Ever hear of the quote "When the person resorts to name calling, that person has lost the argument"
Not sure this is directed at me since I didn't resort to "name calling" but if your skin is that thin....
Yes, I do realize that I am citing two different kinds of
energy transfer studies to proved my first principle, energy exists and has an affect on killing, the form it takes is irrelevant, but thanks for pointing out what is obvious.
Energy transfer is what everyone else has been saying , thank you for acknowledging that the transfer of energy is more important than the amount of energy. Welcome to the other side.
In your own words - "You do realize" that Energy is always evolving because it can change form and transfer between objects, even though the total amount of energy in the universe is constant. This is the first law of thermodynamics regardless of round type or action upon impact. Again why I used to different studies.
Your inaccurate thought has been gone over multiple times in this thread. Two objects made of similar materials of different weight moving at the exact same speed will carry different amounts of energy at impact. The larger object will make a larger hole and transfer more energy. So you wanna speed up the 45 to the same speed as the 223, be my guest and you will get what is equivalent to an african dangerous game rifle which uses both a hole and a MASSIVE energy transfer to kill. One reason why we don't use a 223 to kill dangerous game.
Now to talk about fragmenting bullets specifically, the energy transfer happens but with a different transfer mechanism which I like. Berger states "Our hunting bullets are designed to penetrate a few inches into the vitals and begin to expand and create a massive wound cavity" Which many here say doesnt matter, which is very narrow minded when it comes from Litz directly. Berger further states "This delivers maximum organ/tissue damage and extreme hydrostatic shock aiding in and ethical kill" - Continuing to prove my point and outlining the flaw in yours.
Take a look and collect your thoughts, perhaps try again afterward.
I love mustard!
My thoughts are still quite collected but thank your for your concern. I am not eating pudding in the oval office.
At no point has ANYONE said energy is not needed or energy doesn't matter. Many however have said the energy figure on the box is irrelevant, which I agree with. And at no point did I tell you that I don't understand basic laws of energy conservation/conversion. You, almost solely, do not seem to get your own arguments and really seem to be “digging your feet in” so to speak. You have promoted the bigger is better, energy is king mentality but then quote Litz/Berger who are all about BC and fragmentation not raw energy. In fact, many people don’t like Berger bullets for how explosive they are without enough energy to pass through while others love them for the ability to drop down a caliber or two (smaller is better) and be just as effective. Perhaps you reference Litz/Berger as a sign to the rest of us that you are finally accepting the better/small bullet camp or at least bi-curious?
I don't think there is a single person in this thread that would disagree with "Two objects made of similar materials of different weight moving at the exact same speed will carry different amounts of energy at impact.". The entire discussion is not and has not been about momentum or mere "energy existing", it has been about "enough energy for the task" and better bullets transferring more potential energy to the wound. You keep going on about same side bullets yet reference fragmenting bullets. The very nature of expanding projectiles makes them behave like larger projectiles upon impact. you seem to struggle with this modern advancement but if you are a civil war reenactor, by all means stick with old tech.
Hunting bullets are NOT all about penetration or momentum just like race cars are not all about speed. If this were the case we would all be "hunting" with 10,000fps, 1000gr, .10cal depleted uranium projectiles. We have all, including some of your conflicting arguments, been advocating for a combination of features and what is necessary for the task of efficiently murdering living creatures. The argument you are now making is the very argument you have been fighting against. Smaller bullets with better design, behave like larger bullets upon impact thus the requirement for larger cartridges/calibers is no longer necessary. Modern bullet design negates the need for the excessive energy available in large cartridges with inferior bullets and when those same excessive cartridges are loaded with modern projectiles we suffer more wonton waste.
Energy is only a starting ingredient in this combination of features. A few commenters have already mentioned or alluded to parameters of what is needed for murdering food vs murdering people. The FBI has quite clearly stated what they choose to set as THEIR standard for murdering human animals effectively and efficiently. Obviously, a nuclear warhead is about the most
effective weapon known to man but not many people would say that is
efficient for home defense just because "bigger is better".
We, as an industry, do not have such established standards for food animals as the FBI does for murdering humans. Also these FBI standards do not necessarily apply to various other forms of life in their different shapes and sizes. FORM has talked about this as have a few others but as a community we do not seem to have a consensus on the effective performance of our murder weapons ie Depth of penetration, minimum and maximum (temp. and/or permanent) wound cavities, etc.
Instead of listing chest dimensions of various lifeforms we wish to unalive and/or eat, people list irrelevant arguments about undisputed ideas instead of addressing actual real world requirements. To me it is utterly ludicrous to start with a weapon (girth, potency, stamina, etc) BEFORE considering the work necessary. This is like grabbing an 18" machete first before looking upon your victim with a grin (or a grimace). This is backwards thinking. That machete is excessive for a peanut butter sandwich and entirely inadequate for taking down a 300ft Sequoia. Picking a particular caliber (insert .30, .22 or whatever is your lucky number) and saying it is better before defining the parameters of the job is just an absolute waste of oxygen.
