Questions about the irrelevance of energy (ft-lbs)

[Bugger]

So you want me to waste my time to find the discussions, then what? You go silent and snicker to yourself for getting me to waste the time? Lol

I promise I won’t snicker even a little. And waste your time? You’ve got 4,175 posts in less than two years, you’ve got nowhere better to be.

 

[TaperPin]

I promise I won’t snicker even a little. And waste your time? You’ve got 4,175 posts in less than two years, you’ve got nowhere better to be.

Quite honestly I hope the common consensus now is the 223 isn’t a long range cartridge. I’d take back all my snickering and poking fun. You have to admit, from time to time there have been some real whoppers told. *chuckle*

 

[bmart2622]

Yourself included

 

[Macintosh]

Another factor to tissue destruction (I think is more theoretical) when stretched is like tossing a filled water balloon into a bucket of balloons and that starts them all popping. While tissue is stretched, if there is something that causes a tear into tissue, then a cascade of tearing occurs along the path of bullet pieces that are like balloons popping in in a bucket.

This happens at high velocity when the lungs gets liquified because of the higher water content in the lungs with blood dispersed through the tissue as it exchanges gasses and its less dense tissue structure.

I have not studied terminal ballistics apart from reading a bunch of scientific papers on it in the course of these weekly threads. BUT, at least in other areas, this ^^ concept is widely known and studied. Its referred to where I have seen it as “propagation”. Example, I worked with dynamic climbing ropes where the rope is designed to stretch in order to absorb and cushion the impact of a climber falling 10 or 20 feet onto it. What you see in this example is that when under tension approaching the materials elastic limit, if you cut 1 or a couple fibers out of the hundreds of fibers making up the rope, that it in essense “shock-loads” the surrounding fibers, putting them beyond their elastic limit, and the cut “propagates” across the entire rope—even though you only physically cut a couple individual fibers. This is clearly a non-scientific explanation of it, but its clearly visible in high-speed video and it can be reliably reproduced in testing.
Its very interesting that muscle tissue is also elastic, and is also fibrous…and that bullet fragments cut only a couple fibers…yet result in dramatically larger wounds. I dont know for a fact that the exact same phenomena is happening with fragmenting bullets in tissue, but from the reading I have done, I’d bet money it is.

 

[The Guide]

Quite honestly I hope the common consensus now is the 223 isn’t a long range cartridge. I’d take back all my snickering and poking fun. You have to admit, from time to time there have been some real whoppers told. *chuckle*

What is long range? The 223 can easily and effectively kill big game animals at distances further than 90% of people shoot at when hunting. The number of people who can make a cold bore 400 yard shot repeatedly I would estimate to be a single digit percentage of all shooters. To many hunters 300 yards is long distance. Long distance is very terrain limiting and subjective to the local area.

Jay

 

[Skydog]

The only thing left to do is educate hunters to the reality.

Maybe you guys could round up all of us Fudds and force us into RS re-education camps! If I knew how to make memes, I think this would be a good one...

But, all joking aside, I appreciate you guys doing what you can to educate us.

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus - Based on your research, what have you concluded about the idea of hydrostatic/hydraulic shock, pressure waves, etc.?

“Hydrostatic shock, etc., as wounding mechanism is nonsense. It has been studied and tested repeatedly over the last 30-40 years and no evidence of it has ever shown up.

The “shock” that people think they get is the temporary stretch cavity.

Is there any evidence to support the idea that there can be some type of indirect damage/trauma throughout the animal's body in addition to the direct damage from the impact of the bullet/wound channel?

No there is not. The very few scientists that try claim that there is, have been demonstrably proven wrong when the effects are measured in labs and tissue.

Or are these just more myths - like "knock down power" and "wallop" - that need to be relegated to the dust bin?

And I'm not asking if it can be objectively measured, defined, or used as a metric for predicting terminal performance. I'm just asking if it's a thing.

Thank you!

Yes- they are not wounding mechanisms, and there is no actual evidence in tissue for the effect at all. Despite the desire by seemingly everyone to the contrary- what bullets do in tissue and how they behave is not complicated nor “unknown”.

Shoot bullets into tissue, measure the wounds created. That’s it.

 

[Formidilosus]

The “shock” of a bullet can permanently disrupt CNS, but I think it will happen in far fewer circumstances without actual physical damage by bullet or bone shrapnel. I don’t have a lot of personal experience but it seems to me the times when an animal drops like a sack of potatoes, but then gets up and runs away are when the hydrostatic shock temporarily incapacitates the animal like a boxer taking a head shot.

Almost everything you wrote is solid, with this exception. I am nitpicking because these incorrect terms need to die- all they do is confuse people.


“Hydrostatic shock” is not a thing in terminal ballistics, nor is it a wounding mechanism. When an animal drops immediately upon impact- the CNS was disrupted; either by direct contact with the bullet or particles, or by being effected from the temporary stretch cavity.

