Questions about the irrelevance of energy (ft-lbs)

[Quandary]

is it though?

need sufficient sd and construction for game intended to go with that impact velocity, it's a few variables that have to come together, most of our options are in the wheelhouse, it's the fringe ones light on one of the items needs to compensate with more on the other items

but but....if you have a 123 gr eldm dump 55 ft/lbs per inch of work over 18" or a 123 gr mono dumping only 27 ft/lbs per inch over 36" and you've exited the animal after 15"....is the energy actually irrelevant? are you taking the eldm option or the mono option? which one do you expect to be more drt and which one do you think will be the 100 yard runner most commonly?

look at Forms bambi, you think ~240 ft/lbs per inch over only 13.5" is irrelevant?

round 2, FIGHT!

hehe

Yes it is. Energy is a measure of work. How that work is used is what is relevant. see post above.

 

[Formidilosus]

These are so hard to understand…. Math calculations of nonsensical BS is a much better “visualization”. Give or take.


168gr Amax-


180gr Accubond-



168gr Barnes-






Which one would be better here?

168gr AMAX-



180gr Accubond-




168gr Barnes-




Note: image overlays included any actual permanent tissue damage caused by the temporary cavities.

 

[HuntHarder]

Looks like more energy was transferred by the Amax

 

[Macintosh]

@Formidilosus, Isnt yellow the official color of whallop?

 

[Stinky Coyote]

These are so hard to understand…. Math calculations of nonsensical BS is a much better “visualization”. Give or take.


168gr Amax-
View attachment 848458

180gr Accubond-
View attachment 848459


168gr Barnes-
View attachment 848460





Which one would be better here?

168gr AMAX-
View attachment 848461


180gr Accubond-
View attachment 848462



168gr Barnes-
View attachment 848463



Note: image overlays included any actual permanent tissue damage caused by the temporary cavities.

most of us here understand these shades of death, excellent illustration and appreciate the work you put into the last two posts, it shows what I'm also trying to show, in pictures....but we also read words in magazines, look at the objective numbers in the magazines, and use calculators to look at our own options or desires for many bullet related activities....but not this

any numbers to that?

any standardized numbers and ability to compare to these temporary and permanent wounds? any numbers to show expected rate of drt vs 100 yard runners? how far does each one expect to run from each bullet type? silly questions right? subjective nonsense because it's shades of death...we need to look at the bullet if we want to objectify and make comparable to each other

is there standard impact velocity there? what are the parameters of each gel test?

and got the rest of the bullet library there? at same impact velocities?

and is that the best way to show it to people? or could there be a way to put numbers to that?,

from gel like I was explaining to remove any need for illustrations? which for newbies would be a great compliment but once you understand illustrations of damage in ft/lbs/inch every 25 ft/lbs you won't need illustrations anymore and can just run from the numbers, do you want a 13", 18", 36" cartridge? what damage cone along that travel do you want? 50/100/150 ft/lbs? ie; 'what are you hunting?' 'how quickly do you want them to drop?' 'here's what we see works the best'...by numbers, not illustrations, not subjective pass alongs

so I'm not trying to argue with you Form, you bring photographic memory info from tons of research and observation, others bring things too, there isn't a one stop shop for the info

we've come part way but we can make this more objective than subjective and it wouldn't be that hard, we have not explored 'rate of change' of the actual bullet in a standard used to compare all other bullets, and we do a piss poor job of talking about 'work'(energy transfer) going from 'it's irrelevant' to 'maximum wallop is best' lol, which would give us numbers to work with instead of illustrations?

I don't have to sell it. Every thread explains it. All over the map with almost entirely subjective interpretations and the odd data point that is only part of the equation....lets finish the equations and get all the numbers we can see to make useful.

All those examples need to be in standard testing parameters (same impact velocity or a blend of two different impact velocities). They need to have final penetration length, final sd, and therefore rate of change can be calculated on the bullet family, and so can the work transfer rate. