Which bullet will have more of a killing effect? A 180 that exits with a portion of the energy being wasted or a 165 that does not exit and animal absorbing 100% of the bullet energy? My point is maybe a somewhat lighter bullet could be a more efficient killing projectile? Yes or no???
The 180 that always passes through is going to be more consistent. I've had bullets that did not pass clear through show more variability in results. Sometimes they were friggin' spectacular, other times the seemed to have no effect for a while.
Personally, I prefer reliability, short tracking, rather than a mix of bang flop and longer tracking or even lost game.
The ol' "absorbing all the energy" schtick was nonsense when I first heard it in about 1968 and it hasn't gained any ground. ALL only matters if you barely have enough. If you use something a bit more appropriate for the job, you'll have enough. Having enough is important, having all can still produce a failure.
Tom
I prefer one that passes all the way through. Pneumothorax from two holes stops all breathing, particularly if you scramble both lungs, and the animal will only run a short distance. It's possible that bullets that don't exit may only destroy one lung. Heart shots with either work the same.
With larger animals like elk, the far side hide often acts like a backstop. It's tough, has considerable stretch, and will stop some pretty fast moving bullets. I don't know how many times I've found my bullet under the hide but it's been a lot. Once a bullet gets that far, it's done all the damage it can do.
I used a 270 for years then switched to a 300 WSM and killed 8 or 10 elk with it. I can't remember if I ever found the bullet under the hide with the 300 but it was almost the norm with the 270.
Which bullet will have more of a killing effect? A 180 that exits with a portion of the energy being wasted or a 165 that does not exit and animal absorbing 100% of the bullet energy? My point is maybe a somewhat lighter bullet could be a more efficient killing projectile? Yes or no???
"Ft-Lbs energy" is not a wounding mechanism. Bullets kill by crushing, tearing, and pulping tissue. How fast a bullet kills is dependant on three things ha-
1) Placement (what it hits)
2) Penetration (sufficient to reach vitals)
3) Width of wound channel (how much tissue is destroyed)
Provided indentical placement and both reaching vitals, the bullet that has the widest wound channel will kill faster.
Work cannot be performed without energy. Can't be done.
Dead is dead. Piss on "killing effect". An arrow kills quite as efficiently and well as a bullet, with proper placement. Of course, if I am in archery range, I almost always use a CNS placement. It just doesn't matter what you use if they go straight down. At longer ranges, one tends to get more spectacular DRT results with fast moving bullets, which also tend to create bigger wound channels respective to other factors.
I very seldom not get an exit wound with whatever caliber and load I am using, from .243 to .338 WM. I guess I'm overshooting shooting those elastic-hide animals?
Or someone is undershootinbg them? Hard to say.....
In my opinion, yes, if the bullet is retained, it has expended all it's energy into the animal. If it exits, who is to say it hasn't expended the same amount of energy, plus having enough left over to exit AND LEAVE A BLOOD TRAIL IF NECESSARY.
I'm a believer in blowing a hole to daylight.
Work cannot be performed without energy. Can't be done.
It's like it never ends....
There is not a legit DOD, DOJ, or medical entirety that deals with terminal ballistics that lists, measures, or even cares about "ft-lbs energy". It is a number that people who are ignorant about terminal ballistics try to use. NO matter how many "ft-lbs energy" a bullet has, it still tells you absolutely nothing about what that bullet will do in tissue.
I prefer heavy for caliber bullets.They just seem to get the job done better for me. I don't care if I find them under the far side hide or if there are two holes.I don't go grubbing around in dead elk for bullets either. If I find them great.If not it isn't a big deal.A dead elk on the ground is proof enough for me the bullet worked.
Work cannot be performed without energy. Can't be done.
It's like it never ends....
There is not a legit DOD, DOJ, or medical entirety that deals with terminal ballistics that lists, measures, or even cares about "ft-lbs energy". It is a number that people who are ignorant about terminal ballistics try to use. NO matter how many "ft-lbs energy" a bullet has, it still tells you absolutely nothing about what that bullet will do in tissue.
+1 and then some!
I prefer one that passes all the way through. Pneumothorax from two holes stops all breathing, particularly if you scramble both lungs, and the animal will only run a short distance. It's possible that bullets that don't exit may only destroy one lung. Heart shots with either work the same.
I agree right up to the point about heart shots... take out the pump and you remove both power and suction side so no blood moves. There is still a lot of available oxygen in blood after it gets run past the tissues... leaving it trapped in the meat lets critters run farther. Take the Aorta off the top and the suction side works and the vent dumps all the blood quickly.
The 180 that always passes through is going to be more consistent. I've had bullets that did not pass clear through show more variability in results. Sometimes they were friggin' spectacular, other times the seemed to have no effect for a while.
Personally, I prefer reliability, short tracking, rather than a mix of bang flop and longer tracking or even lost game.
The ol' "absorbing all the energy" schtick was nonsense when I first heard it in about 1968 and it hasn't gained any ground. ALL only matters if you barely have enough. If you use something a bit more appropriate for the job, you'll have enough. Having enough is important, having all can still produce a failure.
Tom
I agree but have been told by thoracic surgeons that the real killing mechanism if CNS is not involved is blood loss. Dump BP and lights go out. A vent on the exit is both bigger and leaves the tissue pointing in the right direction to dump blood far faster than the entrance.
An exit is always a good thing IMO&E.
Killing effect...is this about paunch-shooting elk with a Weatherby, and why didn't it die? Put holes in vital organs and killing effect magically happens. Sometimes an incantation or prayer helps. Feel free to quote me.
Work cannot be performed without energy. Can't be done.
I've been saying that since joining here in 2010. You are correct E is integral to produce work ( penetration-
tissue destruction - breaking bones - punching holes in ELASTIC hides, etc. etc.
I'm NOT talking about any specific FP...
I'm in bed now, tomorrow I'll post an answer from one of our members who also knows math & physics.
Abbreviated paraphrase for now. It takes Energy Transfer and Momentum to accomplish what we need/ look for
in efficiently killing an animal.
Those SAME things (energy transfer & momentum) are integral using archery, even tho the FPE numbers aren't close.
Good Night for now. Back tomorrow.
Jerry
Bullet weight lends to deeper penetration, lighter bullets can be pushed faster at shorter range, frontal diameter doesn't change much depending on weight. Construction of the bullet effects retained weight, and frontal diameter. It's a balancing act, and always will be. Picking a bullet only because of weight, or construction isn't wise. Pick a balance that works for you.
I'm in the 'two holes is good' camp when it comes to bullets. First rule though is to put the first hole in a place that will allow the bullet to do the most damage to key organs etc and still have the energy to leave an exit hole.
In regards to the 'skin stretch', I still have a vivid memory of watching a forked antlered bull elk running out of the timber towards me about 150 yards away. One of my cousins took a shot and I remember seeing the hide on the off side stretch out at least 18" - 24" from the main body. TWICE - once with each shot. We found one of the core-lokts under the hide. Never figured out if it was the first shot or the second, but, we're guessing it was the first.
I'm in the 'two holes is good' camp when it comes to bullets. First rule though is to put the first hole in a place that will allow the bullet to do the most damage to key organs etc and still have the energy to leave an exit hole.
In regards to the 'skin stretch', I still have a vivid memory of watching a forked antlered bull elk running out of the timber towards me about 150 yards away. One of my cousins took a shot and I remember seeing the hide on the off side stretch out at least 18" - 24" from the main body. TWICE - once with each shot. We found one of the core-lokts under the hide. Never figured out if it was the first shot or the second, but, we're guessing it was the first.
I have seen it a number of times and it is amazing...
Work cannot be performed without energy. Can't be done.
>>edited today to add>> I Can't believe someone ELSE said THAT ^^^^^
I'm in bed now, tomorrow I'll post an answer from one of our members who also knows math & physics.
Abbreviated paraphrase for now. It takes Energy Transfer and Momentum to accomplish what we need/ look for
in efficiently killing an animal.
Those SAME things (energy transfer & momentum) are integral using archery, even tho the FPE numbers aren't close.
Good Night for now. Back tomorrow.
Okay - now is 'tomorrow' from last night. Please read ALL of the following quotes. The 'following' comes from "ASK the Gunwirters" forum, Killing versus Stopping thread--- P 29.
[quote=jwp475]
A bullet impact is an inelastic collision, energy is not conserved, momentum is conserved. In an elastic collision both energy and momentum is conserved. This is fact not theory. [quote=jwp475]
This is correct regarding collisions,[/b] but it is important to note that although kinetic energy is not conserved in inelastic collisions, there is still an energy transfer from one object to another. In fact, an object can only have measurable momentum if it also has kinetic energy.[b] When you mentioned that a wound channel is produced by direct applied force, this is indirectly saying that there is an energy transfer, since change in kinetic energy is equal to the force applied, integrated over the displacement of the tissue. Likewise, the change in momentum of the tissue is equal to the force applied, integrated over the time of interaction.
[/b]So there is no question that when a bullet strikes, there is a transfer of momentum, kinetic energy, and that there is a force applied which is responsible for these changes in the tissue.[b] I think the reason that so many of us have become hyper-sensitive to the mere mention of the word "energy", is because of all the focus and emphasis that for decades was placed on energy as a metric of killing effectiveness, using distorted mechanisms and quantified thresholds. [/b]People used kinetic energy all wrong in trying to determine killing power, and now we can't stand when somebody brings it up.[b]Kind of like our reaction to an over-played song coming on the radio (even if we liked the song when it was originally released).
Excellent points, gentlemen. It's apparent you both paid attention in physics class.
M70 Guy -- We are correct ! I have known for a long time that E is 'integral' to accomplish work-- but didn't have the math/physics background to express it accurately.
THANKS Again to "Jordan Smith"
The analogy of 'arrows' killing to 'bullets' is actually Apples/Oranges
Simply consider the looks of 'bullets', NOW consider the looks of hunting 'arrows heads'. IF bullets were shaped like arrow heads' and could be propelled fast enuff to produce a reasonable trajectory, they would NOT have to weigh AS MUCH to kill dramatically. The diff is NOT in K E, it is in SHAPE and SHARPNESS of the projectile.
Jerry
Even with a CNS hit, the animal is not dead instantly. Things have to shut down. But you know where the animal is.
I think it should be mandatory that everyone hunt with archery gear long enough to understand fringe hits, where the vitals actually are and where the highest percentage shots are AND to learn how to trail.
For me, its almost always heavy for caliber, unless caliber is small and slow and I want to get a bullet to actually expand then I go down sometimes.
I may not run the heaviest for caliber since Barnes came along, but I have not cared much for the light theory.
As to trying to dump all the energy, well the wtby rounds are supposed to prove this, but mid weight bullets in our 257 wtbys that my buddy and I shoot( thats all he uses anymore) have not proven that at all. All its proven is that a fast 100 grain still needs to hit CNS for a bang flop shot 100% of the time just like I've always said.
Which bullet will have more of a killing effect? A 180 that exits with a portion of the energy being wasted or a 165 that does not exit and animal absorbing 100% of the bullet energy? My point is maybe a somewhat lighter bullet could be a more efficient killing projectile? Yes or no???
A big game critter with an exit hole in the front half has always worked out better for me.............
Casey
Use small, fast, light and soft bullets for small, fast, light and soft animals.
Use big, slow, heavy and hard bullets for big, slow, heavy and hard animals.
Use small, fast, light and soft bullets for small, fast, light and soft animals.
Use big, slow, heavy and hard bullets for big, slow, heavy and hard animals.
So brown bears are biggish, fastish, heavyish, and softish... how now?
Work cannot be performed without energy. Can't be done.
>>edited today to add>> I Can't believe someone ELSE said THAT ^^^^^
I'm in bed now, tomorrow I'll post an answer from one of our members who also knows math & physics.
Abbreviated paraphrase for now. It takes Energy Transfer and Momentum to accomplish what we need/ look for
in efficiently killing an animal.
Those SAME things (energy transfer & momentum) are integral using archery, even tho the FPE numbers aren't close.
Good Night for now. Back tomorrow.
Okay - now is 'tomorrow' from last night. Please read ALL of the following quotes. The 'following' comes from "ASK the Gunwirters" forum, Killing versus Stopping thread--- P 29.
[quote=jwp475]
A bullet impact is an inelastic collision, energy is not conserved, momentum is conserved. In an elastic collision both energy and momentum is conserved. This is fact not theory. [quote=jwp475]
This is correct regarding collisions,[/b] but it is important to note that although kinetic energy is not conserved in inelastic collisions, there is still an energy transfer from one object to another. In fact, an object can only have measurable momentum if it also has kinetic energy.[b] When you mentioned that a wound channel is produced by direct applied force, this is indirectly saying that there is an energy transfer, since change in kinetic energy is equal to the force applied, integrated over the displacement of the tissue. Likewise, the change in momentum of the tissue is equal to the force applied, integrated over the time of interaction.
[/b]So there is no question that when a bullet strikes, there is a transfer of momentum, kinetic energy, and that there is a force applied which is responsible for these changes in the tissue.[b] I think the reason that so many of us have become hyper-sensitive to the mere mention of the word "energy", is because of all the focus and emphasis that for decades was placed on energy as a metric of killing effectiveness, using distorted mechanisms and quantified thresholds. [/b]People used kinetic energy all wrong in trying to determine killing power, and now we can't stand when somebody brings it up.[b]Kind of like our reaction to an over-played song coming on the radio (even if we liked the song when it was originally released).
Excellent points, gentlemen. It's apparent you both paid attention in physics class.
M70 Guy -- We are correct ! I have known for a long time that E is 'integral' to accomplish work-- but didn't have the math/physics background to express it accurately.
THANKS Again to "Jordan Smith"
The analogy of 'arrows' killing to 'bullets' is actually Apples/Oranges
Simply consider the looks of 'bullets', NOW consider the looks of hunting 'arrows heads'. IF bullets were shaped like arrow heads' and could be propelled fast enuff to produce a reasonable trajectory, they would NOT have to weigh AS MUCH to kill dramatically. The diff is NOT in K E, it is in SHAPE and SHARPNESS of the projectile.
Jerry
Ok. How many "ft-lbs energy" do you need to kill a deer or elk? And with that number, what does the wound look like?
Formid. You either missed the point or were not looking.
Jordan stated it quite well that FPE has been used all wrong as a killing indicator.
THE point is E is essential (integral) to accomplish work !
Jerry
Work cannot be performed without energy. Can't be done.
It's like it never ends....
There is not a legit DOD, DOJ, or medical entirety that deals with terminal ballistics that lists, measures, or even cares about "ft-lbs energy". It is a number that people who are ignorant about terminal ballistics try to use. NO matter how many "ft-lbs energy" a bullet has, it still tells you absolutely nothing about what that bullet will do in tissue.
Best example of this is a full metal jacket bullet vs an expanding bullet of the same mass and same velocity (= same energy). Which will kill faster, excluding CNS hits?
Formid. You either missed the point or were not looking.
Jordan stated it quite well that FPE has been used all wrong as a killing indicator.
THE point is E is essential (integral) to accomplish work !
Jerry
I get the "point" exactly. When people bring up "energy" they are focusing on a thing that tells them absolutely nothing. If knowing a bullet has a certain amount of "ft-lbs energy" won't tell me anything about what that bullet will do in tissue, why bring it up?
Yes, energy is a mathematical fact... It's also a useless number for anyone to focus on as it doesn't tell anyone a single thing about what that bullet will do in tissue.
However, knowing that "X" bullet at 1,700fps impact velocity will penetrate 21 inches, have a 1.5 inch neck length, have a max temporary cavity of 7.8 inches, a TC that is 11 inches long, with the max TC at 9 inches DOES tell you something.
Knowing the "ft-lbs energy" does not in anyway tell you the above.
Again, people that are ignorant of terminal ballistics talk "energy". People that understand wound ballistics talk "placement, depth, width, and shape".
I've never given this wound channel stuff a single thought in the 45 yrs I've been hunting big game. I guess I figured out that simply using partitions, accubonds, interbonds, interlokts, or the later version BT's told me everything I needed to know, i.e they kill the schittt outa game.
I posed the question of "Foot pounds of Energy" some years ago and "Mule Deer's" response was elegant in it's simplicity,
to paraphrase,
"Animals die, not from foot pounds of energy but from broken body parts"
Another way to say it, place a decent bullet properly and things go well enough.
I've never given this wound channel stuff a single thought in the 45 yrs I've been hunting big game. I guess I figured out that simply using partitions, accubonds, interbonds, interlokts, or the later version BT's told me everything I needed to know, i.e they kill the schittt outa game.
That's true. I'm sure that you know this (which is why you use them), but all of those bullets produce similar wound characteristics. Some penetrate a bit deeper, some a bit wider, but all similar.
With cup and core bullets I suggest twice the Foot Pounds Energy as the animal weighs. I. E. 750 pounds needs 1500 pounds at impact.
My suggestions are not for " long range" shots. ( over 500 yards) I have no experience.
Sectional density should be .25 for elk. As in 165 grain 30 caliber.
What I still do not understand is if FPE is so inaccurate to refer to why is I it so published and calculated in reloading manuals?
Further more why is it so bad to share and recommend such easily documented indices of a kinetic energy based projectile?
Is some one trying to re invent the wheel? Is this based on kidney stone removal data?
Why would I make this recommendation? In case one encounters a point blank shot, or a raking shot.
If one is disciplined to wait for the perfect harvest scenario by all means shoot just exactly what you rehearse.
But also please don't tread on me because I may suggest " overkill".
The monolithic bullet will behave differently, Terminal Ballistic Research web sight or some excellent studies posted here will also help you make informed decisions.
From what I have gathered you need roughly 2000 fps at impact with a monolithic to get it to expand. A study posted here showed a 130 grain 30 caliber will penetrate very well even at point blank on bovine femur ( stifle) joint.
Hope this helps.
Gather wood where you may ,we all feed the same fire.
Forget energy, get the best of all worlds, use a heavy stout bullet your rifle will shoot well in an appropriate cartridge and get speed AND massive penetration, win/win.
With cup and core bullets I suggest twice the Foot Pounds Energy as the animal weighs. I. E. 750 pounds needs 1500 pounds at impact.
My suggestions are not for " long range" shots. ( over 500 yards) I have no experience.