 

[Skydog]

With names like "hydra-shok" and "power-shok", and plastering energy data all over their websites and ammo boxes...I don't think the marketing machines are helping these long-held dogmas to die.

A box of Winchester Silvertips claims it provides immediate "knockdown" and maximizes "knock-down energy".

 

[The Guide]

With names like "hydra-shok" and "power-shok", and plastering energy data all over their websites and ammo boxes...I don't think the marketing machines are helping these long-held dogmas to die.

A box of Winchester Silvertips claims it provides immediate "knockdown" and maximizes "knock-down energy".

You want truth in marketing? How would anyone sell anything if you just said "It is the same thing as everyone else but in a different color!" Marketing and catch phrases do more for fuddlore than experiences with an open mind.

Jay

 

[TaperPin]

LOL, put up or shut up, isn’t that the saying? I was waiting for you to find me the 22 Hornet threads too.

Why are you OK wasting our time reading your comments but you don’t want to waste your time? Hmmm. Suspicious,

There is no rule against amusement, sarcasm, twisting virtual titties. You are here for your pleasure and amusement. Me too sometimes It’s ok, keep at it. I am just calling it the way it is. You admit you throw stuff out for your amusement factor, so you own it like a big boy. That’s admirable. Humor on the internet is not easy.

I am a little bored today…

This is a PSA so people don’t take you too seriously. Which is unfortunate because you have started helpful posts and added beneficial information in many others.

Just making it clear for people here who are trying to learn. Take anything @TaperPin says with a grain of salt. If it is annoying or confrontational, laugh and move along. He is a funny guy when you know he is there for the reaction. He actually does a good job poking the sacred cows like the court jester. Everyone needs that from time to time.

If it’s not annoying, confrontational or confusing, he probably has a good point.

Aww. . . That’s nice of you to say.

It should be said that you are a treasure trove of very solid information, so this comment must also have a high probability of being correct.

Apparently the 223 has been downgraded these past few years, so my 22 Hornet comparison falls flat. I’m somewhat disappointed, but it is probably for the better. I will just have to stick to more current controversial topics like ring screw torque, or electric vs manual scales. *chuckle*

 

[Formidilosus]

With names like "hydra-shok" and "power-shok", and plastering energy data all over their websites and ammo boxes...I don't think the marketing machines are helping these long-held dogmas to die.

A box of Winchester Silvertips claims it provides immediate "knockdown" and maximizes "knock-down energy".

It is a very odd and weird thing that all of the major manufacturers test and design their bullets using the FBI standards as the base- yet very few people conducting the designing or testing even know why they are doing so. Certainly not the marketing people.

Even if they did understand the what and why of proper terminal ballistics testing (which they generally don’t)- beyond having to get the entire hunting population to learn and be educated on factual terminal ballistics- including gun writers; the companies and people inside of them do not want the consumer educated. People have wrapped their entire belief systems inside of these myths and “ideas”, and they are not going to let go of their beliefs easily. Educated people are a lot harder to market to.

 

[hereinaz]

Almost everything you wrote is solid, with this exception. I am nitpicking because these incorrect terms need to die- all they do is confuse people.


“Hydrostatic shock” is not a thing in terminal ballistics, nor is it a wounding mechanism. When an animal drops immediately upon impact- the CNS was disrupted; either by direct contact with the bullet or particles, or by being effected from the temporary stretch cavity.

Nitpicking appreciated always. I will eliminate the term.

Yes, I was picturing the concussive force of the tissue essentially smacking/compressing the nerves caused by the fast/smack during the stretching of the temporary cavity. Not a “shock wave”

I have seen shots near to the spine that left blood shot meat but didn’t drop the animal. I saw one high shots in the backstrap above the spine, and it didn’t don’t even register on the elk.

I think if it like a very sharp and direct hit on a nerve like the doctor smacking the nerve in your knee to test reflex or hitting your funny bone.

Also, the spinal cord is very well protected inside bone that will shield it.

I believe the bullet path has to be very very close to a major nerve. How close I don’t know, but if it were more than 1.5- 2 inches in the “temporary” wound cavity it would surprise me. There isn’t a massive hydrostatic shockwave sufficient to damage tissue or incapacitate an animal.

 

[hereinaz]

Aww. . . That’s nice of you to say.

It should be said that you are a treasure trove of very solid information, so this comment must also have a high probability of being correct.

Apparently the 223 has been downgraded these past few years, so my 22 Hornet comparison falls flat. I’m somewhat disappointed, but it is probably for the better. I will just have to stick to more current controversial topics like ring screw torque, or electric vs manual scales. *chuckle*

Don’t forget lapping scope rings and refilling the bubble level with higher viscosity bubble fluid.

 

[hereinaz]

Maybe you guys could round up all of us Fudds and force us into RS re-education camps! If I knew how to make memes, I think this would be a good one...

But, all joking aside, I appreciate you guys doing what you can to educate us.

