|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,881
Campfire 'Bwana
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,881 |
For those that claim increased velocity in revolvers doesn’t increase wound channel because the velocity is below 2,000 FPS, then why is the 357 mag more effective in producing larger wound channels than the 38 Special?
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,354
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,354 |
It doesn't really matter. Everyone knows now that 9mm is answer to all caliber wars now that the FBI adopted it. You can even stop bears in their tracks with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 207
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 207 |
If the bullet integrity is up to it, any increase in velocity will increase wound channel. Jwp—i still wonder why and how this idea got going about some magic 2000fps?!?!
Actually doing something usually changes a persons previously worthless opinion
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,935
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,935 |
Pretty quick, everyone needs to decide if the OP's question and the ensuing discussion is about expanding bullets, or not.
Clinging to guns & religion since 1959
Keyboards make people braver than alcohol
Election Integrity is more important than Election Convenience
Washington Post: "Democracy Dies in Darkness"
More correct: "Killing Democracy Faster Than Darkness"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 19,032
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 19,032 |
Of course it makes a difference. There is a lot of bullshitting going on.
If 2000 fps was the magic velocity, then the 22lr and 22WMR rifles would be equal with 40gr hollow points. I don't think anybody can make that argument either, at least not with a straight face.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 207
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 207 |
Doesnt matter. Wound channel size increases whether its a solid or an expandable.
Actually doing something usually changes a persons previously worthless opinion
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,245
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,245 |
Doesnt matter. Wound channel size increases whether its a solid or an expandable. Absolutely. Unless the target is exceptionally thin.
Lunatic fringe....we all know you're out there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,245
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,245 |
...i still wonder why and how this idea got going about some magic 2000fps?!?! I think it has been introduced with discussions of hydro-static shock. Somehow, it morphed to include the wound channel.
Lunatic fringe....we all know you're out there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 207
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 207 |
One causes the other so of course they go together.
Actually doing something usually changes a persons previously worthless opinion
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 46,243
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 46,243 |
Sure it does, next time you're out swimming, slap the water with an open palm slow, then put some speed on it and see how much more you move.
Trump Won!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,881
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,881 |
If the bullet integrity is up to it, any increase in velocity will increase wound channel. Jwp—i still wonder why and how this idea got going about some magic 2000fps?!?! The 2000 FPS is for secondary wounding of fragments of bone and or bullet fragments but people have taken it out of context. Doesn’t matter a monumental flap point leaves a smaller wound channel at 1000 FPS than the same bullet driven at 1400 FPS. BTDT and seen the results first hand.
Last edited by jwp475; 06/11/19.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,881
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,881 |
...i still wonder why and how this idea got going about some magic 2000fps?!?! I think it has been introduced with discussions of hydro-static shock. Somehow, it morphed to include the wound channel. Duncan McPhearson wrote that the proper term is “hydraulic preesure” the higher the velocity the higher the hydraulic pressure.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,935
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,935 |
Doesnt matter. Wound channel size increases whether its a solid or an expandable. Without agreeing or disagreeing with the above, my point is that the reasons for wound channel size being a function of velocity are quite likely different depending on if the bullet is expanding or not. Consider a non-expanding bullet at 1500 fps. Assume it has enough energy to create a pass through. Now consider the same bullet at 2000 fps. It too should pass through. If it creates a larger wound channel it will do so because of some phenomena based only on velocity. Consider a expanding bullet at 1500 fps. Assume it expands. Now consider the same bullet at 2000 fps. Assume the bullet construction is such that the greater velocity causes it to expand to a larger diameter. It creates a larger wound channel due to the both greater diameter and (probably) velocity. If you are going to get into a discussion about the OP's question, you are going to have to talk about how the bullet behaves.
