloads and picking the middle load out of the old Speer #9 manual. I suspect there were several folks who did that, for a long while. On a semi-related note, I always appreciated Nosler for putting an asterisk beside the most accurate load they came up with for each powder in a given cartridge. More often than not, I have had good accuracy with whichever load they marked with that asterisk.


"The number one problem with America is, a whole lot of people need shot, and nobody is shooting them."
-Master Chief Hershel Davis

#12268447 - 09/13/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: HuntnShoot]  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,390
Coyote_Hunter Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Coyote_Hunter  Offline
Campfire 'Bwana

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,390
6491 Feet Above Sea Level
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.


You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

First, the kinetic energy of an object is NOT it’s mass multiplied but the speed of light squared. It is 1/2 the mass multiplied by its velocity squared (E = 1/2*m*v*v). Contrary to your claim, an object MUST have velocity to have kinetic energy, which is the type of energy being discussed.




Second, objects with measurable mass CAN approach the speed of light. I posted the following earlier but you apparently didn’t read it.
Quote
Scientific experiments have succeeded in accelerating massful particles to speeds very close to light-speed in a perfect vacuum and much faster than light travels in air, where it is about 90km/s slower, or water, where it is about 25% slower.

For example, the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) has accelerated protons, which have mass, to 299,792,447 meters per second. That is 99.9999991% or just 11 meters per second shy of the speed of light in a perfect vacuum. 

Those speeds were actually rather slow compared to those achieved by the LEP (Large Electron-Positron Collider). The LEP has accelerated electrons and positrons, both of which have mass, to 299,792,457.9964 meters per second. That is 99.9999999988% or just 0.0036 meters per second slower than the theoretical speed of light in a perfect vacuum. 

Granted, 99.9999999988% is not the same as 100%, but frankly, I don't care. For our purposes here it is close enough and then some.


Moreover, because velocity measurements are relative to a particular point of view, there are galaxies in our universe which are speeding away from our galaxy at greater than the speed of light.





Third, force is NOT the definition of work. Force is not work and does not do work unless an object is accelerated in some direction. The formula for work is Work=Force*Displacement*cosine(theta) where the angle theta is the angle between the direction of the force and the direction of displacement. That said, when work is done, energy is transferred from one object to another or changed from one form to another.




Last edited by Coyote_Hunter; 09/13/17. Reason: spellnig

Coyote Hunter - NRA Endowment 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.
#12268791 - 09/13/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: HuntnShoot]  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,390
Coyote_Hunter Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Coyote_Hunter  Offline
Campfire 'Bwana

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,390
6491 Feet Above Sea Level
Originally Posted by HuntnShoot
...
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.
...


One other thing regarding your statement above. Photons have a theoretical mass of zero when at rest. When moving they have mass. And they are ALWAYS moving.

You say objects with mass cannot approach the speed of light. Please explain at what speed photons travel. The speed of....sound?

You really are clueless when it comes to physics.


Coyote Hunter - NRA Endowment 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.
#12268885 - 09/13/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: DLALLDER]  
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,613
Dillonbuck Online content
Campfire Guide
Dillonbuck  Online Content
Campfire Guide

Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,613
Pa
This is the first thread that has fallen so high that my dumb a-s can't begin to understand it.


Clinging to our guns and God.....Yeah an Obama quote, but it fits.
Page 11 of 14 1 2 9 10 11 12 13 14

Moderated by  RickBin, SYSOP 

AIH 160 1
Who's Online Now
514 registered members (257_X_50, 007FJ, 1990stanggt, 257heaven, 1911a1, 67 invisible), 1,405 guests, and 654 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod









Copyright © 2000-2017 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.116s Queries: 15 (0.005s) Memory: 1.0877 MB (Peak: 1.4388 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-09-19 22:31:40 UTC