Sectional density should be .25 for elk. As in 165 grain 30 caliber.
What I still do not understand is if FPE is so inaccurate to refer to why is I it so published and calculated in reloading manuals?
Further more why is it so bad to share and recommend such easily documented indices of a kinetic energy based projectile?
Is some one trying to re invent the wheel? Is this based on kidney stone removal data?
Why would I make this recommendation? In case one encounters a point blank shot, or a raking shot.
If one is disciplined to wait for the perfect harvest scenario by all means shoot just exactly what you rehearse.
But also please don't tread on me because I may suggest " overkill".
The monolithic bullet will behave differently, Terminal Ballistic Research web sight or some excellent studies posted here will also help you make informed decisions.
From what I have gathered you need roughly 2000 fps at impact with a monolithic to get it to expand. A study posted here showed a 130 grain 30 caliber will penetrate very well even at point blank on bovine femur ( stifle) joint.
Hope this helps.
Gather wood where you may ,we all feed the same fire.
And if you get it dry enough even bullshit burns!
Reread what Formidulosis wrote... FPE does not measure anything of value in determining whether the bullet will kill effectively.
Consider E=MC2 (cannot figure out symbols on this tablet)
Velocity is squared and weighs in far heavier on Energy than Mass... yet a rather sedate heavy bullet will usually go very deep...
Forget energy, get the best of all worlds, use a heavy stout bullet your rifle will shoot well in an appropriate cartridge and get speed AND massive penetration, win/win.
Imagine, some folks like to eat what they shoot!
I've always thought this is a poor arguement. I prefer dead nearby, to dead a mile away the next day. Of course, some with say, its dead and doesn't know the difference.
Forget energy, get the best of all worlds, use a heavy stout bullet your rifle will shoot well in an appropriate cartridge and get speed AND massive penetration, win/win.
Imagine, some folks like to eat what they shoot!
Ya, and stout bullets aint grenades, but you already knew that!
Depends on range and impact vol.....in theory ,but I'll bet you couldn't tell the difference if you killed 100 head with each bullet..
I agree it don't predict exact harvest ability, but it certainly can get pretty close. Not on the positive side ( harvest success.....but on the negative. Harvest failure) especially at point blank raking shots.
. Also FPE can be measured. Therefore it can be discussed, and it can be suggested.
So show me please where my above suggestions would not work using a hunting style bullet.
On thin skinned smaller game there are lots of harvest instances where frangebile lighter bullets will do devastating damage and effective harvest.
There was a deer hunting forum post yesterday with excellent necropsy photos of a .223 at 300 yards WOW!
Terminal Ballistic Research touts frangebile light bullets for thin skinned game with proper shot selection.
But what's your point?
Energy equals mass time velocity squared. Divided in half.
What are the units used?
They are all in the same equation? Why?
It is like FPE is a measurement that considers both bullet mass I E ability to penetrate, And ability to mushroom, open up, work, or drive through tissue.....velocity. It does not consider shot placement, but where does a higher FPE measurement using a hunting style bullet make the round less effective? Unless it is using an extreme of one indice or the other exclusively to get the higher value.
So as long as the sectional density requirement is met, therefore keeping projectile mass within reason, and taking into account smaller calibers can penetrate using less mass, FPE will then be an easy way to compare potiential effectiveness between calibers. Not so much to predict success at the rehearsed range, but to prevent harvest failure due to cartridge performance at non conventional harvest events.
Just remember monolithics may need to be more velocity driven, so sectional density should drop with in reason. I think near 4000 fps things get funky....not to mention barrel damage. But just armchair reading research there, I have no practical experience at those speeds.
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. So there is little reason in my mind to not use a strong cartridge that is up to the task, even for point blank raking shots.
This is my point of view, and I love to hunt elk in the bugle season, so I think a lot about close range point blank harvest events.
Why is momentum not published in reloading data?
What are the units of measurement for momentum?
Just my thoughts?
How about frangibility?
Thanks
I agree it don't predict exact harvest ability, but it certainly can get pretty close. Not on the positive side ( harvest success.....but on the negative. Harvest failure) especially at point blank raking shots.
. Also FPE can be measured. Therefore it can be discussed, and it can be suggested.
So show me please where my above suggestions would not work using a hunting style bullet.
On thin skinned smaller game there are lots of harvest instances where frangebile lighter bullets will do devastating damage and effective harvest.
There was a deer hunting forum post yesterday with excellent necropsy photos of a .223 at 300 yards WOW!
Terminal Ballistic Research touts frangebile light bullets for thin skinned game with proper shot selection.
But what's your point?
Energy equals mass time velocity squared. Divided in half.
What are the units used?
They are all in the same equation? Why?
It is like FPE is a measurement that considers both bullet mass I E ability to penetrate, And ability to mushroom, open up, work, or drive through tissue.....velocity. It does not consider shot placement, but where does a higher FPE measurement using a hunting style bullet make the round less effective? Unless it is using an extreme of one indice or the other exclusively to get the higher value.
So as long as the sectional density requirement is met, therefore keeping projectile mass within reason, and taking into account smaller calibers can penetrate using less mass, FPE will then be an easy way to compare potiential effectiveness between calibers. Not so much to predict success at the rehearsed range, but to prevent harvest failure due to cartridge performance at non conventional harvest events.
Just remember monolithics may need to be more velocity driven, so sectional density should drop with in reason. I think near 4000 fps things get funky....not to mention barrel damage. But just armchair reading research there, I have no practical experience at those speeds.
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. So there is little reason in my mind to not use a strong cartridge that is up to the task, even for point blank raking shots.
This is my point of view, and I love to hunt elk in the bugle season, so I think a lot about close range point blank harvest events.
Why is momentum not published in reloading data?
What are the units of measurement for momentum?
Just my thoughts?
How about frangibility?
Thanks
Just WOW!!!
Sorry, but your failure to understand very basic Physics precludes taking the time to go over everything you do not get.
There is no "divided in half" in Einstein's equation.
All of these requirements you imagine exist, don't.
E has nothing to do with ability to penetrate as examples exist in every direction of inverse correlations between E and penetration, proving it is not a critical variable in every case.
E is what you are trying to mean, FP is simply the metric.
"Strong cartridge" is a pretty strange description in a Physics argument...
Your grasp of monolithics is monumental in its tenuous underpinnings...
Actually, are you visiting in Oregon and smoking someones stash?
[quot
There is no "divided in half" in Einstein's equation.
?
Kenetic energy is 1/2*mass* velocity squared.
Actually, are you visiting in Oregon and smoking someones stash?
Ketamine.
Use small, fast, light and soft bullets for small, fast, light and soft animals.
Use big, slow, heavy and hard bullets for big, slow, heavy and hard animals.
So brown bears are biggish, fastish, heavyish, and softish... how now?
I make them as not all that big, pretty fast when it wants to be, not that heavy and soft.
After running that through my mental calculator I left the .375 with monos in the tent and went for a walk with a .300 RUM (loaded to .300 Win speed so a big small gun that can be pretty fast when it wants to be) stuffed with 180 grain Accubonds. Not all that big, pretty fast, not that heavy and soft. Coastal bear died so fast that it looked like an invisible building had fallen on it.
Those who contend ft-lbs energy does not measure lethality are at least partially right. The mistake most people make is using the ft-lbs tool incorrectly. Comparing the energy of a broadhead arrow to that of a .30 cal/180g form a .300WM is interesting because both are lethal but the ft-lbs energy needed to make them so are so radically different. That difference demonstrates the problem - using ft-lbs energy alone to compare the lethality of two different projectiles is pretty much a fools game.
That said, give me a .30 caliber/180g bullet of any design and I'll take 2000 ft-lbs over 200 if shooting elk. And I'll take 200 if shooting a rabbit destined for the dinner table.
ft-lbs energy doesn't measure anything directly except ft-lbs energy. That doesn't mean ft-lbs is a useless tool or that it tells us nothing useful. I can think of four very different ways to use a barometer whose characteristics are completely known to me to measure the height of a building - but it really isn't the best tool for the job.
I finally got it.
Just like the garanimals kids clothing line.
Go to Walmart mart, pick out a box of shells that has a picture of an animal resembeling the one on your tag, and if in doubt buy an arrow,
BTW foot and pound is in the English scale, is not our friend the metric scale based on the volume and mass of water? As in ccs?
But I guess a pints a pound the world around, but wait a minute.....is that an imperial pint? Or an English pound? Or a euro?
I finally got it.
Just like the garanimals kids clothing line.
Go to Walmart mart, pick out a box of shells that has a picture of an animal resembeling the one on your tag, and if in doubt buy an arrow,
BTW foot and pound is in the English scale, is not our friend the metric scale based on the volume and mass of water? As in ccs?
But I guess a pints a pound the world around, but wait a minute.....is that an imperial pint? Or an English pound? Or a euro?
Metric, used as I clearly did, does not refer to the metric scale. In technical use it refers to any system or point of reference that can be used to measure. But it is obvious you cannot keep any term on-topic.
Those who contend ft-lbs energy does not measure lethality are at least partially right. The mistake most people make is using the ft-lbs tool incorrectly. Comparing the energy of a broadhead arrow to that of a .30 cal/180g form a .300WM is interesting because both are lethal but the ft-lbs energy needed to make them so are so radically different. That difference demonstrates the problem - using ft-lbs energy alone to compare the lethality of two different projectiles is pretty much a fools game.
That said, give me a .30 caliber/180g bullet of any design and I'll take 2000 ft-lbs over 200 if shooting elk. And I'll take 200 if shooting a rabbit destined for the dinner table.
ft-lbs energy doesn't measure anything directly except ft-lbs energy. That doesn't mean ft-lbs is a useless tool or that it tells us nothing useful. I can think of four very different ways to use a barometer whose characteristics are completely known to me to measure the height of a building - but it really isn't the best tool for the job.
I doubt you barometer would make much of a bullet...
Are these equations s Newtons Laws or Einstein theories?
Use small, fast, light and soft bullets for small, fast, light and soft animals.
Use big, slow, heavy and hard bullets for big, slow, heavy and hard animals.
So brown bears are biggish, fastish, heavyish, and softish... how now?
I make them as not all that big, pretty fast when it wants to be, not that heavy and soft.
After running that through my mental calculator I left the .375 with monos in the tent and went for a walk with a .300 RUM (loaded to .300 Win speed so a big small gun that can be pretty fast when it wants to be) stuffed with 180 grain Accubonds. Not all that big, pretty fast, not that heavy and soft. Coastal bear died so fast that it looked like an invisible building had fallen on it.
Having gotten to shoot quite a few of them I mostly agree, but short of CNS, they take a while to realize they are dead.
I finally got it.
Just like the garanimals kids clothing line.
Go to Walmart mart, pick out a box of shells that has a picture of an animal resembeling the one on your tag, and if in doubt buy an arrow,
BTW foot and pound is in the English scale, is not our friend the metric scale based on the volume and mass of water? As in ccs?
But I guess a pints a pound the world around, but wait a minute.....is that an imperial pint? Or an English pound? Or a euro?
You should be able to do the calcualtions, no mater the units, if you are smart enough.
Many old timers believed in bigger is better. I tend to believe that was right at the time. With expanding bullets, you can get away with smaller calibers now. But what about 1/2 hole from a heavy LSWC vs 1/2 hole from light HP?
Most people will say 12 gauge shotgun slug, is devasting. Slow and heavy.
[img]
http://Image result for calculation of kinetic energy[/img]
I've always thought this is a poor arguement. I prefer dead nearby, to dead a mile away the next day. Of course, some with say, its dead and doesn't know the difference.
.
You make a good point. I agree, tho if an animal goes that far, the fault is likely not "killing effect" of the bullet/caliber (it could be, because of bad judgement of suitability), but placement. If placement is the problem, "killing effect" related to the caliber/bullet is almost entirely a mute point.
Which is why CNS is good for DRT, but not so good for meat quality. Taking out a major artery such as SD suggests, is excellent for meat quality, tho the critter may go some distance. You pays your money and takes your chance. Circumstances other than bullet weight, construction, and caliber often dictate what is a good "killing effect" on a particular animal.
I once shot a yearling moose a bit high, through the major artery just below the backbone, at 35 yards with a 12 gauge shotgun slug. He was running, and kept running for about 100 yards, keeling over in mid-stride down meadow, in the open. The slug had perfectly centered the artery, leaving artery wall on each side of the 12-gauge sized hole. Whitest moose meat I've ever eaten! Ate right up to the hole too, and the slug exited without apparently expanding. Pretty good "killing effect".
Fat, heavy, slow works!
The last moose I took (with 15-18 in between the two) was shot in the head with a 30-06, using 150 gr. Hornady Superperformance SST leaving the muzzle at 3080 fps advertised, at 30 yards, on open ground, from my snow machine seat. "Killing effect" doesn't get much more definitive than that. (Or an "easy moose" for that matter.
).
His meat retained pretty much all the blood that was in it at the shot, and was flavored and colored that way. I wasn't about to try to drag him out of waist-deep snow in nearby heavy alder brush, which he would have likely made had I shot him through the lungs or heart. No question I'd have recovered him, just how much energy I'd use doing so!
Another time I shot a feeding bull caribou at @ 375 yards (356 looong paces) with a 180gr. C&C (Corelokt), in 30-06. A bit low, it clipped the top of the brisket and either bone or bullet slashed slashed open the heart. He bolted, ran about 100 yards away, then about the same back at an angle, dying about 50 yards downhill from where he had been when I fired. Also very well bled out. Again in open country - no chance I'd not recover him. That's probably the longest distance I have ever had an animal travel. The second longest was another caribou a couple years back, shot at 290 yards with the above SST load. She ran about 70 yards, turned, ran back, and died within 5 yards of where I'd shot her. Double lunged. Seconds after she dropped, I shot another one, same placement, at 433 yards. That one only went about 5 yards. So how do I judge the "killing effect" of that round? Beats me. Dead is dead.
I shot 20-something caribou back in the late 70's over a 3 year period using a .25-06 with Speer 120 gr. hand loads. Every one was a bang flop, whether I hit them in the chest cavity (all but a couple) or the neck. Except the first- and he was dead on his feet, before the second, broadside thru the lungs, flattened him. The first took him at the base of the neck, quartering on, and lodged in the opposite hind leg. Ranges from 70 yards to over 500.
What placement I take depends on circumstances, but I prefer getting as much blood out of the meat as possible, and that is usually done with the bullet. For this I prefer an exit wound. In heavy cover/close range, I go for the CNS if presented. I really don't worry about "best bullet" or "killing effect".
So it really depends on what one is looking for as an end (multiple factors) result, the shot offered, and how one defines "killing effect".
Depends where you are hunting. Open country, a 200 yards is not a big deal. Some places, a 100 yards feels like a 1000. Also time of day, may effect my choice in shot placement.
Huge bull caribou on a bald knob, with heavy brush 50 yards all around, half dark, 262 yards, no good rest, light screen of grass heads halfway there, 180 gr Corelokt in '06........ "killing effect" somewhat in doubt..... last day of season, permit unfilled.
I call it "the best shot I never made".
Some places, a 100 yards feels like a 1000.
If you find 100 yards feeling like 1000, you should probably limit your shots to 10.
Some places, a 100 yards feels like a 1000.
If you find 100 yards feeling like 1000, you should probably limit your shots to 10.
Not sure what this means. Only once in my life, have I had time to fire a 2nd shot. The snow was 4 feet deep, and slowed the deer down.
But maybe I was over your head. Some terrain is harder to recover a deer in, than others.
You're right, it went right over my head. I've never hunted tough terrain like you have in "WI&UP."
You're right, it went right over my head. I've never hunted tough terrain like you have in "WI&UP."
It's a longasss 100 yds up there. I think he's eaten too much lead infested game, personally.
Which bullet will have more of a killing effect? A 180 that exits with a portion of the energy being wasted or a 165 that does not exit and animal absorbing 100% of the bullet energy? My point is maybe a somewhat lighter bullet could be a more efficient killing projectile? Yes or no???
There is insufficient information in the above to provide a definitive answer.
Work cannot be performed without energy. Can't be done.
It's like it never ends....
There is not a legit DOD, DOJ, or medical entirety that deals with terminal ballistics that lists, measures, or even cares about "ft-lbs energy". It is a number that people who are ignorant about terminal ballistics try to use. NO matter how many "ft-lbs energy" a bullet has, it still tells you absolutely nothing about what that bullet will do in tissue.
Really?
Perhaps you should read this:
http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/chapter2.htmJust one example.
Work cannot be performed without energy. Can't be done.
It's like it never ends....
There is not a legit DOD, DOJ, or medical entirety that deals with terminal ballistics that lists, measures, or even cares about "ft-lbs energy". It is a number that people who are ignorant about terminal ballistics try to use. NO matter how many "ft-lbs energy" a bullet has, it still tells you absolutely nothing about what that bullet will do in tissue.
Really?
Perhaps you should read this:
http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/chapter2.htmJust one example.
Could you possibly find some information that is a little older, please?
As I said- there is no legit US DOD, DOJ, or medical entity the lists, measures, or cares about "ft-lbs energy". You, and the others that believe "ft-lbs energy" tells you how a bullet will damage and destroy tissue, or that some arbitrary number is required to be effective, are ignorant. Ignorance isn't bad, unless it refuses to learn- then it's stupidity.
Are there math and engineer dorks that try to assign some numbered equation to killing? Of course. That's because they can't let go of "numbers" and see that where a hole goes, how deep it goes, and how wide it is determines what kind, and how much, tissue is destroyed. What kind of tissue and how much tissue determines "effectiveness" and "killing power".
Every single legitimate entity has moved from "math" based metrics, to "damage based metrics". In NO instance does "1,500 ft-lbs" tell me what a bullet will do in an animal. To know what it will do, you have to measure it in tissue or tissue simulate (i.e.- properly calibrated 10% Ballistic gelatin).
If a bullet consistently puts a 6 inch hole through a deer 20 inches long, it doesn't matter how many "ft-lbs energy" it has.
Let's try this- how, in your mind, does using "energy" help you know what to expect from a bullet in an animal? How do you use "energy"?
Energy being defined as the ability to do work, and the work being to disrupt tissue and bone, clearly there are energy thresholds below which NO bullet could make that 6" swath 20" deep through a deer. Approaching it from that direction it's a number than has some minimal validity.
