Drop the 1,500 ft.lbs myth

[bmart2622]

That’s a pretty significant relation

Yep, dependent on velocity and mass

 

[mattg65]

Look up the formula for each and see which one relies on the other

The rely on each other. Are you trying to argue they are independent and you can change the velocity without changing the energy?

 

[bmart2622]

The rely on each other. Are you trying to argue they are independent and you can change the velocity without changing the energy?

Nope but Im saying that it takes velocity to produce energy and energy is a by product of velocity. Velocity and mass are the deciding factors. Case in point, bullets have a minimum velocity for expansion, not a minimum ft/lbs

 

[mattg65]

Yep, dependent on velocity and mass

Nope but Im saying that it takes velocity to produce energy and energy is a by product of velocity. Velocity and mass are the deciding factors. Case in point, bullets have a minimum velocity for expansion, not a minimum ft/lbs

I don’t disagree with most of that. What I’m saying is that by saying the bullet has a minimum velocity for expansion, you are also saying it has a minimum energy for expansion.
My point is that both values are important.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

Lets put it this way.
Hornady recommends 1600fps minimum across the ELD-X line. At that minimum, their largest 270gr bullet has 1535fpe and the smallest in the line at 80gr has 455fpe remaining. They are both designed to expand, penetrate, and disrupt tissue. Why would you focus on fpe when velocity is the standard for bullet performance?

 

[bmart2622]

I don’t disagree with most of that. What I’m saying is that by saying the bullet has a minimum velocity for expansion, you are also saying it has a minimum energy for expansion.
My point is that both values are important.

How much energy does that bullet have when its sitting unfired in the chamber of your rifle?

 

[mattg65]

How much energy does that bullet have when its sitting unfired in the chamber of your rifle?

None, but I don’t see your point.

 

[bmart2622]

None, but I don’t see your point.

Energy is nonexistent without velocity!! Energy is dependent on velocity!!! Without velocity there is no energy!!! So.....velocity is more important!!!

 

[mattg65]

Lets put it this way.
Hornady recommends 1600fps minimum across the ELD-X line. At that minimum, their largest 270gr bullet has 1535fpe and the smallest in the line at 80gr has 455fpe remaining. They are both designed to expand, penetrate, and disrupt tissue. Why would you focus on fpe when velocity is the standard for bullet performance?

I’m not saying energy is easier to look at than velocity.

 

[mattg65]

Energy is nonexistent without velocity!! Energy is dependent on velocity!!! Without velocity there is no energy!!! So.....velocity is more important!!!

Velocity is non existent without energy. This is outside of what my point was, but if you want to start to talk that far back in the process, where does the velocity of the bullet come from?

 

[solarshooter]

Is it possible that for a given bullet construction and impact velocity, greater mass and energy give you more "tolerance for error"? Bigger wound cavities, more fragments, etc etc. I recall from the .223 thread that bigger cartridges are considered overkill when used with good bullets. So this must imply they do more damage, right? And therefore if the shot is less than ideal, they should grant a higher chance of a lethal hit/damage?

 

[bmart2622]

Show me the formula for velocity!!! It doesn't include energy!!!

 

[JohnJohnson]

I’m not saying energy is easier to look at than velocity.

It seems like you're being pedantic for no other reason than scoring an internet win on boring technicalities while completely missing the practical point of the discussion. It is not practical to care about energy in any scenario at all when it comes to terminal performance.

 

[mattg65]

Show me the formula for velocity!!! It doesn't include energy!!!

Ok show us the formula

 

[bmart2622]

Ok show us the formula

No no, you misread my post!!! YOU show the formula!!! I already know it doesn't include energy, you are the one that needs the education so do a little research

 

[5811]

No no, you misread my post!!! YOU show the formula!!! I already know it doesn't include energy, you are the one that needs the education so do a little research

So if KE=1/2*m*v^2, then

V= (2*KE/m)^(1/2)

That one includes energy!




I'll see myself out.

 

[mattg65]

It seems like you're being pedantic for no other reason than scoring an internet win on boring technicalities while completely missing the practical point of the discussion.

No no, you misread my post!!! YOU show the formula!!! I already know it doesn't include energy, you are the one that needs the education so do a little research

The formula for calculating energy is irrelevant to this discussion as how you calculate an objects velocity doesn’t tell you how it got to that velocity.
You can’t get velocity, whatever that velocity is or how it’s calculated without energy being expended. You also can’t have a projectile moving at any velocity without it also possessing energy. That was the whole point of my original comment.

 

[bmart2622]

Yeah, energy produced from velocity

 

[bmart2622]

Wheres the formula???

 

[TaperPin]

Isn’t the goal to take deliberate and ethical shots? Or are you more of a “magazine capacity over ballistics” kinda guy?

I think understanding the basics of hitting moving targets and knowing what one’s limits are, makes the shot deliberate and ethical. Claiming to never shoot at an animal if it’s moving all, yet also planning for a follow up shot is planning for shooting at a moving animal. No?