You’re no Fudd, but some of us were injected with Fudd juice against our will and the infection can be severe, lol. If it’s left untreated…

Believe me, I have been there. I took it all in as true when I started hunting. It’s not easy to sort truth from lore. I had started to figure it out reading papers by surgeons. I put more of it together over time and Form tied up some final things for me. Go back to some of my comments and I had it biggly wrong.

It takes unlearning things that aren’t true, which is really really hard.

 

[hereinaz]

I have not studied terminal ballistics apart from reading a bunch of scientific papers on it in the course of these weekly threads. BUT, at least in other areas, this ^^ concept is widely known and studied. Its referred to where I have seen it as “propagation”. Example, I worked with dynamic climbing ropes where the rope is designed to stretch in order to absorb and cushion the impact of a climber falling 10 or 20 feet onto it. What you see in this example is that when under tension approaching the materials elastic limit, if you cut 1 or a couple fibers out of the hundreds of fibers making up the rope, that it in essense “shock-loads” the surrounding fibers, putting them beyond their elastic limit, and the cut “propagates” across the entire rope—even though you only physically cut a couple individual fibers. This is clearly a non-scientific explanation of it, but its clearly visible in high-speed video and it can be reliably reproduced in testing.
Its very interesting that muscle tissue is also elastic, and is also fibrous…and that bullet fragments cut only a couple fibers…yet result in dramatically larger wounds. I dont know for a fact that the exact same phenomena is happening with fragmenting bullets in tissue, but from the reading I have done, I’d bet money it is.

Yes, that is the word and description of the phenomenon I believe is at play. I can picture these effects but don’t remember the name.

The climbing rope under tension is a great example.

Propagation, propagation, propagation…

 

[fwafwow]

See it how you see it. I just gave how I see it.

You can argue that the wounds have been studied at length and I won’t argue back. Same goes for general gel testing for depth and diameter expansion ratio.

I simply see it as, all this time, most have been looking at the wrong stuff if goals are to take terminal ballistics to an objective level of comparison and understanding that meets inflight ballistics in the 21st century. My proof is in every single 50 page thread still in every forum every year. We are ignoring much while focusing on the wrong stuff when the bullet itself, which does the work, is ignored and its rate of change is only looked at from a crayon grade level while inflight is at nasa levels lol.

We carry on any further here and the subjectivity will boil over and prove it once again.

We haven’t figured out all the ways to skin this cat yet. It’s like a brand new cat we’ve never seen before.

And conversations remaining constructive with others ideas on how to get the swimming ballistics more objective can only help.

You sayin we’ve takin this as far as we can go? I completely disagree.

No biggie. It won’t be the last thing we don’t see the same. Others can have thoughts on things that others haven’t thought of, always a good thing in name of progress.

Aren’t you tired of trying to explain to folks why the little tiny match pills are so deadly in endless subjective iterations? Do you have to do that with inflight ballistics now? No, you don’t.

I read this, twice, and I still have no idea what you are saying.

 

[hereinaz]

With names like "hydra-shok" and "power-shok", and plastering energy data all over their websites and ammo boxes...I don't think the marketing machines are helping these long-held dogmas to die.

A box of Winchester Silvertips claims it provides immediate "knockdown" and maximizes "knock-down energy".

Hot girls in bikinis sell a lot of beer. The beer company does not care if you are deluded as long as you buy more of it.

The only bullet company that seems to come close to “truth in marketing” that I know of seems to be Berger. They market their bullets for hunting and work to talk about BC in real terms in their marketing.

 

[bmart2622]

It really cant get any easier with all the people out there doing objective testing. Pick a heavy for caliber bullet and keep it above the minimum velocity for expansion, put said bullet in the vitals and animals die....end of story!!! Anything else is mental masturbation!!!

 

[Skydog]

You’re no Fudd, but some of us were injected with Fudd juice against our will and the infection can be severe, lol. If it’s left untreated…

Believe me, I have been there. I took it all in as true when I started hunting. It’s not easy to sort truth from lore. I had started to figure it out reading papers by surgeons. I put more of it together over time and Form tied up some final things for me. Go back to some of my comments and I had it biggly wrong.

It takes unlearning things that aren’t true, which is really really hard.

Well, I am a former/recovering Fudd (thanks to RS) and I still have some Fuddish traits that will probably never go completely away. I love Fudds. They're good folks...at least the ones I know. And they always have plenty of venison stacked in the freezer and big bucks on the wall. Their old ways still work season after season even though many of their beliefs about "knockdown" power, energy, "bigger is better", etc. are completely outdated/untrue.

I agree...unlearning things that aren't true is really, really hard. But...trying to hold on to things that aren't true in the face of overwhelming logic, data, and real-world evidence is really hard also. This forum has a knack for dispensing with all the noise, BS, emotions, and nostalgia and it forces you to either "put up or shut up". Facts don't care about your feelings.