But I agree, in general.
As I said- there is no legit US DOD, DOJ, or medical entity the lists, measures, or cares about "ft-lbs energy".
The Military still uses ft-lbs of energy to determine 'hazardous fragments':
https://www.wbdg.org/FFC/DOD/DODMAN/605509-M-V1.pdf"V1.E8.2.2.4. A hazardous fragment is one having an impact energy of 58 ft-lbs [79
joules] or greater. "
The last I knew, one is greater than "none".
You, and the others that believe "ft-lbs energy" tells you how a bullet will damage and destroy tissue, or that some arbitrary number is required to be effective, are ignorant. Ignorance isn't bad, unless it refuses to learn- then it's stupidity.
I've never said nor believed that '"ft-lbs energy" tells you
how a bullet will damage and destroy tissue'. Your statement is both wrong and demonstrates an ignorance of the facts regarding what I believe. Do you care to learn or are you going to be 'stupid'?
What I have consistently stated in many threads is that energy is a poor tool for doing that and is best used carefully in a limited set of circumstances. As I stated in a previous post in this thread, give me the same bullet with 2000 ft-lbs energy and the same bullet with 200 ft-lbs and I'll take the one with 2000 for elk and the one with 200 for rabbits. [Edited to add] Under those circumstances, I don't think a change in bullet weight or construction or velocity would change my preference.[End add]
What I have also been very consistent saying is that without energy there is NO tissue destruction and that the destruction of vital function is what kills. What that means is that with NO energy there is NO more possibility of killing an animal with a bullet than if you keep the bullet in your pocket.
What ft-lbs energy DOES provide is a means of estimating POTENTIAL destruction in a relative rather than quantitative manner. In other words, other factors being equal, more energy has greater POTENTIAL for destruction than does less energy.
...
Let's try this- how, in your mind, does using "energy" help you know what to expect from a bullet in an animal? How do you use "energy"?
How about you reread the above, which explains my thoughts on the matter pretty well.
You're right, it went right over my head. I've never hunted tough terrain like you have in "WI&UP."
Do you think there is a difference between flat barren land and wooded and hilly land?
I would think you wold if hunting CO. Maybe your emotions prevent you from being intelligent. Just so mad you are pooping yourself.
But a simple man, should understand that recovering a deer that runs 200 yards in wide open country, is different than other areas. But you seem to imply you do not understand that.
Are you just that upset, or should I be calling you a liar about where you hunt? I am going with too dumb. I have to no reason to believe you are not in CO.
You're right, it went right over my head. I've never hunted tough terrain like you have in "WI&UP."
It's a longasss 100 yds up there. I think he's eaten too much lead infested game, personally.
Hunting in the wasteland of Texas, you may not realize what it is like to hunt other places. I was not talking about the shot.
Do you think there is a difference between flat barren land and wooded and hilly land?
Well, it's hard to put my finger on it. But I'm thinking "maybe?"
I've always thought this is a poor arguement. I prefer dead nearby, to dead a mile away the next day. Of course, some with say, its dead and doesn't know the difference.
Do you think there is a difference between flat barren land and wooded and hilly land?
Well, it's hard to put my finger on it. But I'm thinking "maybe?"
I doubt you are as dumb as you come across. You are just so upset, like a liberal. But you are so upset you write dumb [bleep].
Hunting in wastelands like Texas, if a deer runs a few hundred yards, it is not a big deal. Some places it is harder to recover or find, and you prefer the animal to run as far. Now I am sure you will write somthing you think is witty, and something you think counterdicts this. But you are emotions, are making an idiot of you. I tried being nice. But I don't think you are smart enough to get the nuances, and accpet the bone you are thrown.
Well, it's hard to put my finger on it. But I'm thinking "maybe?"
OK, you got me. Now I'm thinking "probably."
No, I don't think you are as dumb as you act. I think yuo are acting up for your friends, and you think acting stupid, will not make you look stupid. Maybe self esteem issues.
Hey look I spelled you yuo. It is your chance to show how smart you.
OK, you really got to me that time. I'm thinking "highly likely??"
I should have been clearer. That is a fault on me. While I dont think you are as dumb as you act. I still think you are on the simple side. But if you were removed from distractions, and put in a room alone, I think you could come up with the answers, if they were given to you.
Being in the liberal state of CO, you should use to your defense, the enviroment you are in, not to mention the dope smoking. No, Daves not here.
OK, you got me, I'm changing my answer to "reasonably certain."
Don't worry, I don;t expect much from you. All your posts are about the same. You are not smart enough to come up with anything new. Maybe to late in the day for you.
OK, I'm convinced. I'm thinking "almost assuredly."
Could you repeat the question?
You, you are a genius, with your counter points.
You next post should have never, almost, maybe, assurdely, in some random order, to which you think makes you look smart.
But I have seen, I was wrong. I can admit it. Maybe first impressions about you are right. I am man enough to admit my mistake.
You, you are a genius, with your counter points.
That's BS. I never even worked behind a counter. But I have cooked hambergers.
You, you are a genius, with your counter points.
That's BS. I never even worked behind a counter. But I have cooked hambergers.
CO thing? I quoted you, so yuo couldn't delete it in the morning.
What, you don't like hambergers?
Makes sense. I always figured you to be a hot dog man.
No, the "military" does not use energy to determine effectiveness of small arms projectiles. The Army, or some parts, does have engineers that try to push "ft-lbs energy" because they can't wrap their minds around the realization that a mathematical equation can't solve everything. The army (and most of the military as a whole) are 30-40 years behind everyone else when it comes to knowledge of shooting, guns, and techniques.
USSOCOM, Navy Crane, the Marine Corps, the USAF, the FBI, and the rest of the DOJ all use damage based metrics, and ignore any discussion of "ft-lbs energy".
I've never said nor believed that '"ft-lbs energy" tells you how a bullet will damage and destroy tissue'. Your statement is both wrong and demonstrates an ignorance of the facts regarding what I believe. Do you care to learn or are you going to be 'stupid'?
What I have consistently stated in many threads is that energy is a poor tool for doing that and is best used carefully in a limited set of circumstances. As I stated in a previous post in this thread, give me the same bullet with 2000 ft-lbs energy and the same bullet with 200 ft-lbs and I'll take the one with 2000 for elk and the one with 200 for rabbits. [Edited to add] Under those circumstances, I don't think a change in bullet weight or construction or velocity would change my preference.[End add]
To know what a bullet will do in tissue at a certain velocity (not energy), you have to shoot it in tissue (or proper tissue simulate). Once you do that, who cares what "energy" it has. Conversely even if you know how much energy it has, you still do not know what it will do in tissue.
When it comes to what that bullet will do to an animal, thinking about ft-lbs energy is just adding something for the sake of adding it.
What does it matter how many ft-lbs energy it has if it creates the wound that you want? If it doesn't create the wound that you want, than why does it matter what the energy is?
It almost sounds like you're trying to use ft-lbs energy instead of impact velocity to determine something. Does Northfork bullets state that you need a certain ft-lbs energy for bullet upset and expansion?
2 holes is better than one.
Energy without suitable bullet performance is like horsepower without traction. Lots of potential, no work getting done. If no or little work is getting done then maybe energy could be viewed as an empty number. Or maybe you're just a shopping trip away from hooking that energy up and really having something.
On the other hand, the fanciest, most expensive,carefully selected, most highly promoted bullet can't do anything without energy. No matter what design efforts are made to optimize damage, sooner or later you reach a point where no further improvements are possible. You can't get something that isn't there. To keep up with the analogy, all the traction in the world wont do anything without energy. No energy, no work. No transfer, no work.
You have to have both. One's no good without the other. To argue that energy doesn't matter just means you're spinning your figurative wheels. And maybe your literal ones as well.
If you had two nosler partitions
Sectional density being equal.
Frangebility being equal
Construction being equal
Would a bullet with 20 percent more measurable energy be better or worse in probability of positive out come of harvesting large game or would it do predictabally worse?
. And why?
Due to the nature of the situation*** the difference would probably fall within the range of results netted by repeating the test using one or the other over again, rather than switching between the two. I'd say this would be especially true if the lower energy one was already well within a normal range of applicability.
For example consider a 300 Weatherby magnum used for hunting elk. (Well within normal range of use.) Comparing it to something else with 20% more energy over a series of shots probably won't show you much difference.
*** Game animals aren't ballistic pendulums or uniform test media.
Which bullet will have more of a killing effect? A 180 that exits with a portion of the energy being wasted or a 165 that does not exit and animal absorbing 100% of the bullet energy? My point is maybe a somewhat lighter bullet could be a more efficient killing projectile? Yes or no???
"Ft-Lbs energy" is not a wounding mechanism. Bullets kill by crushing, tearing, and pulping tissue. How fast a bullet kills is dependant on three things ha-
1) Placement (what it hits)
2) Penetration (sufficient to reach vitals)
3) Width of wound channel (how much tissue is destroyed)
Provided indentical placement and both reaching vitals, the bullet that has the widest wound channel will kill faster.
Although I do not shoot a Weatherby, I laughed at your response thinking Roy would have had something to say and might have wanted to add discussion point #4.
Keep in mind that "Roy" was in the business of promoting the concept of his super-high velocity (for his time) cartridges.
And he was a damn good salesman.
Smoke
I was referencing the original post where the "widest wound channel" statement was made. Hydrostatic effect might want to be discussed. When you have a 165 or 180 gr projectile going thru a body cavity at
`3,000 fps, there are some other events that might want to be considered.
Hydrostatic effect might want to be discussed.
And away we go!!
...
When it comes to what that bullet will do to an animal, thinking about ft-lbs energy is just adding something for the sake of adding it.
What does it matter how many ft-lbs energy it has if it creates the wound that you want? If it doesn't create the wound that you want, than why does it matter what the energy is?
It almost sounds like you're trying to use ft-lbs energy instead of impact velocity to determine something. Does Northfork bullets state that you need a certain ft-lbs energy for bullet upset and expansion?
ft-lbs energy DOES determine something. It determines the maximum amount of work (tissue/bone destruction) that can be done. A given value for ft-lbs also defines very specific combinations of bullet velocity and mass. For any given bullet velocity or mass, there is only one combination that will give it a particular amount of energy.
What it does NOT determine is the ACTUAL amount of work that will be done. You keep harping about velocity, but velocity alone determines nothing but velocity. Billions of sub-atomic particles pass through your body every second at near light speed, yet they do you no harm because they have such low mass. In other words, they have very low energy. When you talk about the destruction possible with a certain velocity, you also need to talk about the mass of the projectile. For a given velocity and mass, both momentum and energy (ft-lbs) are pre-determined.
Again, a given bullet's ft-lbs energy determines the maximum work (destruction) that it can do - regardless of the bullet's velocity or mass or construction. How much ACTUAL destruction is done depends on the amount of energy transferred to the target (the amount of work the bullet performs). This in turn depends on the time span of the energy transfer, the construction of the bullet and the types and amount of material in the target that the bullet passes through. 100,000 ft-lbs can be instantly and spectacularly lethal or it could be applied but never even noticed if applied over a sufficiently long time span.
If a bullet creates the wound I want, it clearly has enough energy to do so. If it does not create the wound I want, it MAY not have enough energy to do so or there may be other issues which prevent adequate transfer of the energy it does have.
Suppose you were hunting elk and had a choice of two cartridges, one which wioud deliver 2511 ft-lbs energy to the target and the other 374 ft-lbs. Suppose you also know one has an impact velocity of 2052 fps while the other impacts at 1568 fps - but you don't know which is which. You know nothing else about the loads - not the bullet diameter, construction, weight or velocity - nothing. Would you hesitate even for a moment to choose the 2511 ft-lb option?
What if you were offered a different choice between two different cartridges, again for elk. Say 125 yards. You know one has an impact velocity of 2052 fps and the other at 1568 fps. You also know one has an impact energy of 2511 ft-lbs and the other has 374 ft-lbs, but you don't know which is which and you know nothing else about them. In that scenario you might make a rather poor choice because velocity alone tells so little.
Like other tools, including velocity, energy is a tool that can be used and abused.
Let me respond this way...
Taken alone, without consideration of other factors, both velocity and energy are poor predictors of anything.
If I had to choose, with no other knowledge, I would choose energy as the predictor for the damage a bullet could do.
For a bullet of a given diameter, I'll again choose energy over velocity as the predictor because energy includes both mass and velocity.
For a bullet of a given mass and construction, there is no difference between using the two.
I don't have my reloading books. But just guessing it would be the difference between 257 Roberts and a 308. And a 30 30 and a 308.i will post data in a couple of days. I will get some .243 Andy .65 and 7. Mm and maybe some .35, 9.3 and 8 mm data also.
...
When it comes to what that bullet will do to an animal, thinking about ft-lbs energy is just adding something for the sake of adding it.
What does it matter how many ft-lbs energy it has if it creates the wound that you want? If it doesn't create the wound that you want, than why does it matter what the energy is?
It almost sounds like you're trying to use ft-lbs energy instead of impact velocity to determine something. Does Northfork bullets state that you need a certain ft-lbs energy for bullet upset and expansion?
ft-lbs energy DOES determine something. It determines the maximum amount of work (tissue/bone destruction) that can be done. A given value for ft-lbs also defines very specific combinations of bullet velocity and mass. For any given bullet velocity or mass, there is only one combination that will give it a particular amount of energy.
What it does NOT determine is the ACTUAL amount of work that will be done. You keep harping about velocity, but velocity alone determines nothing but velocity. Billions of sub-atomic particles pass through your body every second at near light speed, yet they do you no harm because they have such low mass. In other words, they have very low energy. When you talk about the destruction possible with a certain velocity, you also need to talk about the mass of the projectile. For a given velocity and mass, both momentum and energy (ft-lbs) are pre-determined.
Again, a given bullet's ft-lbs energy determines the maximum work (destruction) that it can do - regardless of the bullet's velocity or mass or construction. How much ACTUAL destruction is done depends on the amount of energy transferred to the target (the amount of work the bullet performs). This in turn depends on the time span of the energy transfer, the construction of the bullet and the types and amount of material in the target that the bullet passes through. 100,000 ft-lbs can be instantly and spectacularly lethal or it could be applied but never even noticed if applied over a sufficiently long time span.
If a bullet creates the wound I want, it clearly has enough energy to do so. If it does not create the wound I want, it MAY not have enough energy to do so or there may be other issues which prevent adequate transfer of the energy it does have.
Suppose you were hunting elk and had a choice of two cartridges, one which wioud deliver 2511 ft-lbs energy to the target and the other 374 ft-lbs. Suppose you also know one has an impact velocity of 2052 fps while the other impacts at 1568 fps - but you don't know which is which. You know nothing else about the loads - not the bullet diameter, construction, weight or velocity - nothing. Would you hesitate even for a moment to choose the 2511 ft-lb option?
What if you were offered a different choice between two different cartridges, again for elk. Say 125 yards. You know one has an impact velocity of 2052 fps and the other at 1568 fps. You also know one has an impact energy of 2511 ft-lbs and the other has 374 ft-lbs, but you don't know which is which and you know nothing else about them. In that scenario you might make a rather poor choice because velocity alone tells so little.
Like other tools, including velocity, energy is a tool that can be used and abused.
Up until the last three paragraphs, that post was about the most coherent thing you've ever said. Although it still doesn't make total sense.
How much energy do you need to stop a charging antelope?
Work cannot be performed without energy. Can't be done.
Thanks Again. There are some who WILL NOT accept this fact of Physics.
Thanks to ALL who've 'tried' to explain the absolute necessity of E to accomplish our goals.
Regardless of bullets, arrows, rocks, whatever, ENERGY must be incorporate !!
Jerry
Up until the last three paragraphs, that post was about the most coherent thing you've ever said. Although it still doesn't make total sense.
How much energy do you need to stop a charging antelope?
Well, thank you. It makes total sense if you have a good understanding of physics. Destruction of tissue and bone requires work (force applied over a distance), which requires energy, which requires both mass and velocity. Energy=1/2*m*(v*v). Velocity alone does nothing. Nor does mass without velocity.
As to the antelope, I'll take 1000 ft-lbs over 2000 fps if I know nothing else about the projectile. Light-speed isn't enough if the mass is too low.
2000fps is only 356fpe with a 40g bullet. 1000 ft-lbs means 4745fps with that same bullet.
With a 95g SST .243" bullet, 1000 ft-lbs means 2177fps, which corresponds to 315 yards if launched at a rather sedate 2925fps, which is what I used last year. 2000fps corresponds to about 849fpe with that bullet. In this particular case it shouldn't make a lot of difference if you go with 2000fps or 1000 ft-lbs - both should be adequate.
Daughter #1 and me with last year's doe, whose ownership was previously contested by the buck. Range was about 200 yards so something around 1250fpe and 2435fps were both more than enough. Pretty sure that would have stopped the buck as well.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/20161007_160257_001.jpg)
Form,
why is there such a significant difference in reliable terminal effects between 5.56 and 338 Lapua? Let's pick an equal distance for both, say 800m.
I don't have my reloading books. But just guessing it would be the difference between 257 Roberts and a 308. And a 30 30 and a 308.i will post data in a couple of days. I will get some .243 Andy .65 and 7. Mm and maybe some .35, 9.3 and 8 mm data also.
You have the right idea, just not extreme enough.
The 2052fps and 2511 ft-lb numbers are, respectfully, for 125 yards with a .223 40g BT launched at 3000fps (22 K Hornet) compared to my "Rhino Blaster" .45-70 460g WFNGC loads, which launch at 1812fps.
For elk, I'll take the .45-70 all day, every day. And have. At 213 yards the 350g North Fork FN I used on a 6x6 bull retained about 1545fps and 1868fpe. The bullet obliterated a sections of a near leg bone and rib and shattered a far side rib before coming to rest under the hide. Velocity played a part, as did mass, as did bullet construction, as did the types and amounts of flesh/bone encountered. The bull did not drop at the shot but instead just stood there, immobile. As I was ready to fire a second round it just toppled over. Velocity wasn't very high but that 1868fpe did a lot of work destroying tissue and bone.
