Does Energy have the potential to affect terminal performance?

[Gorp2007]

This also falls in the arguments not being made section. we all know that bullet construction plays a large role in what type of work is being performed and how quickly it is performed.

The animal is dead arguments also fall under arguments that are not being made as well. By your logic a sharp stick would produce drastically less meat damage and still get the job done.

So far, everyone who has bothered to respond to you has either been ignored or told that they're answering the wrong questions. If everyone is fundamentally misunderstanding your argument, then the issue may be that you are doing a poor job of actually framing, supporting, and defending that argument. Good luck with your "lively debate," though.

 

[Marshfly]

In my head it makes more sense...

Have you ever stopped to think that your assumptions are simply incorrect? That energy is a meaningless calculation when discussing the job that a bullet is designed to do?

You can want it to matter all you want but that doesn't make it matter.

 

[Macintosh]

Energy is potential for work

This is the problem^^, because it assumes the mechanism for damaging the target is a relative constant. That’s why this conversation is pointless without squarely addressing the info that you are trying to avoid including in the conversation (“arguments not being made”).

*Arrows perform by cutting. Assuming an extremely sharp broadhead energy is irrelevant. Not saying this to be analogous to bullets, but to illustrate the idea of a different mechanism of damaging tissue that isnt dependent on energy once penetration has been achieved.

*Traditional mushrooming bullets perform by creating a temporary stretch cavity around a permanent channel of damage.

*Frangible bullets add to that ^ by creating small fragments that cut muscle fibers while under tension at the perimeter of the temporary stretch cavity, amplifying the size of the permanent wound channel.

*Non-expanding bullets pencil through tissue creating small wounds regardless of potential energy.

How is mass of bullet x velocity (=“energy”) at-all predictive of terminal performance, even in a relative sense, absent any information on the mechanisms of damage?

 

[10E]

Energy is only useless if you shoot a low energy round. However, there are multiple variables. Energy is only one of them. I think most people who consider energy are simply using what’s worked for them, but they probably used the same type bullet in different calibers. Change the bullet type/range, and different things matter more.

I agree

 

[Wrench]

I think you just reinforced my points. Did you actually read my post? I said it is not constant and it’s more of a ratio/ balance. Tip the scale too much in favor of velocity without balancing it with increased mass and you will reach the point of diminishing returns.

Mass isn't the x factor. Copper hardness and thickness is and the meplat plays a huge component as well.

 

[Afhunter1]

I find this pertinent to this thread….

If you run into an —-hole in the morning, you ran into an —-hole. If you run into —-holes all day, you're the —-hole.

But what really matters is with how much energy you ran into the —-hole with.

 

[Ryan Avery]

GD it... Some days I just want to turn this forum off...

 

[xsn10s]

It will KEEL

 

[Gorp2007]

GD it... Some days I just want to turn this forum off...

How much energy does it take to turn off a forum? And does using more energy result in improved forum termination?

 

[Drenalin]

Hey man if your minds not willing or open enough to explore it maybe this isn’t the thread for you.

Straight question - is your mind willing or open enough to accept that maybe whatever vaguely preconceived notion you have of energy as a usable metric in wounding could be wrong? That's a rhetorical question; you've already answered it, emphatically.

Call me an idiot and go about your life following whatever the current rokslide forum scientist are writing today.

The same "rokslide forum scientists" you've chosen to engage with on the topic by creating this thread? If this is your attitude toward posters on this site, what - exactly - are you trying to accomplish in this "discussion"?

So quick to discredit past observations and blindly accept the new ones.

Can you further define the past observations that shape your own thoughts on matter? I'm being genuine here, you obviously think assigning a numerical value to energy must matter in wounding, can you at all explain why?

Are you going to claim that energy had no effect on killing a game animal with a center fire rifle? Just because it is not very well understood doesn’t mean that it is worthless.

The claim is that energy transfer doesn't describe terminal ballistics. Definitionally, the opposite is true.

 

[BBob]

GD it... Some days I just want to turn this forum off...

Maybe you should give the kids a time out now and then. After the 10 minute tantrum over not not having access subsides mby we’ll appreciate having it a bit more

 

[svivian]

 

[DJL2]

I refrained from posting this in your other series of questions - here‘s a hot take:
- energy transfer is everything, energy is nothing

In the sense of literal meaning, kinetic energy is what the bullet uses to do work. However, you can’t have a discussion about wounding without considering bullet mass, construction, impact velocity and so on.

Energy has broadly been considered a secondary factor for a LONG time. Hunters using a rule of thumb saying “x amount is what you need” have already implicitly acknowledged that energy is waaay down the list of things that matter so long as you have a sufficient amount thereof.

Long story longer, the amount of energy available is rarely the LIMFAC (if ever) for a centerfire rifle cartridge. Impact velocity, mass, and bullet construction, with consideration for the game and the shot, might be a better place to focus your inquiry.

 

[JohnJohnson]

This whole thing (plus your replies to people here) feels like you got annoyed at the replies to another thread and decided to show them by creating a philosophical conversation that's completely divorced from reality. Your exclusion points essentially bar every piece of useful context when shooting an animal with a bullet.

 

[Xlr8n]

"The effort people expend trying to not be wrong often makes the first wrong that much more transparent."

-Sum Ting Wong

 

[clperry]

I agree 100% my point would be if I increase the the mass to match this hypothetical balance between mass and velocity (or we could say bullet to weight and velocity window) would it not increase the potential for greater terminal performance?

Yes it would. No one has said it wouldn’t. It’s actually been talked about a whole lot in the other thread with picture evidence of wounding in animals. Your idea isn’t novel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Axlrod]

@10E what type of hunting do you do the most and how long have you been doing it? What have you seen succeed vs fail in your cartridge and bullet choices?

@10E this is your thread. Please answer WeiserBucks. It will provide a frame of reference. Because right now it seems like you excel at debate as well as prolifically typing the same themes over and over.

 

[10E]

Have you ever stopped to think that your assumptions are simply incorrect? That energy is a meaningless calculation when discussing the job that a bullet is designed to do?

You can want it to matter all you want but that doesn't make it matter.

So far, everyone who has bothered to respond to you has either been ignored or told that they're answering the wrong questions. If everyone is fundamentally misunderstanding your argument, then the issue may be that you are doing a poor job of actually framing, supporting, and defending that argument. Good luck with your "lively debate," though.

Maybe you should give the kids a time out now and then. After the 10 minute tantrum over not not having access mby we’ll appreciate having it a bit more

Ok so if I’m understanding the you guys correctly. The simple answer to the title of this thread is…


NO! (A very emphatic one at that ) Energy has no potential to affect terminal performance. It is Useless.

Ok it’s settled.

 

[BBob]

Ok it’s settled.

Perfect, end of thread/discussion, shut it down now

 

[Reburn]

@fngTony

Op requested thread be locked and his profile deleted.
His final words were "suck it"