I would assume you meant to say If bigger IS BETTER...? If not... why has the FBI went down in caliber? They have gone bigger but came back down. But Why? because in the main duty calibers 9, 40, and 45. There is enough data to show that their is not enough of a statistical difference in wound channels/energy to balance out round count, controllability/ease of shooting, cost etc.
I'm not arguing against the conservation of energy. I'm just simply exploring why we would see recovered projectiles if there is leftover energy after expansion/fragmentation. It is obviously transferred to something in the system, it would be interesting to know the amount lost to heat and sound.
Funnily enough, we may as well have them with some of the experience here, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we actually do, some of the guys around here are pretty mysterious.
Understanding my bullet and the velocity needed for the bullet to perform as needed is all the info I need. If you want to throw in the E variable, for your parameters, all good. I don't find it helpful. A good academic discussion for physics class, perhaps.
I actually cant tell if you are agreeing with me or not. Could you clarify?
Ok, but how do gel tests account for a structure like the rib cage working against the tissue expansion. This is what you're not getting. The gel block has complete freedom to expand as it needs to in order to absorb the energy. The human torso does not. It's kind of like letting the same power firecracker go off in an open hand vs a closed hand. Ones gonna give you a slight burn, the other is going to require a prosthetic.
It is not designed to be a perfect simulation, its designed to be a pretty good approximation of human muscle tissue. in order to compare different tests and use as data it has to be uniform. Fbi testing also utilizes different barriers in front of the gel. So for how it is used its more important that it is uniform and you can make reliable predictions and comparisons from it, than it is that it is a perfect reproduction of the human body.
I might be mistaken but I believe that USSOCM has adopted the 6.5 Creed for snipers. I believe it had to do with improved accuracy.
Probably the same reason really long range shooters use them. Better BC and more powder so they can go further before going too slow for the bullet to work. I don’t think modern sniper rifles are ultralight 8 lb rifles either.
I’ll let me help you thenThis is a long one, but I will be unwatching after this. There’s nothing of value coming out of this thread any longer.
Idk where you were taught to interpret studies as blanket statements of fact. These in particular wreak of a Google search with confirmation bias. They are highly isolated in their applicability to hunting due to the number of variables that must be controlled. There are some points that must said:
1) peer review is debated among academics. Many argue it’s relevance because it’s a form of gatekeeping. Those who review can be biased, and uneducated in the field, and can have final judgement over an obscure topic. There have also been many hypothesis postulated that are not peer reviewed, but have validity, and are shot down due to politics or personal reasons. This is especially true in physics. Where one persons work could perhaps undermine and disprove another’s entire life’s work which happens to be the status quo of the time. This forms a conflict of interest. All peer reviewed means, is it was evaluated by peers. You know nothing of who those peers are or if there is a conflict of interest. Don’t let “educated” do the thinking for you. Galileo would not have been peer reviewed and went to his death for contradicting his peers and their nonsense. It’s the entire reason studies are structured as they are. You can recreate the experiment yourself and don’t need it to be interpreted by others.
2) theory vs hypothesis. Most people get this wrong:
Hypothesis- A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
Theory- A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Hypothesis come first which postulate an idea. It can become a theory if the results can be readily reproduced predictably. A larger body of mass of equal velocity will have more energy than a smaller one under the same conditions. That is a theory.
What it does to living tissue is a hypothesis. If you can’t give me exact requirements of bullet size, velocity, shot placement, end etc, and I can’t recreate it predictably, it’s a hypothesis… I will concede this immediately, if you can tell me which bullet, at what velocity, in what caliber will give me an incapacitating hydrostatic shock on a real living thing EVERY SINGLE TIME… if you can’t, it is not a proven theory. It’s a hypothesis that may one day be proved to be correct, when more variables are controlled. If it’s only predictably under a very narrow subset of criteria when impacting a living thing, that is the opposite of granting more forgiveness. However it is a variable to consider if it interests you… As one of my old science teachers use to say: “I’m not saying you’re wrong, but you are not right.”
3) you are putting far too much emphasis on who is and is not a scientist. Everyone is a scientist. Children are the biggest scientists of all. Do you try to find predictable patterns in your life? Great, you’re a scientist. Some of the greatest “scientists” have no academic background. If you want your hypothesis of “energy advantage on living organisms under field conditions” to be correct, do the scientific thing and isolate/verify these variables yourself, and prove it. There are no holyier than thou ordained scientists. That’s a fallacy.
3) bigger is better??? In a vacuum maybe. If every shot is perfect as is as it is intentionally meant to be in your studies. What about recoil? What if I can get two 6mm 108s on target faster than one 180g 762? That’s 216g vs 180. More energy. Bigger is better right?… well yes, but it proved a smaller rifle was better at putting more energy on target in a shorter amount of time.
That’s not even touching on every nuance of the person shooting it and all of their flaws and inadequacies. I have a much better chance of killing an elephant with a 22 vs a 5 year old with a 338 win mag… In a vacuum of all other variables, bigger IS better. That is in fact what your studies are attempting to prove. Blatantly controlling all other variables… not a representation of life on Earth btw.
4) To the original question… 30s were never some superior do-all. Roughly the entire male population of the US was conscripted during ww2, and when they came back they naturally chose the same round they were issued and drilled with. It inspired confidence and was cheap and readily available. They promptly had kids which were the largest generation of Americans who were then also raised on 30s… they’re not magical or inherently more versatile as a do all. Just like 6.5s and 7s in Europe, or 303s in NZ or Canada, they were cheap and convenient, and to a generation that lived through the depression, cheap and convenient was highly favored.
Ironically that same group that came back that had the “do-all” figured out, would balk at how much money is put into obscure and expensive wonder magnums for something like as simple as hunting. Some people really like pushing the envelope, and it’s ok to like things. However, there is a thing called efficiency. The animal kingdom rewards the species that can accomplish its niche with the least amount of effort (economy). So again, no, even from a predatory standpoint. Bigger is not better. Enough to get the job done is the basis of life on earth… that’s a theory.
Quite frankly, I think you’re here to argue, seeing as how something like 4 other threads were also started by you, all positing a similar line of questioning that could be navigated to the same argument. You then posted the exact same study’s that were conveniently ready and waiting to be dragged into the discussion. I think your mind has been made up from the beginning and you are not interested in discussion. You desperately what your line of thinking to be fact.
I say this all with constructive criticism. Rather than see the same devolved argument take place, I would be far more interested if you posted an If-then hypothesis along with your controls and attempted to prove your argument with data. That would be very interesting and I would love to read it and continue to that discussion.
BTW you would enjoy Nathan Fosters work. Lots of field experimentation with live animals. In don’t agree with all of his conclusions but I very much enjoy reading is work. He too is a proponent of hydrostatic shock.
“Period… END” sorry I couldn’t resist