Light-speed particles hit and pass through our bodies mostly unnoticed. If velocity was all that mattered, mankind would not exist. Even if we were resurrected like Kenny, those particles would kill us billions of times each second. Velocity and mass BOTH matter. You're not going to kill anything with a bullet you keep in your pocket, no matter what its mass is.
Thanks for the laughs! There are some heavy thought processes going on with an absolute minimum of substance! Shaking my head...
Form,
why is there such a significant difference in reliable terminal effects between 5.56 and 338 Lapua? Let's pick an equal distance for both, say 800m.
You can play that game a couple of different ways. Consider two bullets with identical kinetic energy. The first is a 105 grain Berger VLD shot out of a .240 Weatherby at 10 feet from the muzzle.
The second is a 155 grain full metal jacket non-expanding bullet out of a .308, X distance downrange.
Identical kinetic energy but there's no doubt in my mind which one I'd rather be shot with. How about you?
Form,
why is there such a significant difference in reliable terminal effects between 5.56 and 338 Lapua? Let's pick an equal distance for both, say 800m.
You can play that game a couple of different ways. Consider two bullets with identical kinetic energy. The first is a 105 grain Berger VLD shot out of a .240 Weatherby at 10 feet from the muzzle.
The second is a 155 grain full metal jacket non-expanding bullet out of a .308, X distance downrange.
Identical kinetic energy but there's no doubt in my mind which one I'd rather be shot with. How about you?
You are comparing two bullets with distinctly different construction and each engineered to perform very differently. Given the choice, most people would wisely choose the .308 because it will be much slower (roughly 2552fps vx 3100fps) but also - and often primarily - because it is designed not to expand while the Berger is designed to spew up to 85% of its weight as shrapnel. I'd rather be hit with the .308/155g FMJ at 3100fps than the Berger at the same speed, even though the KE would be much greater.
As I've said before, using KE to compare bullets of vastly different construction is something of a fool's game. In this case, both bullets have the same maximum possible capability for destruction, based on identical KE, but their efficiency in transferring that KE to a flesh and bone target is very, very different.
Instead of shooting flesh and bone, suppose you want to pierce armor? I'll place my bets on a 150g AP round with identical KE to that of the .240WM/105g Berger.
You are comparing two bullets with distinctly different construction and each engineered to perform very differently.
Dang it's true what they say, nothing gets by you.
As I've said before, using KE to compare bullets of vastly different construction is something of a fool's game.
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.
In this case, both bullets have the same maximum possible capability for destruction, based on identical KE, but their efficiency in transferring that KE to a flesh and bone target is very, very different.
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.
Form,
why is there such a significant difference in reliable terminal effects between 5.56 and 338 Lapua? Let's pick an equal distance for both, say 800m.
You can play that game a couple of different ways. Consider two bullets with identical kinetic energy. The first is a 105 grain Berger VLD shot out of a .240 Weatherby at 10 feet from the muzzle.
The second is a 155 grain full metal jacket non-expanding bullet out of a .308, X distance downrange.
Identical kinetic energy but there's no doubt in my mind which one I'd rather be shot with. How about you?
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.
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?
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.
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.
.
.
.
....without energy there is NO tissue destruction and that the destruction of vital function is what kills. What that means is that with NO energy there is NO more possibility of killing an animal with a bullet than if you keep the bullet in your pocket.
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.
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.
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."
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.
That is very much akin to saying that energy does not matter.
No, it is not.
....let me reiterate for the umpteenth time........
Let you reiterate? It's not like we have a choice or anything.
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?
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.
We know that with very low mass even light-speed velocity is not enough to cause any damage.
Which particles with mass can travel through air at the speed of light at the earth's surface?
We know that with very low mass even light-speed velocity is not enough to cause any damage.
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.
Your question demonstrates a refusal to learn so by your own words you are being "stupid" by choice. Congratulations?
I don't know... But I do know that I work with wound ballistics as part of my occupation.
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?
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.
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.
"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.
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.
All of them that do so. And there are countless trillions of billions of them.
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.
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.
Your question demonstrates a refusal to learn so by your own words you are being "stupid" by choice. Congratulations?
I don't know... But I do know that I work with wound ballistics as part of my occupation.
Congratulations. Then you should know that without mass there is no wound channel.
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?
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.
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.
I DO know what wound channel a bullet will make at a particular impact velocity by MEASURING the wound channel that is created.
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.
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.
"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?
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.
As far as velocity- do manufacturers list what "ft-lbs energy" a bullet takes to expand/upset? Or Velocity?
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.
Talking about "ft-lbs energy" with regards to wound ballistics is mental and ballistic masturbation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
LOL, you're incapable of admitting your're wrong. That's all you've shown here.
Congratulations!!
And BTW, check your statement about particles with mass traveling through air at the speed of light, Einstein.
And PS, are you saying it's impossible to drive a bullet too fast, and that a bullet's destructive capacity keeps increasing with increased velocity, without limit?
LOL, you're incapable of admitting your're wrong. That's all you've shown here.
Congratulations!!
And BTW, check your statement about particles with mass traveling through air at the speed of light, Einstein.
And PS, are you saying it's impossible to drive a bullet too fast, and that a bullet's destructive capacity keeps increasing with increased velocity, without limit?
Why ‘admit’ I’m wrong when I’m correct?
My comments about particles through air are also correct. The speed of light travelling through earth’s atmosphere is less than the theoretical maximum in a perfect vacuum, which, by the way, does not exist in the known universe. In addition, light speed through the atmosphere is not a constant – it varies depending on the density of the atmosphere at different points. It is still correct to say that the particles are travelling through the atmosphere at the speed of light. We also talk about the speed of sound in air, but that is also not constant as it also depends on the density of the air.
And yes, the destructive capability (ability to do work) increases with a projectile’s energy, which increases with its velocity. Whether a particular target is capable of demonstrating that increase depends on the target. In the case of the hand-thrown vs. rifle launched bullet in my previous post, the paper target would be incapable of demonstrating that increase but the rifle launched bullet would demonstrate that capability downrange somewhere.
Taking variables to the extreme is a perfectly valid way of proving a truth, which is what I’ve been doing. Accelerate your frangible bullet to light-speed and its energy and ability to cause destruction are like a sandy beach compared to a single grain of sand when launched at rifle speeds. At more sedate speeds the continuum still holds true.
Every projectile of a given mass has a specific amount of KE depending on its velocity. The energy curve for a 40g projectile at various speeds looks like this:
fps ==> ft-lbs
1,000 ==> 89
2,000 ==> 355
3,000 ==> 799
4,000 ==> 1,421
5,000 ==> 2,221
5,572 ==> 7,555 (This is 5400mph which is about Mach 7 or rail gun speed)
10,000 ==> 8,883
100,000 ==> 888,332
2,732,093 ==> 899,016,663 (Speed of light in air)
Whether you choose a target that can demonstrate the differential is up to you. Failure to do so does not mean the differential does not exist. Denying that the differential exists is more than silly, it denies the well-established laws of physics. Do you believe the earth is flat, too?
Me too.
When CH waxes so poetically about the grains of sand on a beach and includes ballistics tables with bullets traveling the speed of light in the same post, it's just very special.
Never mind that bullets (or particles with mass) can't travel the speed of light (speaking of ignoring the well-established laws of physics), it's just so very very special.
For some reason it reminds me of Christmas turkey.
Me too.
When CH waxes so poetically about the grains of sand on a beach and includes ballistics tables with bullets traveling the speed of light in the same post, it's just very special.
Never mind that bullets (or particles with mass) can't travel the speed of light (speaking of ignoring the well-established laws of physics), it's just so very very special.
For some reason it reminds me of Christmas turkey.
In early grade school kids learn to read. Later they read to learn. Some are more successful at both than others. You, apparently, were not one of the more successful students.
Contrary to what you claim, I clearly stated that to achieve the theoretical maximum speed of light in a perfect vacuum a particle would have to be without mass.
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...s/12235938/re-bullet-weight#Post12235938"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."
An omission on my part - that should have read "In a
more perfect vacuum...", but you get the idea. Maybe. In any case, you can go back a reread it. As many times as necessary.
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.
There is nothing preventing a projectile or bullet from travelling at these speeds in a perfect vacuum except for the very separate problem of accelerating the projectiles to those speeds. The acceleration problem is irrelevant to what energy a projectile would carry if accelerated to those speeds.
One other thing. An object's velocity is relative to a fixed position. As the universe expands, many galaxies going in different directions are separating at combined speeds greater than the speed of light in a vacuum. From our perspective on earth, and in a Newtonian sense, that means many galaxies are speeding away from us at speeds greater than light speed. And the last I knew, all galaxies had a great deal of mass.
Talk about winning gold pole vaulting mouse turds...
In early grade school kids learn to read. Later they read to learn. Some are more successful at both than others. You, apparently, were not one of the more successful students.
Contrary to what you claim, I clearly stated that to achieve the theoretical maximum speed of light in a perfect vacuum a particle would have to be without mass.
I didn't learn to read in grade school, I learned before grade school. Some children do that. And some children spend their whole lives laboring under the notion that reading stuff in books makes them smart. They tend to spend a lot of time picking the fly sh** out of the pepper.
Like you.
And to refresh your apparently failing memory, I asked several pages back "which particles with mass travel at the speed of light
"at the earth's surface." Not in a vacuum; not in a perfect vacuum; and not in a "more perfect vacuum" whatever that is.
And your answer was
"millions!!" Which turns out to be bullsh**, and once you realized it was bullsh** you churned out a few more pages of bullsh** to cover up the fact that you were wrong. So it's just like I said, you're incapable of admitting you're wrong, even when it slaps you upside your pointy little head.
Me too.
When CH waxes so poetically about the grains of sand on a beach and includes ballistics tables with bullets traveling the speed of light in the same post, it's just very special.
Never mind that bullets (or particles with mass) can't travel the speed of light (speaking of ignoring the well-established laws of physics), it's just so very very special.
For some reason it reminds me of Christmas turkey.
In early grade school kids learn to read. Later they read to learn. Some are more successful at both than others. You, apparently, were not one of the more successful students.
Contrary to what you claim, I clearly stated that to achieve the theoretical maximum speed of light in a perfect vacuum a particle would have to be without mass.
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...s/12235938/re-bullet-weight#Post12235938"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."
An omission on my part - that should have read "In a
more perfect vacuum...", but you get the idea. Maybe. In any case, you can go back a reread it. As many times as necessary.
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.
There is nothing preventing a projectile or bullet from travelling at these speeds in a perfect vacuum except for the very separate problem of accelerating the projectiles to those speeds. The acceleration problem is irrelevant to what energy a projectile would carry if accelerated to those speeds.
One other thing. An object's velocity is relative to a fixed position. As the universe expands, many galaxies going in different directions are separating at combined speeds greater than the speed of light in a vacuum. From our perspective on earth, and in a Newtonian sense, that means many galaxies are speeding away from us at speeds greater than light speed. And the last I knew, all galaxies had a great deal of mass.
Good move ignoring formidulosis... if you actually read what he said you might learn something... right now your axles are buried deep in stupid and you appear willing to stay there grinning and "winning."
Me too.
When CH waxes so poetically about the grains of sand on a beach and includes ballistics tables with bullets traveling the speed of light in the same post, it's just very special.
Never mind that bullets (or particles with mass) can't travel the speed of light (speaking of ignoring the well-established laws of physics), it's just so very very special.
For some reason it reminds me of Christmas turkey.
In early grade school kids learn to read. Later they read to learn. Some are more successful at both than others. You, apparently, were not one of the more successful students.
Contrary to what you claim, I clearly stated that to achieve the theoretical maximum speed of light in a perfect vacuum a particle would have to be without mass.
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...s/12235938/re-bullet-weight#Post12235938"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."
An omission on my part - that should have read "In a
more perfect vacuum...", but you get the idea. Maybe. In any case, you can go back a reread it. As many times as necessary.
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.
There is nothing preventing a projectile or bullet from travelling at these speeds in a perfect vacuum except for the very separate problem of accelerating the projectiles to those speeds. The acceleration problem is irrelevant to what energy a projectile would carry if accelerated to those speeds.
One other thing. An object's velocity is relative to a fixed position. As the universe expands, many galaxies going in different directions are separating at combined speeds greater than the speed of light in a vacuum. From our perspective on earth, and in a Newtonian sense, that means many galaxies are speeding away from us at speeds greater than light speed. And the last I knew, all galaxies had a great deal of mass.
Good move ignoring formidulosis... if you actually read what he said you might learn something... right now your axles are buried deep in stupid and you appear willing to stay there grinning and "winning."
That about sums it up.
...
And to refresh your apparently failing memory, I asked several pages back "which particles with mass travel at the speed of light "at the earth's surface." Not in a vacuum; not in a perfect vacuum; and not in a "more perfect vacuum" whatever that is.
And your answer was "millions!!" Which turns out to be bullsh**, and once you realized it was bullsh** you churned out a few more pages of bullsh** to cover up the fact that you were wrong. So it's just like I said, you're incapable of admitting you're wrong, even when it slaps you upside your pointy little head.
And I'll stick by my original answer because it is correct.
The speed of light at the earth's surface (i.e. in the atmosphere) is considerably lower than the theoretical maximum and untold billions of light-speed particles (photons) hit your body every second. This includes photons with different energy levels from that below radio waves to visible light (which represents a very tiny portion of the EM spectrum) to gamma rays. In full sunlight this equates to about 10^17 photons per square centimeter per second. That is about 100,000,000,000,000,000 per square centimeter per second, which is a wee bit more than "millions". For an adult sunbathing on a beach it is about 10^21 (one trillion billion) per second, and that does not include photons generated by other sources. (This assumes 2.0 square meters of skin area for the adult with half of that exposed to the sunlight.)
Photons always travel at the speed of light, which varies depending on the medium through which they travel. Photons travelling through air are still travelling at light-speed, which is different than light-speed in a vacuum or water or glass or whatever. Photons have a theoretical zero mass at rest but have mass when not at rest - and they are never at rest.
It is also true that some particles travel faster than light, again depending on the medium through which they are travelling. Beta particles (electrons or positrons) are a classic and well-understood example. Don't go swimming as the beta particles may get you. But maybe the people giving out the Nobel Prize for Physics (1958, although the discovery was in 1934) didn't know what they were doing.
You really do have a problem with reading comprehension. My statement about a "more perfect vacuum" is easily understood in full context by anyone with average intelligence. My statement "An omission on my part - that should have read "In a more perfect vacuum...", but you get the idea. " was wrong as you clearly DID NOT get the idea. That statement was in reference to the following:
"In a perfect vacuum (a massless and therefore gravityless environment) than exists even in outer space..."
and meant that it should have read thusly:
"In a
more perfect vacuum (a massless and therefore gravityless environment)
than exists even in outer space..."
Perhaps you are unaware of this, but the vacuum of outer space is not a perfect vacuum. Now you know. Maybe.
LOL, you're incapable of admitting your're wrong. That's all you've shown here.
Congratulations!!
And BTW, check your statement about particles with mass traveling through air at the speed of light, Einstein.
And PS, are you saying it's impossible to drive a bullet too fast, and that a bullet's destructive capacity keeps increasing with increased velocity, without limit?
Why ‘admit’ I’m wrong when I’m correct?
My comments about particles through air are also correct. The speed of light travelling through earth’s atmosphere is less than the theoretical maximum in a perfect vacuum, which, by the way, does not exist in the known universe. In addition, light speed through the atmosphere is not a constant – it varies depending on the density of the atmosphere at different points. It is still correct to say that the particles are travelling through the atmosphere at the speed of light. We also talk about the speed of sound in air, but that is also not constant as it also depends on the density of the air.
And yes, the destructive capability (ability to do work) increases with a projectile’s energy, which increases with its velocity. Whether a particular target is capable of demonstrating that increase depends on the target. In the case of the hand-thrown vs. rifle launched bullet in my previous post, the paper target would be incapable of demonstrating that increase but the rifle launched bullet would demonstrate that capability downrange somewhere.
Taking variables to the extreme is a perfectly valid way of proving a truth, which is what I’ve been doing. Accelerate your frangible bullet to light-speed and its energy and ability to cause destruction are like a sandy beach compared to a single grain of sand when launched at rifle speeds. At more sedate speeds the continuum still holds true.
Every projectile of a given mass has a specific amount of KE depending on its velocity. The energy curve for a 40g projectile at various speeds looks like this:
fps ==> ft-lbs
1,000 ==> 89
2,000 ==> 355
3,000 ==> 799
4,000 ==> 1,421
5,000 ==> 2,221
5,572 ==> 7,555 (This is 5400mph which is about Mach 7 or rail gun speed)
10,000 ==> 8,883
100,000 ==> 888,332
2,732,093 ==> 899,016,663 (Speed of light in air)
Whether you choose a target that can demonstrate the differential is up to you. Failure to do so does not mean the differential does not exist. Denying that the differential exists is more than silly, it denies the well-established laws of physics. Do you believe the earth is flat, too?
You better check your math.....how do you get an increase of 5,334 ft lbs of energy with only a 572 fps increase in velocity?(5,000=2,221 vs 5,572=7,555)
LOL, you're incapable of admitting your're wrong. That's all you've shown here.
Congratulations!!
And BTW, check your statement about particles with mass traveling through air at the speed of light, Einstein.
And PS, are you saying it's impossible to drive a bullet too fast, and that a bullet's destructive capacity keeps increasing with increased velocity, without limit?
Why ‘admit’ I’m wrong when I’m correct?
My comments about particles through air are also correct. The speed of light travelling through earth’s atmosphere is less than the theoretical maximum in a perfect vacuum, which, by the way, does not exist in the known universe. In addition, light speed through the atmosphere is not a constant – it varies depending on the density of the atmosphere at different points. It is still correct to say that the particles are travelling through the atmosphere at the speed of light. We also talk about the speed of sound in air, but that is also not constant as it also depends on the density of the air.
And yes, the destructive capability (ability to do work) increases with a projectile’s energy, which increases with its velocity. Whether a particular target is capable of demonstrating that increase depends on the target. In the case of the hand-thrown vs. rifle launched bullet in my previous post, the paper target would be incapable of demonstrating that increase but the rifle launched bullet would demonstrate that capability downrange somewhere.