Clinging to guns & religion since 1959
Keyboards make people braver than alcohol
Election Integrity is more important than Election Convenience
Washington Post: "Democracy Dies in Darkness"
More correct: "Killing Democracy Faster Than Darkness"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,881
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,881 |
Doesnt matter. Wound channel size increases whether its a solid or an expandable. Without agreeing or disagreeing with the above, my point is that the reasons for wound channel size being a function of velocity are quite likely different depending on if the bullet is expanding or not. Consider a non-expanding bullet at 1500 fps. Assume it has enough energy to create a pass through. Now consider the same bullet at 2000 fps. It too should pass through. If it creates a larger wound channel it will do so because of some phenomena based only on velocity. Consider a expanding bullet at 1500 fps. Assume it expands. Now consider the same bullet at 2000 fps. Assume the bullet construction is such that the greater velocity causes it to expand to a larger diameter. It creates a larger wound channel due to the both greater diameter and (probably) velocity. If you are going to get into a discussion about the OP's question, you are going to have to talk about how the bullet behaves. I have shot enough big game with a revolver to know that a bullet such as a mono metal flat point will inflict a larger would channel at 1400 FPS than the same bullet at 1000 FPS to soft tissue such as heart and lungs.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,755
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,755 |
If the bullet integrity is up to it, any increase in velocity will increase wound channel. Jwp—i still wonder why and how this idea got going about some magic 2000fps?!?! The 2000 FOS is for secondary wounding of fragments of bone and or bullet fragments but people have taken it out of context. If that is the origin of the 2000 fps number, it's still wrong. I've seen significant wounding from bone and bullet fragments from impact velocities as low as 900 fps (suppressed subsonic hollow points). Faster causes more damage. I agree that whatever the 2000 fps number was supposed to mean, it's been taken out of context and accepted as gospel by a lot of people who claim to be authorities on the subject. Actually shooting AND butchering animals shows a different story though, as many handgun hunters know.
Last edited by Yondering; 06/11/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,881
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,881 |
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,935
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,935 |
Doesnt matter. Wound channel size increases whether its a solid or an expandable. Without agreeing or disagreeing with the above, my point is that the reasons for wound channel size being a function of velocity are quite likely different depending on if the bullet is expanding or not. Consider a non-expanding bullet at 1500 fps. Assume it has enough energy to create a pass through. Now consider the same bullet at 2000 fps. It too should pass through. If it creates a larger wound channel it will do so because of some phenomena based only on velocity. Consider a expanding bullet at 1500 fps. Assume it expands. Now consider the same bullet at 2000 fps. Assume the bullet construction is such that the greater velocity causes it to expand to a larger diameter. It creates a larger wound channel due to the both greater diameter and (probably) velocity. If you are going to get into a discussion about the OP's question, you are going to have to talk about how the bullet behaves. I have shot enough big game with a revolver to know that a bullet such as a mono metal flat point will inflict a larger would channel at 1400 FPS than the same bullet at 1000 FPS to soft tissue such as heart and lungs. I don't doubt your experience. For clarification, are you talking about an expanding bullet or not? (Some mono metal bullets are designed to expand, correct?)
Clinging to guns & religion since 1959
Keyboards make people braver than alcohol
Election Integrity is more important than Election Convenience
Washington Post: "Democracy Dies in Darkness"
More correct: "Killing Democracy Faster Than Darkness"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,881
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,881 |
Doesnt matter. Wound channel size increases whether its a solid or an expandable. Without agreeing or disagreeing with the above, my point is that the reasons for wound channel size being a function of velocity are quite likely different depending on if the bullet is expanding or not. Consider a non-expanding bullet at 1500 fps. Assume it has enough energy to create a pass through. Now consider the same bullet at 2000 fps. It too should pass through. If it creates a larger wound channel it will do so because of some phenomena based only on velocity. Consider a expanding bullet at 1500 fps. Assume it expands. Now consider the same bullet at 2000 fps. Assume the bullet construction is such that the greater velocity causes it to expand to a larger diameter. It creates a larger wound channel due to the both greater diameter and (probably) velocity. If you are going to get into a discussion about the OP's question, you are going to have to talk about how the bullet behaves. I have shot enough big game with a revolver to know that a bullet such as a mono metal flat point will inflict a larger would channel at 1400 FPS than the same bullet at 1000 FPS to soft tissue such as heart and lungs. I don't doubt your experience. For clarification, are you talking about an expanding bullet or not? (Some mono metal bullets are designed to expand, correct?) I’ve never seen a monometal flat point that expanded in a revolver. I am saying more velocity equals more damage with both. Lungs and heart react to velocity in my experience. On very large game a revolver hunter needs penetration more than expansion.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,881
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,881 |
GunDoc7, when the velocity is increased so is the momentum along with the hydraulic pressure both add to the wound channel. Many tend to forget that depth of wound channel is also part of the total volume.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,163
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,163 |
So the 230 grain 45 ACP trucking along at 800 fps vs. the 9mm 124 grain bullet moving at 1200 fps, which one wins?
|
|
|
|
|
607 members (1eyedmule, 10gaugeman, 1minute, 12344mag, 1_deuce, 1beaver_shooter, 66 invisible),
2,907
guests, and
1,273
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,190,704
Posts18,456,820
Members73,909
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