Taking variables to the extreme is a perfectly valid way of proving a truth, which is what I’ve been doing. Accelerate your frangible bullet to light-speed and its energy and ability to cause destruction are like a sandy beach compared to a single grain of sand when launched at rifle speeds. At more sedate speeds the continuum still holds true.
Every projectile of a given mass has a specific amount of KE depending on its velocity. The energy curve for a 40g projectile at various speeds looks like this:
fps ==> ft-lbs
1,000 ==> 89
2,000 ==> 355
3,000 ==> 799
4,000 ==> 1,421
5,000 ==> 2,221
5,572 ==> 7,555 (This is 5400mph which is about Mach 7 or rail gun speed)
10,000 ==> 8,883
100,000 ==> 888,332
2,732,093 ==> 899,016,663 (Speed of light in air)
Whether you choose a target that can demonstrate the differential is up to you. Failure to do so does not mean the differential does not exist. Denying that the differential exists is more than silly, it denies the well-established laws of physics. Do you believe the earth is flat, too?
You better check your math.....how do you get an increase of 5,334 ft lbs of energy with only a 572 fps increase in velocity?(5,000=2,221 vs 5,572=7,555)
Thanks for catching that. Copy/paste error.
The correct number is 2,758 ft-lbs.
Earlier I posted the following but made a copy/paste error. The corrected table is below as it is too late to correct the original.
The line in error was the 5,572fps line, for which I had the wrong energy.. 7,920fps should have been the velocity and 5,572fpe the energy. In the original post I had 7,555 as the energy but that is in joules, not ft-lbs.
============================
Every projectile of a given mass has a specific amount of KE depending on its velocity. The energy curve for a 40g projectile at various speeds looks like this:
fps ==> ft-lbs
1,000 ==> 89
2,000 ==> 355
3,000 ==> 799
4,000 ==> 1,421
5,000 ==> 2,221
7,920 ==> 5,572 (This is 5400mph which is about Mach 7 or rail gun speed)
10,000 ==> 8,883
100,000 ==> 888,332
2,732,093 ==> 899,016,663 (Speed of light in air)
============================
5,572 fps is also 3,799 mph, not 5,400......
Truth is, I'm not really that good with numbers. I'd rather be hunting, shooting, and reloading..
That's why I don't post much on this site anymore. Too much "insight" on topics that are meaningless. Seems like when someone with true real world experience puts up a post/comment, there are those contradicting every word at the drop of a hat....it gets old.
That's why I don't post much on this site anymore. Too much "insight" on topics that are meaningless. Seems like when someone with true real world experience puts up a post/comment, there are those contradicting every word at the drop of a hat....it gets old.
You absolutely nailed that one scenar. Hope your hunting season looks promising up there.
5,572 fps is also 3,799 mph, not 5,400......
Truth is, I'm not really that good with numbers. I'd rather be hunting, shooting, and reloading..
That's why I don't post much on this site anymore. Too much "insight" on topics that are meaningless. Seems like when someone with true real world experience puts up a post/comment, there are those contradicting every word at the drop of a hat....it gets old.
I agree bud. I just put holes in stuff...
Hope things are well with you and yours...
Well, I'm headed out this weekend for a week or ten days chasing elk with a bow. And I wanted to get these important questions answered before I leave town.
I often wonder about the kinetic energy of my arrows. Especially if I can shoot them at the speed of light. It would be like millions of arrows, like the grains of sand on a beach.......
GobbleGobbleGobble!!!!!!!
5,572 fps is also 3,799 mph, not 5,400......
Truth is, I'm not really that good with numbers. I'd rather be hunting, shooting, and reloading..
That's why I don't post much on this site anymore. Too much "insight" on topics that are meaningless. Seems like when someone with true real world experience puts up a post/comment, there are those contradicting every word at the drop of a hat....it gets old.
It is corrected now. Trying to do about 5 things at once and this one got the least of my attention. Thanks again.
And I agree - I'd rather be out shooting or hunting. Loaded up a dummy .375 Win round this morning with the 235g Speer. Proved to be more of a challenge than I thought. Had to cut the case back an extra .136" below minimum so I could crimp below the ogive. Put a Lee crimp die on order as the RCBS roll crimp wasn't doing the job.
Dead is dead. Piss on "killing effect". ...
yep, fundamentally a lethal dose of bullet is just that, lethal...there aint different measures of 'lethal'.
Hydrostatic effect might want to be discussed.
about as much as the theory of 'knock-down' power...and about as absurd,..
but I've noticed the thread has already drifted over from hunting bullets to the LHC
and theory of atomic/subatomic quantum mechanics and abyss of anti-matter...
Another great example of Coyote Hunter trying to baffle with bull shat.
Another great example of Coyote Hunter trying to baffle with bull shat.
I find it pretty amusing that people deny that energy is directly related to an object's ability to do work but then insist its velocity is. As I've shown, velocity alone does nothing.
If you have a particular bullet and want to insist its velocity matters, only then are you correct because you are also talking about a particular mass as well as velocity - i.e. energy.
Some people will never get it.
That's right. You're one of the only ones who "gets it."
Ain't that something?
That's right. You're one of the only ones who "gets it."
Ain't that something?
Most children get it intuitively, based on their play. Some adults, like you apparently, are incapable of getting it.
Some adults, like you apparently, are incapable of getting it.
If you're talking about whatever it is that causes you to spew page after page of irrelevant bullsh**, I hope I never get it.
mass as well as velocity - i.e. energy.
what?
mass x velocity =
Force (ie;
F=
mass x
accel.) A concise statement of Isaac Newton's Second Law of Motion.
Force has both magnitude and direction.
energy has no direction, but when an object's velocity increases, so does its energy.
Energy is the ability to do work. Force is said to do work, spending energy in the process.
you require something to be accomplished for it to be considered work.(ie; if you spend energy trying
to move an object and it doesnt move, you have not done any work). yet If you lift a hammer but dont
drive a nail, you still have done work simply by lifting the hammer.
Work = Force x Distance.
Momentum (time dependent) measures the 'motion content' of an object (mass in motion) and is based
on the product of an object's mass and velocity.(force).
Momentum being time dependent, means the longer a force is applied, the amount of momentum increases.
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?
I wont quantify precisely how much , but I know for fact that less energy transfer can prove more effective.
ie; a solid that does the work/task required of it and exits ,vs, a soft with the same energy on impact
that then fails to do the work/task required, but still spends all its energy coming to a stop in the animal.
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?
I wont quantify precisely how much , but I know for fact that less energy transfer can prove more effective.
ie; a solid that does the work required of it and exits ,vs, a soft with same energy on impact that then fails
to do the work required but spends all its energy coming to a stop in the animal.
Could you please post up a few pages of ballistics tables? You and coyote hunter could keep this thread alive for at least the rest of hunting season. I don't feel that all the nuances of quantum physics have been thoroughly explored yet.
Thanks!
quantum physics?..not quite, ..Ok I will try make it easier.(if thats possible)
180gn .30cal solid that reaches an area of an animal doing the required damage and exits
vs
180gn .30cal soft of equal impact energy that arrrests and doesnt reach the area of the animal
to do the required damage.
conclusion: the solid spending less energy within proved the more effective projectile.
so one could say less is more, (well, more or less that is)...
It's just not a good enough explanation without some tables. Preferably with the KE calculated up to the speed of light. And charts.
I thought u guys were going bow hunting?
Is it this weekend yet?
But thanks for remembering.
Ok I been calculating and I got wi if so here it comes.
This is an observation of the data recorded from nosler book...fifth edition.
It pertains to the 308 Winchester case.........perhaps an imperfect bastardized case.....from the most perfect 300 savage!
I looked at the 243, 260 R.E.M., 7 mm 08, the 308 win and the manly 358 Winchester.
I considered the nosler partition offerings.
I averaged the top published velocities and averaged them. I also ranked sectional density and did an energy comparison.
TOP Velocity was the
260 rem. 100 grain
TOP energy was the
358 Winchester 180 grain
TOP sectional density
200 grain 308
140 grain 260
160 grain7 08
180 308
150 7 08
125 260
165 308 and 140 7 08 a tie at .248
The 100 grain 243 was .242
Top energy of the top sectional ensty bullets
165 grain 308
180 grain 308
200 grain 308
150 grain 708
160 grain 708
140 grain 708
The 125 and 140 260 were tied at the bottom.
There was an 11 percent difference in energy.
There was a 19 percent difference in velocity.
These were calculations that I did in the man cave before the evening hunt. So they may be in error.
I think the 150 grain 308 and any 358 bullet over 180 grain should receive honorary mention.
The ranking of velocity was
125 gr 260. 2946. Fps
140 gr 708
140 gr 260
150 gr 708
165 gr 308
160 gr 708
180 gr 308
200 gr 308. 2384. Fps
Any of them traveling at the speed of light will overpenetrate.
Any of them traveling at the speed of light will WAY overpenetrate.
Fixed it for you.
Angus1895,
After pouring over your results I conclude any will work in an Eastern hardwood forest.
Angus1895,
After pouring over your results I conclude any will work in an Eastern hardwood forest.
You obviously don't understand physics.
mass as well as velocity - i.e. energy.
what?
...
In full context, what I wrote was "If you have a particular bullet and want to insist its velocity matters, only then are you correct because you are also talking about a particular mass as well as velocity - i.e. energy."
Energy = 1/2 * m * v * v
I would also add that for a particular mass and velocity, momentum is also a known quantity.
It seems the less a cartridge is " necked " down the more efficiently it transfers energy to the bullet. And a larger bore would also mean a lighter barrel.
Although mass is divided in half, there is more variability in mass between bullets than velocity. Hence more energy for larger heavier bullets.
But smaller bores will allow superior sectional density and hence Ballistic Coefficient also. With less recoil.
mass as well as velocity - i.e. energy.
what?
mass x velocity =
Force (ie;
F=
mass x
accel.) A concise statement of Isaac Newton's Second Law of Motion.
Force has both magnitude and direction.
energy has no direction, but when an object's velocity increases, so does its energy.
Energy is the ability to do work. Force is said to do work, spending energy in the process.
you require something to be accomplished for it to be considered work.(ie; if you spend energy trying
to move an object and it doesnt move, you have not done any work). yet If you lift a hammer but dont
drive a nail, you still have done work simply by lifting the hammer.
Work = Force x Distance.
Momentum (time dependent) measures the 'motion content' of an object (mass in motion) and is based
on the product of an object's mass and velocity.(force).
Momentum being time dependent, means the longer a force is applied, the amount of momentum increases.
There is so much wrong here it's ridiculous.
Agreed, the very reasons I'm just gonna go material rifle 50-20-30mm.
In full context, what I wrote was "If you have a particular bullet and want to insist its velocity matters, only then are you correct because you are also talking about a particular mass as well as velocity - i.e. energy."
Energy = 1/2 * m * v * v
Or maybe if you're talking about velocity you're just using it as an indicator to make sure you're operating within the design parameters of the bullet for maximum wounding. You know, that stuff Formidilosus keeps bringing up. But what does he know?
Too slow and the bullet doesn't open. Too fast and it disintegrates and doesn't penetrate into the vitals. Pretty simple stuff really and no equations needed to understand it.
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?
I wont quantify precisely how much , but I know for fact that less energy transfer can prove more effective.
ie; a solid that does the work/task required of it and exits ,vs, a soft with the same energy on impact
that then fails to do the work/task required, but still spends all its energy coming to a stop in the animal.
Starman -
You are correct.
For a bullet to be effective (kill something quickly) it has to disrupt vital function. A bullet that expends all its energy blowing up in a shoulder may or may not disrupt vital function. A bullet with less energy that destroys the heart certainly does.
And that is where people like smokinrope go wrong. A bullet's energy defines the MAXIMUM energy if can transfer to a target, doing work in the process. What it does NOT define is how much energy will ACTUALLY be transferred to the target or in what time period; if or how much the bullet will expand; or whether it becomes a blunt mushroom, a shrapnel cloud or a shank with rotating petals that combines both blunt-force with cutting action as the petals rotate.
In other words, the energy of a bullet does not predict the efficiency with which or time frame in which it will transfer some or all of that energy to a target. What can be said is that for two identical bullets with the same mass but different velocities (i.e. different energy levels), and all other factors being equal, the bullet with the greater energy has greater POTENTIAL to do damage.
But since it is "such an easy-to-quantify commodity",
smokinrope should let us know how much velocity is needed for a bullet to be effective. He won't provide it because he cannot.
But since it is "such an easy-to-quantify commodity", smokinrope should let us know how much velocity is needed for a bullet to be effective. He won't provide it because he cannot.
LOL, I said KE is easy to quantify. As far as the velocity needed for a bullet to be effective, it depends on the bullet. I thought that much was obvious, but I suppose things aren't obvious when you have your head up your ass.
But since it is "such an easy-to-quantify commodity", smokinrope should let us know how much velocity is needed for a bullet to be effective. He won't provide it because he cannot.
LOL, I said KE is easy to quantify. As far as the velocity needed for a bullet to be effective, it depends on the bullet. I thought that much was obvious, but I suppose things aren't obvious when you have your head up your ass.
Velocity is easy to quantify - even easier than KE.
But you say "... it depends on the bullet." In other words, velocity alone tells you nothing, as I've stated from the start.
If that is not correct, just tell us how much velocity is needed for a bullet to be effective?
Give us a table...
Look it up yourself. Every bullet manufacturer has the data.
Look it up yourself. Every bullet manufacturer has the data.
Not true. Not a one of them does.
All the manufacturer velocities are tied to specific bullets, which means a specific construction, mass (or range of masses), etc. Which means KE or at least a range of KE is known.
No one says "Irrespective of any other factors, velocity 'X' is enough to ensure a bullet will be effective."
Nobody knows what velocity 'X' is except you.
Please enlighten us.
All the manufacturer velocities are tied to specific bullets........
No sh** Sherlock. That's why I said "it depends on the bullet."
Are you really that dense?
All the manufacturer velocities are tied to specific bullets........
Are you really that dense?
Obviously he is...
No sh** Sherlock. That's why I said "it depends on the bullet."
Are you really that dense?
As I said in the beginning- Dorky engineers and math obsessed people are the ones that wax on and on about "energy". Not that there aren't some great engineers, there are, and I definitely need the math nerds because I'm not figuring out external ballistics without them....
However, it's ALWAYS those two groups that wax on and on about energy, and math, and equations and try non stop to justify their bs. In the end, we still have to shoot the bullets at different impact velocities into tissue simulate and correlate that with live tissue results to know what the bullet will do.
None of their equations give us any info, and is a huge waste of time, money, and resources.
Shoot bullets into properly calibrated tissue simulate. Measure. Done.
All the manufacturer velocities are tied to specific bullets........
No sh** Sherlock. That's why I said "it depends on the bullet."
Are you really that dense?
Ahhh, so it depends on energy. Got it.
All the manufacturer velocities are tied to specific bullets........
No sh** Sherlock. That's why I said "it depends on the bullet."
Are you really that dense?
Ahhh, so it depends on energy. Got it.
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..
All the manufacturer velocities are tied to specific bullets........
No sh** Sherlock. That's why I said "it depends on the bullet."
Are you really that dense?
Ahhh, so it depends on energy. Got it.
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.
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...
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..
He best never step on Guam...
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?
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."
mass as well as velocity - i.e. energy.
what?
mass x velocity =
Force (ie;
F=
mass x
accel.) A concise statement of Isaac Newton's Second Law of Motion.
Force has both magnitude and direction.
energy has no direction, but when an object's velocity increases, so does its energy.
Energy is the ability to do work. Force is said to do work, spending energy in the process.
you require something to be accomplished for it to be considered work.(ie; if you spend energy trying
to move an object and it doesnt move, you have not done any work). yet If you lift a hammer but dont
drive a nail, you still have done work simply by lifting the hammer.
Work = Force x Distance.
Momentum (time dependent) measures the 'motion content' of an object (mass in motion) and is based
on the product of an object's mass and velocity.(force).
Momentum being time dependent, means the longer a force is applied, the amount of momentum increases.
There is so much wrong here it's ridiculous.
nothing stopping you explaining why you consider it wrong.
The analogy of 'arrows' killing to 'bullets' is actually Apples/Oranges
Simply consider the looks of 'bullets', NOW consider the looks of hunting 'arrows heads'. IF bullets were shaped like arrow heads'
and could be propelled fast enuff to produce a reasonable trajectory, they would NOT have to weigh AS MUCH to kill dramatically.
The diff is NOT in K E, it is in SHAPE and SHARPNESS of the projectile.
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 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?
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?
...
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.
mass as well as velocity - i.e. energy.
what?
mass x velocity = Force (ie; F= mass x accel.) A concise statement of Isaac Newton's Second Law of Motion.
Force has both magnitude and direction.
energy has no direction, but when an object's velocity increases, so does its energy.
Energy is the ability to do work. Force is said to do work, spending energy in the process.
you require something to be accomplished for it to be considered work.(ie; if you spend energy trying
to move an object and it doesnt move, you have not done any work). yet If you lift a hammer but dont
drive a nail, you still have done work simply by lifting the hammer.
Work = Force x Distance.
Momentum (time dependent) measures the 'motion content' of an object (mass in motion) and is based
on the product of an object's mass and velocity.(force).
Momentum being time dependent, means the longer a force is applied, the amount of momentum increases.
There is so much wrong here it's ridiculous.
nothing stopping you explaining why you consider it wrong.
For a start, you've set velocity and acceleration as being the same thing.
As I said in the beginning- Dorky engineers and math obsessed people are the ones that wax on and on about "energy". Not that there aren't some great engineers, there are, and I definitely need the math nerds because I'm not figuring out external ballistics without them....
However, it's ALWAYS those two groups that wax on and on about energy, and math, and equations and try non stop to justify their bs. In the end, we still have to shoot the bullets at different impact velocities into tissue simulate and correlate that with live tissue results to know what the bullet will do.
None of their equations give us any info, and is a huge waste of time, money, and resources.
Shoot bullets into properly calibrated tissue simulate. Measure. Done.
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.
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.
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...
As I said in the beginning- Dorky engineers and math obsessed people are the ones that wax on and on about "energy". Not that there aren't some great engineers, there are, and I definitely need the math nerds because I'm not figuring out external ballistics without them....
However, it's ALWAYS those two groups that wax on and on about energy, and math, and equations and try non stop to justify their bs. In the end, we still have to shoot the bullets at different impact velocities into tissue simulate and correlate that with live tissue results to know what the bullet will do.
None of their equations give us any info, and is a huge waste of time, money, and resources.
Shoot bullets into properly calibrated tissue simulate. Measure. Done.
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?
If someone is that ignorant they have more problems than math.
As I said in the beginning- Dorky engineers and math obsessed people are the ones that wax on and on about "energy". Not that there aren't some great engineers, there are, and I definitely need the math nerds because I'm not figuring out external ballistics without them....
However, it's ALWAYS those two groups that wax on and on about energy, and math, and equations and try non stop to justify their bs. In the end, we still have to shoot the bullets at different impact velocities into tissue simulate and correlate that with live tissue results to know what the bullet will do.
None of their equations give us any info, and is a huge waste of time, money, and resources.
Shoot bullets into properly calibrated tissue simulate. Measure. Done.
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?
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.
As I said in the beginning- Dorky engineers and math obsessed people are the ones that wax on and on about "energy". Not that there aren't some great engineers, there are, and I definitely need the math nerds because I'm not figuring out external ballistics without them....
However, it's ALWAYS those two groups that wax on and on about energy, and math, and equations and try non stop to justify their bs. In the end, we still have to shoot the bullets at different impact velocities into tissue simulate and correlate that with live tissue results to know what the bullet will do.
None of their equations give us any info, and is a huge waste of time, money, and resources.
Shoot bullets into properly calibrated tissue simulate. Measure. Done.
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?
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!
Which bullet? A 60g Partition or a 500g Partition at 1800fps? Nosler claims the same "Optimum Performance Velocity" for both (1800fps to unlimited fps).
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.
Either mass does not matter, as you claim --- or it does, as you also claim.
I've made no claims about mass one way or the other, dimwit.
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!
Show me where I've argued against myself.
Which bullet? A 60g Partition or a 500g Partition at 1800fps? Nosler claims the same "Optimum Performance Velocity" for both (1800fps to unlimited fps).
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.
Either mass does not matter, as you claim --- or it does, as you also claim.
I've made no claims about mass one way or the other, dimwit.
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.
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:
"Ft-Lbs energy" is not a wounding mechanism. .
and this comment is also true , even though nobody claimed energy was not required.
Work cannot be performed without energy....
*****
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.
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 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:
"Ft-Lbs energy" is not a wounding mechanism. .
Velocity and acceleration are two different concepts. There is no mention of acceleration in the formula for energy, only mass and velocity (E = 1/2*m*v*v). Acceleration measures a change in velocity over time. (v1-v2 / t1-t2)
A projectiles KE at any point in time does not depend on its acceleration, which requires multiple points in time. When smokingrope adds a specific mass (or range of masses) to his calculations and the maximum destructive capability of a bullet at a specific velocity, he is considering KE, not velocity alone and not force.
and this comment is also true , but nobody actually claimed energy was not required.
Work cannot be performed without energy....
*****
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.
You get it exactly, and that is what I've been saying consistently.
A bullet's energy determines its MAXIMUM destructive capability, not the ACTUAL destruction it will do. The ACTUAL destruction depends on many other factors including bullet construction and types and amount of target material encountered.
A projectile's velocity, considered alone, tells you nothing about its destructive capability. You have to consider mass as well, which is exactly what smokinrope does when he says that at 1800fps he would choose a bullet somewhere between a 60g and 500g partition for elk. If bullet mass didn't matter the1800fps 60g Partition would be equally effective on elk.
Although the 60g and 500g Partitions have the same "Optimum Performance" velocity (1800fps minimum to unlimited), there is a reason Nosler does not include the 60g Partition in their recommendations for elk sized game.
Like I have been saying it is Energy that has a tighter measurement of the 308 class cartridge.
If the ordinances are sorted for acceptable sectional density....
There is less difference between the rounds in energy than velocity.
KE is how a non explosive projectiles harvests game.
Without the proper KE the ordinance won't open and do its deal.
Unless it is an arrow.
But then kinetic energy is measured in marketing archery equipment also.
So go figure.
"- Admit it or not, you use both velocity and mass an in your calculations -- not velocity alone.
Which means you are using energy calculations."
....Velocity and acceleration are two different concepts. There is no mention of acceleration in the formula for energy,...
if I calculate [velocity and mass] I am working out the 'momentum' (p) value.
If I calculate [acceleration and mass] I am working out the 'Force' value.
with momentum being dependent on the force acting on it.
with that, Does anyone then really need to apply an energy formula for hunting bullets?
I like Ray Wiley Hubbard. I've seen him several times.
"- Admit it or not, you use both velocity and mass an in your calculations -- not velocity alone.
Which means you are using energy calculations."
....Velocity and acceleration are two different concepts. There is no mention of acceleration in the formula for energy,...
if I calculate [velocity and mass] I am working out the 'momentum' (p) value.
If I calculate [acceleration and mass] I am working out the 'Force' value.
with momentum being dependent on the force acting on it.
with that, Does anyone then really need to apply an energy formula for hunting bullets?
Momentum and energy are two very different but related (by mass and velocity) concepts.
Given two objects with equal momentum but a 10x difference in mass, which object will have the higher energy (and therefore destructive capability) level?
The correct answer is is that the lighter (by a factor of 10) object will have a velocity 10x greater to achieve the same momentum value and therefore 100 times more energy and destructive capability than the heavier object.
Momentum = m*v
Energy= 1/2*m*v*v
Assume the following for two objects with equal momentum:
Object 1: mass of 1, velocity of 10, momentum = 10
Object 2: mass of 10, velocity of 1, momentum = 10
For those objects:
Object 1 energy = 1/2*1*10*10 = 50
Object 2 energy = 1/2*10*1*1 = 5
Momentum considered alone does not directly relate to a projectile's ability to do work, whereas its energy level does.
It is true that Force = mass * acceleration. But force also tells you nothing about a projectile's ability to do work at a given velocity. The formula for acceleration is:
a=(v1-v2)/(t1-t2)
At any given velocity (1800fps in the example I used with smokinrope), there is no acceleration because v1=v2. Thus:
v1 = v2
v1-v2 = v1-v1
t1-t2 = x
a = (v1-v1)/x = 0/x = 0
f = m*a = m*0 = 0
Therefore, at any given velocity, force = 0, which, like velocity alone, tells you nothing about a projectile's destructive capability.
... the mass has direction ...
Mass does not have direction.
Don't know a whole lot about mass vs direction, etc, etc, etc. But I do know I killed an 800 pound 7X6 bull elk yesterday with a 100 grain slick trick, delivered from 23 meters from a Hoyt Defiant Turbo.
Nice Pat! You do any energy calculations to make sure it would die first? Grin....
Don't know a whole lot about mass vs direction, etc, etc, etc. But I do know I killed an 800 pound 7X6 bull elk yesterday with a 100 grain slick trick, delivered from 23 meters from a Hoyt Defiant Turbo.
Congrats on the elk. Did the arrow over penetrate?
Don't know a whole lot about mass vs direction, etc, etc, etc. But I do know I killed an 800 pound 7X6 bull elk yesterday with a 100 grain slick trick, delivered from 23 meters from a Hoyt Defiant Turbo.
I was just keeping tabs on a poster with a tenuous grasp (at best) of physics as evidenced by the boners repeatedly dropped in his discussion of the subject. I'm not about to tell you anything about hunting.
Don't know a whole lot about mass vs direction, etc, etc, etc. But I do know I killed an 800 pound 7X6 bull elk yesterday with a 100 grain slick trick, delivered from 23 meters from a Hoyt Defiant Turbo.
I was just keeping tabs on a poster with a tenuous grasp (at best) of physics as evidenced by the boners repeatedly dropped in his discussion of the subject. I'm not about to tell you anything about hunting.
I know, it's all good! I think we all need to just go hunt....sort out all the details later!
![[Linked Image]](http://i423.photobucket.com/albums/pp311/patrickgsinclair/IMG_6468.jpg)
Nasty little bastard...
Regarding penetration, my dad always says that a guy at the bottom of a pool might be safe from a bullet from a hunting rifle, but he's likely in trouble if there's an arrow coming at just a tenth of the speed.
I know, it's all good! I think we all need to just go hunt....sort out all the details later!
Oh yeah!
Nice Pat! You do any energy calculations to make sure it would die first? Grin....
Good question, and Pat, did you get a pass through? Looks like your pet broadhead failed to expand due to schittty kinetic energy.
Mass does not have direction.
my understanding In the case of bullet momentum (mass in motion) it does.
Motion can be decscribed in terms of displacement, distance, velocity, acceleration, time and speed.
Mass does not have direction.
my understanding In the case of bullet momentum (mass in motion) it does.
Motion can be decscribed in terms of displacement, distance, velocity, acceleration, time and speed
Go back to school. Mass is independent of direction just as it is independent of gravity.
Speed is a scalar quantity with no direction.
Velocity is a vector quantity which has both magnitude and direction.
Any object with mass that also has velocity has momentum. It has direction because it has velocity, not because it has mass.
Mass has no direction.
mass no direction, ok got it.
If I calculate [acceleration and mass] I am working out the 'Force' value.
(which results in Newtons and can be converted to ft/lb) 1 Newton = 0.737562149 ft/lb
with that, Does anyone then really need to apply an energy formula for hunting bullets?
If I calculate [acceleration and mass] I am working out the 'Force' value.
(which results in Newtons and can be converted to ft/lb) 1 Newton = 0.737562149 ft/lb
with that, Does anyone then really need to apply an energy formula for hunting bullets?
Again, go back to school.
Ft-lbs convert to newton-meters, not newtons.
Newtons are a measurement of force. Newton-meters and ft-lbs are a measure of energy.
bumber!...
mass no direction, ok got it.
If I calculate [acceleration and mass] I am working out the 'Force' value.
(which results in Newtons and can be converted to ft/lb) 1 Newton = 0.737562149 ft/lb
with that, Does anyone then really need to apply an energy formula for hunting bullets?
If you would prefer a bullet with 2000 ft-lbs energy to one with 20 ft-lbs energy for hunting elk, you have answered your own question.
I don't recall anyone EVER stating that there is some value for energy that delineates the difference between a bullet being effective for a particular task and not being effective for that same task. Energy is just a tool that can be used to compare the maximum destructive potential of different bullets of indeterminate mass, velocity and construction, or the same bullet (which perforce has a particular mass and construction) at different velocities.
Energy is, at best, an imperfect tool but much better than using velocity alone (i.e. with no knowledge of bullet mass or construction).
.
Energy is, at best, an imperfect tool but much better than using velocity alone (i.e. with no knowledge of bullet mass or construction).
Why don't you just measure the hole it makes...?
Gotta luv them Hoyt's!
Well done!
Thanks for sharing!
.
Energy is, at best, an imperfect tool but much better than using velocity alone (i.e. with no knowledge of bullet mass or construction).
Why don't you just measure the hole it makes...?
Hard to do before you shoot something.
.
Energy is, at best, an imperfect tool but much better than using velocity alone (i.e. with no knowledge of bullet mass or construction).
Why don't you just measure the hole it makes...?
There is also the issue that while ft-lbs measures the maximum destructive capability ( a bullet cannot do more work than the energy it carries allows), measuring a wound channel measures the actual destruction in a very specific instance.
Relatively few hunters are reloaders and even fewer have access to the "properly calibrated tissue simulant" you advocate. Even fewer would be willing to shoot various bullets into such media at various velocities as it would be much too resource intensive.
Nor are such efforts required to get a reasonable estimate as to whether or not a bullet will be effective for a particular purpose.
Nor are such efforts required to get a reasonable estimate as to whether or not a bullet will be effective for a particular purpose.
You can get a reasonable estimate that it will be affective because the manufacturers (generally) have already tested it. Every major manufacturer designs and tests their bullets in properaly calibrated ballistic gel.
"Maximum destructive capability" isn't actual. And people who actually kill things care about actual, not potential.
Nor are such efforts required to get a reasonable estimate as to whether or not a bullet will be effective for a particular purpose.
You can get a reasonable estimate that it will be affective because the manufacturers (generally) have already tested it. Every major manufacturer designs and tests their bullets in properaly calibrated ballistic gel.
"Maximum destructive capability" isn't actual. And people who actually kill things care about actual, not potential.
So a 60g Partition will be as effective as a 500g (or even a 150g or whatever) Partition at the same velocity because the manufacturer tested them in "properly calibrated ballistic gel" and both expanded at 1800fps?
Actual destruction caused by the bullet will ALWAYS be less than its maximum destructive capability as determined by the energy it carries. It cannot and never will be more. Energy only defines the upper limit. Efficient hunting bullets use a good percentage of that energy to do their destructive work.
That said, anyone that chooses a hunting bullet based on energy alone is as ignorant or foolish as someone that does it on velocity alone. Bullet construction and target type and amount play a huge role in how efficiently energy is transferred to a target.
The comparison of the 60g Partition to the 500g Partition is admittedly and intentionally extreme but it makes a point. Much less extreme is the comparison between a 110g AccuBond from my .257 Roberts at 3163fps (my load) and a 140g AccuBond at 2990fps from my .280 Rem (also one of my loads). A very reasonable question is "How do they compare at 400 and 500 yards?" Another is "What are their effective ranges?"
To answer the first question, the Roberts has 2440fpe at the muzzle, 1482fpe at 400 yards and 1297fpe at 500. The .280 Rem has 2776fpe at the muzzle, 1818 at 400 and 1616 at 500. Many people suggest 1500fpe as a reasonable minimum for elk. Accepting that would rule out the Roberts for ranges greater than 390 yards while the .280 Rem would be appropriate just past 560 yards.
(If you are reading this and planning to blast me for using the admittedly arbitrary 1500fpe, you may as well stop. 1500fpe is a common and convenient rule of thumb, nothing more.)
If you use Nosler's minimum “Optimum Performance Velocity” of 1800fps as the yardstick, the .257”/110g AB could be expected to perform “optimally” at ranges out to 845 yards, where its energy has dropped to 793 ft-lbs. The same logic would suggest the .284”/140g AB would be effective out to 890 yards where its energy would be 1008fpe. I won’t be choosing either for elk at those ranges.
Rather than use Nosler’s “Optimum Performance Velocity” as a primary gauge, I’ll stick with retained energy. It is more appropriate for my needs.
I use the following rules of thumb.
Cup and core bulletin for elk are:
To help estimate maximum effective range:
Sectional Density grater than .250. As in 165 grain 308 or so......actually .248
Twice the foot pounds as the animal weighs in energy upon impact
1800 fps at impact.
Longest shot I have made 440 yards, 300 savage hornady 160 grain ftx loaded with lever evolution. This shot would have fallen out side of my rule of thumb parameters But it was not a huge bull, just a ordinary cow elk.
. But I think it is best over prescribe than under let the each , hunter decide for themselves as they gain experience.
Monolithic bullet can have less density as in perhaps 130 grain in a 308 caliber or so.
Should ideally have 2000 fps velocity upon impact
I have never calculated what the foot pounds would be.
Like you guys been saying if you know the sectional density and the caliber and the velocity, KE will be there 4 U.
But I have never shot an elk with that light an ordinance. When I have used monolithic bullets they have always been 180 grain on elk ( Barnes XLC 30 06. Maximum 400 yards.xox. ) They were awesome.
...
Given two objects with equal momentum but a 10x difference in mass, which object will have the higher energy (and therefore destructive capability) level?
The correct answer is is that the lighter (by a factor of 10) object will have a velocity 10x greater to achieve the same momentum value and therefore 100 times more energy and destructive capability than the heavier object.
...
It is too late for me to go back and edit that post but my statement was in error. The lighter object will have 10x the energy of the heavier one, not 100x.
Fat finger error and inadequate proof reading.
WOW! Just WOW!
The full retard runs very deep...
Admit it or not, you use both velocity and mass an in your calculations - not velocity alone. Which means you are using energy calculations.
LOL, good to see you're posting up formulas CH. But you're still as FOS as a Christmas turkey. What the hell are you talking about when you say "your calculations?"
Which calculations would those be? The ones I never made or posted? Not everyone needs "calculations" to go hunting.
Speaking of people who don't need "calculations," congrats, Pat!! Are you gonna post a pic of that bull?
Admit it or not, you use both velocity and mass an in your calculations - not velocity alone. Which means you are using energy calculations.
LOL, good to see you're posting up formulas CH. But you're still as FOS as a Christmas turkey. What the hell are you talking about when you say "your calculations?"
Which calculations would those be? The ones I never made or posted? Not everyone needs "calculations" to go hunting.
...
You didn’t post any equations but when you choose a bullet for big game hunting you are clearly making the same mental calculations children make when throwing rocks – velocity isn’t the only thing that matters.
You say
“The .223 bullet doesn't make a big enough hole
How do you know that? I’ve seen .22 bullets create softball-sized exit holes at 400 yards where velocity should have been just over 1800fps (1832fps calculated). Just how big a hole do you need?
Either velocity is the only thing that matters, as you claim, or you have to take mass into consideration (your mental calculations), which is what you are doing. And in which case you are considering energy, not just velocity.
You also say
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.
Once again you are making the same kinds of calculations kids make when they decide to throw a mid-weight rock instead of a much heavier one.
And to answer your question from above, at 1800fps I’d definitely prefer a 500g Partition for elk over a 60g Partition at 1800fps. Same velocity, so if mass doesn’t matter they should be equally effective. But the lessons I learned as a kid suggest they will not be equally effective.
Otherwise, to quote you:
Velocity, Sherlock. If it depended on energy, there'd be a different velocity for each different weight of the same bullet.
You will notice that Nosler does NOT provide different velocities for the 60g and 500g Partitions because when Nosler talks about “Optimum Performance Velocity” Nosler is only talking about the velocities at which Partitions in general can be expected to expand, NOT how effective they will be for a particular game animal.
When Nosler makes recommendations as to the best use of their ammunition, their recommendation for the Partition for elk starts at a 140g from a .270 WBY. Apparently Nosler doesn’t feel that a 3,550fps 60g Partition is equal to a 180g Partition at a much more sedate 2,750fps. In other words, Nosler agrees – velocity is not the only thing that matters - mass matters as well.
I really don’t expect you to “get it” as you stated you don’t want to. Nothing like willful ignorance to mark a man as an idiot.
LOL!
I bet if I look up "putz" in the dictionary there's a full page photo of you.
Wearing a sombrero.
And you're still as FOS as a Christmas turkey. I've never used "calculations" to decide which bullet to use. I know you can't fathom such a thing, but try to wrap your pointy little sombrero wearing head around that.
And seriously, kids throwing rocks? I was pretty good at throwing rocks as a kid, still am. But I never needed any "calculations" to do it.
I wouldn't be surprised if you whipped out a calculator every time you wanted to throw a rock but I'm thinking it didn't help any.
Yes, kids throwing rocks. Or balls or whatever. They don’t think of it in terms of formal mathematical equations they have not yet learned, but they do learn to factor in mass as well as velocity and other factors. And if they are trying to hit something, they make mental calculations every time. If they didn’t they would throw Nerf balls the same as they do real balls of the same size and shape.
Just as adults choose when to hit the brakes on their vehicles. If velocity was all that mattered, you could drive a heavily loaded big rig like you would a BMW M series coupe. But even if you’ve done neither I’m guessing you wouldn’t try because you know the big rig would take longer to stop. You may make that calculation without thinking in terms of E=1/2*m*v*v but, just the same, you are making mental calculations that involve energy, not just velocity. Either that or you shouldn’t be driving – and wouldn’t be for long because you would soon be dead.
When you choose not to use a 60g Partition at 1800fps but go with a heavier bullet at the same velocity instead, you are once again making the same kind of calculations. If velocity was all that mattered the 60g would be just as effective and get the job done with less recoil.
Yes, kids throwing rocks. Or balls or whatever. They don’t think of it in terms of formal mathematical equations they have not yet learned, but they do learn to factor in mass as well as velocity and other factors. And if they are trying to hit something, they make mental calculations every time.
No they don't. Just like with everything else you pontificate on, you're taking one of the most basic phenomena in the human experience and over-complicating it, trying to explain it via "calculations."
It's just more mental masturbation.
Kids throwing rocks and adults throwing baseballs and footballs don't make "calculations" or even stop to think about it. If infielders had to think about it, there'd be no such thing as a double play.They just throw the damn things. In archery it's called instinctive shooting. "Instinctive" means no calculations, and not even any thought given to it. Just a reaction based on repeated practice and muscle memory. It really is that simple no matter how you try and complicate it. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with kinetic energy.
When you choose not to use a 60g Partition at 1800fps but go with a heavier bullet at the same velocity instead, you are once again making the same kind of calculations.
No, I'm not. I'm basing my decision on my own personal experience and the experience of others who've killed more elk than me. I know that blows your little mind, but try to follow along. If I was basing my choice on some sort of calculated energy figure I'd be shooting a magnum. I'm not.
I spent a lot of money on a guided Alaskan hunt for Dall Sheep. If I was ever going to base a bullet choice on "calculations" or some sort of energy figure, that would have been the hunt to do it on. But I didn't. I developed a very accurate load using a relatively light bullet in a mild chambering. What was more important was the rifle itself, its weight and accuracy and my ability to place a bullet with it. "Energy" never figured into the decision. And then I asked a guy who'd guided for sheep if he thought the bullet was suitable (he also posted on this thread) . He said it was and that was all I needed.
But if you want to use formulae and calculations to choose your bullet, knock yourself out. Just realize that not everyone thinks like you do. Thank goodness.
Not complicating anything at all, just explaining what happens.
When you picked that bullet for your Dall hunt you say you didn't consider energy. Which means you think a BB at the same impact velocity would have sufficed as well?
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.
Isn't it amazing how we fight about all this chitt. And there are some real knowledgeable folk here.
Bubba, you know, the one everyone here makes fun of. Well ol' Bubba, he got him a Savage Axis in 06.
Then bought him some 180gr Corelocks, he got them mixed up with some 150gr Federals his buddy gave
him. Anyway with mixed loads Bubba, he shot him a deer and an elk. They are in his freezer, and he thinks
we are all full of sschitt.
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.
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!!!!!
Great post JB. That was a cool read.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Very cool John, a nice tribute to a HUNTER.
Regards, Guy
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
LOL, now you've done it!!
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.
...... 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!!!!
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!
More like Special Relativity if I remember right.
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.
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.
If you piss in the wind, bang your head against a wall, or engage in dialog with coyote hunter, is any work accomplished?
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.
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.
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.
...
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.
This is the first thread that has fallen so high that my dumb a-s can't begin to understand 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.
…
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.
…
You avoid answering the question by hiding behind specious arguments. But duck and dodge all you want – you and I and everyone else knows why you would choose a bullet heavier than 60g .22 -- because heavier bullets at 1800fps have the potential for greater destruction. And that potential is because they carry more energy.
1) You’ve hunted Alaska. Alaska has no minimum cartridge for elk – a 60g Partition would be legal there. As it would be in Idaho, Montana and possibly other places as well. Colorado could eliminate minimum restrictions but even then I doubt you would choose a .22 caliber 60g Partition at 1800fps for elk.
You say a 60g Partition “wouldn’t make a big enough hole”. Just how big a hole do you need? Hunters kill a lot of elk with hardcast bullets that expand very little – to less than the 60g Partition would be expected to expand – and impact at velocities under 1800fps. Yet they get the job done.
2) OK, you don’t like the recoil of a 500g bullet at 1800fps. Neither do I, but at 1500fps they aren’t bad. In any case, whether 1500fps or 1800fps, a 500g would be an easy choice over a .22 60g at 1800fps. So tell us – just what caliber and weight would you choose for elk if limited to 1800fps impact velocity?
3) You say you don't shoot “many” Nosler bullets so their data is irrelevant to you. Another duck and dodge but not a very good one.
You avoid answering the question by hiding behind specious arguments.
LOL, I've avoided nothing you dumbass. Not once have you asked me how I choose the bullets I shoot or what's important to me in making that decision. I've had no chance to avoid the question you never asked. Just as with your entire post above, you never ask the question, you just proceed to tell me what's important (to me!!) and then accuse me of "not answering the question" which is hilarious.
And I've told you you're wrong because you are.
If you want to ask the question I'll answer. Einstein.
You avoid answering the question by hiding behind specious arguments.
LOL, I've avoided nothing you dumbass. Not once have you asked me how I choose the bullets I shoot or what's important to me in making that decision. I've had no chance to avoid the question you never asked.
All you've done is tell me how I choose my bullets and what's important to me. And I've told you you're wrong because you are.
If you want to ask the question I'll answer. Einstein.
OK, so what bullets and weights do you choose to use when hunting elk? And why do yyou choose them?
I'll answer the question for big game in general when I get a few minutes later today.
Not sure what the fascination with shooting an elk with a .224 bullet is...I'll happily shoot an elk with a .224 60gr Partition. And if it was between that or a 500gr Partition, and my life depended on killing an elk, I would rather have the 60gr Partition.
I only brought it up to show that CH was wrong about why I wouldn't choose one. it's not an option here.
Not sure what the fascination with shooting an elk with a .224 bullet is...I'll happily shoot an elk with a .224 60gr Partition. And if it was between that or a 500gr Partition, and my life depended on killing an elk, I would rather have the 60gr Partition.
I've done it....more than once.
Not a big deal if you know how to shoot.
...
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.
I'm not going to bite. It is obvious who has read the physics here, and who understands the equations, which are all theoretical, and who has pulled things out of their ass. Keep posting what bullets at the speed of light behave like.
OK, so what bullets and weights do you choose to use when hunting elk? And why do yyou choose them?
Since you finally asked the question, I’ll answer. My bullet choice is based on a few different characteristics with accuracy at the top of the list followed by low recoil, and as good a BC as I can get with accuracy and low recoil optimized. Shot placement is more important than bullet weight or KE (to me anyway) and those all help with shot placement. Accuracy is obvious but low recoil helps because it means I’ll shoot more and be better with the rifle and BC helps with long shots.
I start with the rifle I want to carry and shoot, not the bullet. I hunt in the mountains and most often while backpacking so I try to minimize the weight of everything I carry including the rifle, the exception being pronghorn hunting. For elk and deer my favorite rifles are a Kimber Montana and a NULA. I bought the NULA for the AK sheep hunt and it’s one of my favorite rifles because it’s very accurate. Again, shot placement is my top priority.
Light rifles are not fun to shoot in magnum chamberings or with heavy bullets so I tend to go with milder chamberings based off the .308 case. Velocity and flat trajectory are not that important with a good repeatable scope, even for long shots. The .223 is not legal for big game where I hunt so that points me to the .243, .260, and 7-08 as giving the best combination of lighter, low-recoiling bullets with good BCs. It’s more difficult to get a high BC in a .243 bullet (and .243 bullets top out at lower BCs than 260s or 7 mms) so that further narrows it down to .260 and the 7-08 for me. And that’s what my favorite two rifles are chambered in, .260 Remington and 7-08, the NULA and Montana respectively.
So once I have the rifle I want in the chambering I want I shoot a few different bullets to see which are most accurate in that particular rifle. I start with bullets I know to be accurate with good BCs which for me lately tends to be the Lapua Scenar. I’ll shoot a few different weights with a few different powders, again, to see which combination is most accurate because bullet placement is most important to me.
In my .260 I settled on the 123 grain Scenar because it’s very accurate in the rifle (the most accurate bullet I tried) and has a decent BC of .525. I worked up the load for my 7-08 before I started shooting Scenars and settled on the 120 ballistic tip because it was very accurate in the rifle (the most accurate bullet I tried) and the 120 has a reputation as a very tough bullet. I own probably 15 rifles and the 7-08 is the lone example where I settled on a Nosler bullet in case you’re wondering. The BC of the 120 BT is not optimum but as I said accuracy is my top criterion. And both the .260 and the 7-08 shoot accurately enough that I’ve killed prairie dogs out past 600 yards. If energy or bullet mass was important to me I wouldn’t have chosen either bullet or either chambering for that matter. The 7-08 is the rifle I take elk hunting when I go for elk with a centerfire which is seldom. I most often hunt elk with a muzzleloader and the bullet I chose for my muzzleloader is once again the bullet that shoots most accurately in the rifle I use, a 348 grain Powerbelt.
My other favorite rifle is a very accurate model 70 re-barreled to 6.5-06 AI with a McMillan Hunter stock. It weighs around 9 lbs. so I don’t take it on mountain hunts but I do use it for pronghorns although lately I’ve been leaning toward the .260. The model 70 shoots bugholes with the Berger 140 grain bullet (great combination of low recoil/high BC) so it’s best suited to long distance shots on the plains where it’s windy. But I like the .260 better for some reason.
There you have it.
smokepole -
Thank you for the answer.
When you specify a caliber and a B.C you are also specifying the things that go into them. Caliber for one. Bullet shape plays an important part, as does ... mass.
In your .260, for example, you specified a 123g Scenar, chosen for its accuracy and "decent B.C.". Given the caliber and shape, the B.C. is inextricably tied to bullet mass.
Now, why do you want a high B.C.? High B.C. values allow a bullet to retain velocity and shoot flatter. In doing so (retaining velocity) they also retain more energy.
So, to avoid the 60g-500g extremes, assume you have a choice between two .264 bullets, the 123g Scenar and an 85g bullet of the same design. (OK, I know 100 is the lighted made. Play along for a moment.) Assume accuracy was the same and velocity was 1800fps at impact. Which bullet would you prefer?
My guess is the 123g, which is the one I would choose as well. Not because I have to figure out the retained energy to make a decision (the Scenar isn't a bullet I would choose to use if given a choice, which is why I don't), but because experience tells me that, other factors being as equal as possible, a heavier bullet at velocity X has greater potential to cause damage and will likely do so. I suspect your thought processes really aren't all that much different.
If you ever get to Denver/Castle Rock, I'll be happy to buy you a beer and we can discuss it.
In your .260, for example, you specified a 123g Scenar, chosen for its accuracy and "decent B.C.". Given the caliber and shape, the B.C. is inextricably tied to bullet mass.
No, you're wrong. BC is not inextricably tied to mass. You can have two bullets shaped identically, with the same BC, but with different mass. One way to do that is to make the bullets out of something lighter than lead like the Nosler E-tip. The other way is to have a big cavity in the nose of the bullet, like Berger bullets and Scenars do, which increases BC but not mass.
Now, why do you want a high B.C.? High B.C. values allow a bullet to retain velocity and shoot flatter. In doing so (retaining velocity) they also retain more energy.
There you go again, telling me why I choose my bullets and getting it wrong, once again. That's not why I want a bullet with a high BC. As I said in my previous post velocity and flat trajectory are not all that important with a good repeatable scope that can be dialed for elevation. If velocity and energy were important to me I wouldn't be shooting cartridges based on the .308 case.
The reason I want a high BC is to buck the wind. Bullet drop is easy to compensate for because you have good numbers for all the variables needed to peg it--muzzle velocity, BC, range, and altitude (actually barometric pressure but altitude can substitute). Wind drift is much harder to compensate for because it requires an accurate estimate of the wind all along the bullet's path which is very difficult especially in tricky terrain where wind speed (and direction) will vary along the path. Estimation of wind speed is a huge source of error and a high BC minimizes wind drift making the error less significant. So minimizing wind drift is important and minimizing bullet drop is not.
I want a high BC bullet to minimize wind drift.
In your .260, for example, you specified a 123g Scenar, chosen for its accuracy and "decent B.C.". Given the caliber and shape, the B.C. is inextricably tied to bullet mass.
No, you're wrong. BC is not inextricably tied to mass. You can have two bullets shaped identically, with the same BC, but with different mass. One way to do that is to make the bullets out of something lighter than lead like the Nosler E-tip. The other way is to have a big cavity in the nose of the bullet, like Berger bullets and Scenars do, which increases BC but not mass.
A bullet's B.C. is a ratio of its Sectional Density (S.D) to its coefficient of form (i), so B.C.=S.D./i. Coefficient of form (i) is dependent on a bullet's shape but is a constant for a given diameter and shape. Sectional Density is the ratio of a bullet's mass (m) to its diameter (d) squared, or S.D. = m/(d*d). In other words:
B.C. = S.D./i = (m/d*d)/i = m/(d*d*i)
You might notice that mass (m) is in the equation. As a result, while you can have different bullets of the same diameter (d) and same coefficient of form (i), but if their mass (m) is different they will have different B.C. values.
Compare a 3" styrofoam ball with a 3" lead ball. Same coefficient of form (i), same diameter (d), same shape, different mass (m) and very different B.C. values as a result.
So no, you cannot have two identically shaped bullets (including diameter, as in .264") with different mass that have the same B.C.
Now, why do you want a high B.C.? High B.C. values allow a bullet to retain velocity and shoot flatter. In doing so (retaining velocity) they also retain more energy.
There you go again, telling me why I choose my bullets and getting it wrong, once again. That's not why I want a bullet with a high BC. As I said in my previous post velocity and flat trajectory are not all that important with a good repeatable scope that can be dialed for elevation. If velocity and energy were important to me I wouldn't be shooting cartridges based on the .308 case.
The reason I want a high BC is to buck the wind. Bullet drop is easy to compensate for because you have good numbers for all the variables needed to peg it--muzzle velocity, BC, range, and altitude (actually barometric pressure but altitude can substitute). Wind drift is much harder to compensate for because it requires an accurate estimate of the wind all along the bullet's path which is very difficult especially in tricky terrain where wind speed (and direction) will vary along the path. Estimation of wind speed is a huge source of error and a high BC minimizes wind drift making the error less significant. So minimizing wind drift is important and minimizing bullet drop is not.
I want a high BC bullet to minimize wind drift.
Again you duck and dodge. A bullet that shoots flatter because of its B.C. also has less wind drift. But that difference only comes into play at longer ranges - B.C. is pretty irrelevant at close range. As I showed above, B.C is directly tied to a bullet's mass. Velocity is important to you else you could reduce recoil by shooting all your bullets at 100fps. They wouldn't be very effective, but they would have very low recoil.
As soon as you specify a caliber, B.C. and velocity you are also specifying a specific energy. Transforming the equation "B.C.=m/(d*d*i)" from above yields this:
B.C.*d*d*i = m
And we already know energy (E), mass (m) and velocity(v) are related as follows:
E=1/2*m*v*v
Therefore:
E=1/2*(B.C.*d*d*i)*v*v
As a generally reasonable person I expect you would not take a shot if the range is such that velocity falls below the range where, in your judgement, your bullet will be effective. For purposes of discussion let's assume 1800fps for the 123g .264" Scenar. (Feel free to pick a different number.) It is also safe to assume there is an upper limit to the velocity at which your rifle can launch such a bullet, say 3000fps? If those conditions are true, velocity does matter to you and we have a reasonable working range of velocities at which you would use that bullet. We also have a range of energy values at which you expect the bullet to be effective.
So while you may not think of it in terms of energy, if you specify a bullet by diameter and B.C. and there is in fact a minimum velocity below which you would not take a shot, there is also an easily defined minimum energy level at which you deem that bullet's performance to be unreliable.
As I stated early on in this thread, energy is an imperfect tool but a useful one nevertheless. People use it as a rough gauge because energy determines the maximum work (destruction) a bullet can do. The actual work (destruction) a bullet will do depends, as I've repeatedly stated, on a variety of factors including bullet construction and types and amounts of target material encountered.
In any case, it is certainly better than using velocity alone. Or B.C. alone. Or mass alone. Or S.D. alone. Or momentum alone.
I'm not going to bite. It is obvious who has read the physics here, and who understands the equations, which are all theoretical, and who has pulled things out of their ass. Keep posting what bullets at the speed of light behave like.
It is apparent you either haven't read about physics or didn't understand much of what you read.
Keep posting nonsense like "force applied is the definition of work" - I enjoy a good laugh.
Again you duck and dodge. A bullet that shoots flatter because of its B.C. also has less wind drift. But that difference only comes into play at longer ranges - B.C. is pretty irrelevant at close range. As I showed above, B.C is directly tied to a bullet's mass. Velocity is important to you else you could reduce recoil by shooting all your bullets at 100fps. They wouldn't be very effective, but they would have very low recoil.
Damn you're dense. I gave you a straight-up honest answer to your question on how I choose my bullets. You just can't understand it because you don't have the ability to understand anything but your own narrow perspective. For the third time, high velocity and flat trajectory are not very important to me which is the reason I like cases based on the .308 cartridge. If velocity was important to me, I wouldn't use those cartridges.
Apparently you don't understand the relationship between case capacity and velocity. Look it up, it's in all the latest ballistics tables.
I won't be stopping in for that beer. Apparently there's something in it that makes people stupid when they drink it. And causes people to talk about things like shooting a bullet at 100 fps. Hell,I wouldn't shoot an arrow at 100 fps.
And although you're correct on the formula for BC, it's 100% irrelevant to the topic of why I choose the bullets I shoot, and it's just one more example of a book-related tangent you introduced that unnecessarily complicates the discussion but gives you the opportunity to wax eloquent on meaningless bullsh**. My mistake was in citing practical examples of how bullet manufacturers increase BC without adding mass instead of googling formulas that are irrelevant to the topic. If bullet manufacturers can change the BC without changing the mass (they can) then the two are not "inextricably linked." Apropos of nothing and totally irrelevant to how and why I choose my bullets.
Bullets with higher BC have higher mass but I don't use them because of their higher mass, I use them in spite of it. I don't like recoil, remember? If you don't think recoil and bullet mass are related google the formula for recoil. That should be worth another 10 pages.
This thread has become laughable, and embarrassing.
Again you duck and dodge. A bullet that shoots flatter because of its B.C. also has less wind drift. But that difference only comes into play at longer ranges - B.C. is pretty irrelevant at close range. As I showed above, B.C is directly tied to a bullet's mass. Velocity is important to you else you could reduce recoil by shooting all your bullets at 100fps. They wouldn't be very effective, but they would have very low recoil.
Damn you're dense. I gave you a straight-up honest answer to your question on how I choose my bullets. You just can't understand it because you don't have the ability to understand anything but your own narrow perspective. For the third time, high velocity and flat trajectory are not very important to me which is the reason I like cases based on the .308 cartridge. If velocity was important to me, I wouldn't use those cartridges.
...
If velocity was not important to you, you would have no objections to shooting bullets at 100fps.
The fact is that velocity DOES matter to you as there are velocities that are too low for you to consider useful - by your own admission.
Tomorrow my wife and I are going fishing for a few days. When I fling a bait toward the weed line I won't know or care what energy value I need to impart to the bait to get it to just the right spot. But I will be calculating how to give it just the right fling to get it exactly where I want it. In other words, I'll be calculating and doing my best to give it just the right amount of velocity and direction and (because it has mass) energy it needs to get there, even though my brain won't be using a B.C. or ft-lbs or even fps in the calculations - none of which I will know.
When you talk about specific velocity and B.C. and caliber you are also defining a specific amount of energy. You may not and apparently don't think about it in terms of ft-lbs any more than I will for the baits. I get that. But you are, as I will be, defining an environment with a very specific energy or range. Define a minimum acceptable velocity for a specific bullet and you also define the minimum acceptable energy, just from another perspective.
If 100fps is too low (and I agree) for your 123g Scenar then, then 3 ft-lbs is also too low. If 500fps is too low, so is 68 ft-lbs. If 1000fps is too low, so is 273 ft-lbs. If 2000fps is the minimum velocity at which you think the Scenar would perform as desired, you just defined 1093fpe as the minimum acceptable energy level for your purposes. And so on. Pick a minimum velocity (and you've already rejected 100fps) and you also pick a minimum energy.
If velocity was not important to you, you would have no objections to shooting bullets at 100fps.
Sorry, I should've known to qualify what I said about velocity by adding "within the realm of common sense."
Since you normally operate "outside the realm" as it were.
But please, post up some photos of groups you've shot at 100 fps muzzle velocity. I'm fascinated by the possibilities.
If velocity was not important to you, you would have no objections to shooting bullets at 100fps.
Sorry, I should've known to qualify what I said about velocity by adding "within the realm of common sense."
Since you normally operate "outside the realm" as it were.
But please, post up some photos of groups you've shot at 100 fps muzzle velocity. I'm fascinated by the possibilities.
smokepole,
Please, let this guy have the last word so this thread can die.
If velocity was not important to you, you would have no objections to shooting bullets at 100fps.
Sorry, I should've known to qualify what I said about velocity by adding "within the realm of common sense."
Since you normally operate "outside the realm" as it were.
But please, post up some photos of groups you've shot at 100 fps muzzle velocity. I'm fascinated by the possibilities.
smokepole,
Please, let this guy have the last word so this thread can die.
Smoke, when Ringman is the voice of reason on a thread...... The end is near!!!
The end was actually about 24 pages ago.........
Did you know that the .30-06 is obsolete?
The end was actually about 24 pages ago.........
Did you know that the .30-06 is obsolete?
Damn, and my Dad is bringing one up for his hunt... Can I kill anything with the 7x57 I'm gonna use, or is it just way too obsolete?
If velocity was not important to you, you would have no objections to shooting bullets at 100fps.
Sorry, I should've known to qualify what I said about velocity by adding "within the realm of common sense."
Since you normally operate "outside the realm" as it were.
But please, post up some photos of groups you've shot at 100 fps muzzle velocity. I'm fascinated by the possibilities.
smokepole,
Please, let this guy have the last word so this thread can die.
Smoke, when Ringman is the voice of reason on a thread...... The end is near!!!
Ain't that the truth.
If velocity was not important to you, you would have no objections to shooting bullets at 100fps.
Sorry, I should've known to qualify what I said about velocity by adding "within the realm of common sense."
Since you normally operate "outside the realm" as it were.
But please, post up some photos of groups you've shot at 100 fps muzzle velocity. I'm fascinated by the possibilities.
smokepole,
Please, let this guy have the last word so this thread can die.
Smoke, when Ringman is the voice of reason on a thread...... The end is near!!!
Ain't that the truth.
What?? Ringman is always the voice of reason. You guys just aren't paying attention.
Smokepole,
I've gone round and round with Coyote Hunter.
There's no getting through.
I prefer to save bandwidth and just snipe at him on a thread every now and then. Much more satisfying.
If velocity was not important to you, you would have no objections to shooting bullets at 100fps.
Sorry, I should've known to qualify what I said about velocity by adding "within the realm of common sense."
Since you normally operate "outside the realm" as it were.
But please, post up some photos of groups you've shot at 100 fps muzzle velocity. I'm fascinated by the possibilities.
What is the "realm of common sense" velocities for a .264" 123g Scenar?
All the energy in the world won't stop Coyote Hunter from gut shooting and not recovering elk.
Argumentum ad absurdum just met his match...
Argumentum ad absurdum just met his match...
Maybe so.
Some people cannot understand the truths that such a method reveals, others, apparently, simply and willfully refuse to do so.
In any case, reduction to the absurd is a perfectly valid way of discovering and demonstrating limits. Not only is it a valid method, it is indispensable for both logical and mathematical purposes. Entire fields of math would be impossible with out it.
Whether someone lacks the metal capacity to understand or willfully refuses, the truths revealed are still truths.
Gone fishing, where I'll be trying for the weed line.
Smokepole,
I've gone round and round with Coyote Hunter.
There's no getting through.
I'm trying desperately to get through to him.
A mind is such a terrible thing to waste.
Gotta hand it to 'em
Those two are persistent!
Those two are persistent!
True, but each in our own way.
I'm as persistent as a gentle spring rain, and Coyote Hunter is as persistent as hemorrhoids.
Argumentum ad absurdum just met his match...
Maybe so.
Some people cannot understand the truths that such a method reveals, others, apparently, simply and willfully refuse to do so.
In any case, reduction to the absurd is a perfectly valid way of discovering and demonstrating limits. Not only is it a valid method, it is indispensable for both logical and mathematical purposes. Entire fields of math would be impossible with out it.
Whether someone lacks the metal capacity to understand or willfully refuses, the truths revealed are still truths.
Gone fishing, where I'll be trying for the weed line.
You are the one failing to understand... just saying...
You can lead a fool to water, but you can't make him think...
Argumentum ad absurdum just met his match...
Maybe so.
Some people cannot understand the truths that such a method reveals, others, apparently, simply and willfully refuse to do so.
In any case, reduction to the absurd is a perfectly valid way of discovering and demonstrating limits. Not only is it a valid method, it is indispensable for both logical and mathematical purposes. Entire fields of math would be impossible with out it.
Whether someone lacks the metal capacity to understand or willfully refuses, the truths revealed are still truths.
Gone fishing, where I'll be trying for the weed line.
You are the one failing to understand... just saying...
You can lead a fool to water, but you can't make him think...
Show me where I'm wrong.
I doubt smokinrope will provide a "realm of common sense" velocities for a .264" 123g Scenar - or any other particular bullet - because the moment he does he has defines the "realm of common sense" energies.
I doubt smokinrope will provide a "realm of common sense" velocities for a .264" 123g Scenar - or any other particular bullet - because the moment he does he has defines the "realm of common sense" energies.
Here's my answer, I think you'll like it.
The fact that you have to ask the question "what are common-sense velocities" is telling. Because asking that question is the same as asking about the menu prices in a fine French restaurant.
If you have to ask the question, you have no business going there.
Now let me ask you a couple of questions. Have you ever shot a bullet at 100 fps, or heard of anyone else who has? Does shooting a bullet at 100 fps make sense to you? Do you know of any bullet manufacturers that design centerfire bullets to perform properly at 100 fps and below?
Thanks!!
duck and dodge. you didn't answer the question.
I want to know what you think not what I think.
from my cell phone.
Duck and dodge indeed. Why don't you answer my questions for a change. Then I'll answer yours.
Argumentum ad absurdum just met his match...
Maybe so.
Some people cannot understand the truths that such a method reveals, others, apparently, simply and willfully refuse to do so.
In any case, reduction to the absurd is a perfectly valid way of discovering and demonstrating limits. Not only is it a valid method, it is indispensable for both logical and mathematical purposes. Entire fields of math would be impossible with out it.
Whether someone lacks the metal capacity to understand or willfully refuses, the truths revealed are still truths.
Gone fishing, where I'll be trying for the weed line.
You are the one failing to understand... just saying...
You can lead a fool to water, but you can't make him think...
Show me where I'm wrong.
I doubt smokinrope will provide a "realm of common sense" velocities for a .264" 123g Scenar - or any other particular bullet - because the moment he does he has defines the "realm of common sense" energies.
Everybody has tried and you are refusing to listen... the strawman runs strong in you...
Duck and dodge indeed. Why don't you answer my questions for a change. Then I'll answer yours.
What is it you want to know?
Now let me ask you a couple of questions. Have you ever shot a bullet at 100 fps, or heard of anyone else who has? Does shooting a bullet at 100 fps make sense to you? Do you know of any bullet manufacturers that design centerfire bullets to perform properly at 100 fps and below?
Thanks!!
But I repeat myself.....
[quote=Coyote_Hunter]
Now let me ask you a couple of questions. Have you ever shot a bullet at 100 fps, or heard of anyone else who has? Does shooting a bullet at 100 fps make sense to you? Do you know of any bullet manufacturers that design centerfire bullets to perform properly at 100 fps and below?
Thanks!!
But I repeat myself.....
Have I ever shot a bullet at 100fps or heard of someone who has? No. But that only helps validate the point I was making by referencing 100fps. Nobody does it because velocity is an important factor (along with mass and bullet construction) in determining how the bullet will perform. Which is exactly the point I was making.
Shooting bullets at 100fps might be adequate for taking mice. For elk I use a rule of thumb of 1500fpe. It would take a 10-pound bullet at 100fps to generate 1500fpe. Not very practical and range would suck.
Do any manufacturers design centerfire bullets to "perform properly" at 100fps? One could argue the point since solids for DG and hardcast are designed not to expand or to do so minimally. They would perform pretty much that way if shot at 100fps, too.
When selecting big game bullets I look at a variety of factors:
1. For weight I tend to lean toward mid-range bullets for any given caliber. "Tend" being the keyword.
2. For velocity I look at the performance range of the bullet. For expanding lead-core bullets I tend to use 1800fps as the minimum impact velocity. For monos I tend to prefer more, about 2000fps. Again, "tend" and "prefer" are the key words. For most bullets I shoot, 1800fps retained much further downrange than I'm willing to shoot. Some start out much slower than 1800fps.
3. B.C. is important to me only because higher values helps the bullet retain velocity - and therefore energy - downrange. But it is the downrange energy that is important to me, not the B.C. a millisecond before impact.
4. Bullet construction is much more important to me than specific B.C. or velocity or energy minimums. I prefer bullets that will expand reliably but in a controlled and limited manner over as wide a velocity range as possible. North Fork SS bullets are great at that although B.C. suffers. Other favorites in terms of my use are Barnes TTSX, Nosler AccuBond, Speer Grand Slam, Swift A-Frame and Swift Scirocco II - pretty much in that order.
You didn't answer the question "does shooting a bullet at 100 fps make sense to you?"
That's the answer I'm waiting to hear.
You didn't answer the question "does shooting a bullet at 100 fps make sense to you?"
That's the answer I'm waiting to hear.
"Shooting bullets at 100fps might be adequate for taking mice. For elk I use a rule of thumb of 1500fpe. It would take a 10-pound bullet at 100fps to generate 1500fpe. Not very practical and range would suck."
But I'm repeating myself...
If you need a single monosyllabic answer to understand the answer, it would be "No". But using 100fps as I did to prove a point is perfectly valid. If energy doesn't matter then velocity doesn't matter either.
LOL, "again you duck and dodge." This is the big game forum, who said anything about shooting mice?
For big game, shooting a bullet at 100 fps makes no sense. As you tried hard not to admit above.
So when you asked me whether I'd shoot a bullet at 100 fps, you were asking me whether I'd do something that makes no sense to you.
Does that make sense to you?
Never mind, stupid question. Of course it makes sense to you.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Quoted for posterity:
You didn't answer the question "does shooting a bullet at 100 fps make sense to you?"
That's the answer I'm waiting to hear.
"Shooting bullets at 100fps might be adequate for taking mice. For elk I use a rule of thumb of 1500fpe. It would take a 10-pound bullet at 100fps to generate 1500fpe. Not very practical and range would suck."
But I'm repeating myself...
If you need a single monosyllabic answer to understand the answer, it would be "No". But using 100fps as I did to prove a point is perfectly valid. If energy doesn't matter then velocity doesn't matter either.
The short and long of it is B.C. never killed anything, velocity never killed anything, mass never killed anything and momentum never killed anything.
Destruction of vital function is what kills and that requires energy - energy that is transferred from the bullet to the target.
Many moons ago I bought a drilling at a gun show and the previous owner had a long series of notes about every shot he had taken with it.
Included were pages of scrawled calculations... well, lists of muzzle energy combinations between the rifle with various bullets (8x57JR) and the two 16 gauge barrels, (different shot sizes versus slugs versus buck shot, etc) as well as other calculations for the use of the .22lr insert for a shotgun barrel!
I just realized I might have bought Coyote Hunter's drilling!
SItka deer is right, the strawman runs strong in you. No surprise there, it's all you've got.
The short and long of it is B.C. never killed anything, velocity never killed anything, mass never killed anything and momentum never killed anything.
Destruction of vital function is what kills and that requires energy - energy that is transferred from the bullet to the target.
No one said BC or any of those ever killed anything. BC was down the list of my preferences for bullets.
But it's interesting that you left accuracy and shot placement off your list and tout "energy" as the one thing that matters. Because you can have all the energy you want but if you shoot an elk in the ass you won't likely recover it. Which is the objective of everything else that goes into it. Shot placement trumps energy but it's nowhere on your list. No surprise there either.
And it's telling that you believe the most important thing about BC is that it helps retain energy. Ask any knowledgeable shooter why BC is important and that's not the answer you'll get.
No one said BC or any of those ever killed anything. BC was down the list of my preferences for bullets.
But it's interesting that you left accuracy and shot placement off your list and tout "energy" as the one thing that matters. Because you can have all the energy you want but if you shoot an elk in the ass you won't likely recover it. Which is the objective of everything else that goes into it. Shot placement trumps energy but it's nowhere on your list. No surprise there either.
And it's telling that you believe the most important thing about BC is that it helps retain energy. Ask any knowledgeable shooter why BC is important and that's not the answer you'll get.
I'v never said "the one thing that matters". What I've said repeatedly is that destruction of vital function is what kills, that such destruction requires energy and that a bullet's energy determines the maximum amount of work (destruction) that it can do.
For a bullet to destroy vital function obviously requires adequate placement, so I have not left accuracy out. If vital function to be destroyed, accuracy must be adequate.
Higher B.C. values help bullets shoot flatter because they help the bullets retain more velocity and therefore energy. Reduced wind drift is a result of the higher retained velocity and energy. For most of my hunting I've used relatively low B.C. bullets and they have worked very well because they retained adequate energy in spite of their relatively low B.C. value. B.C. alone never killed anything. If it did, a high B.C. bullet in your pocket would be as effective killing game as one with 1500fpe.
Does using a high BC bullet in your pocket make sense to you?
Pocket pool aside, I mean.
Does using a high BC bullet in your pocket make sense to you?
Pocket pool aside, I mean.
Just making the point that high B.C. values don't kill anything. If they did a high B.C. bullet in your pocket would be deadly.
High B.C. values have never been that important to me because lower B.C. bullets have worked just fine at the ranges I'm willing to shoot. I'm more interested in the totality of the solution than a single factor thereof. Adequate B.C., velocity, mass and bullet construction, not the highest, fastest, heaviest or even the "best" construction.
I'm more interested in the totality of the solution than a single factor thereof. Adequate B.C., velocity, mass and bullet construction, not the highest, fastest, heaviest or even the "best" construction.
Well that's something we can agree on. And the more I use them and see people like Scenarshooter and others who kill stuff for a living using "target bullets" successfully and in high volume, the less important I think bullet construction is. For North American ungulates anyway.
That's it! I am selling all my guns and buying calculators! Numbers kill!
That's it! I am selling all my guns and buying calculators! Numbers kill!
Let us know how that works out for you.
Think I'll stick to my firearms. They're pretty efficient at delivering the necessary energy to the right places.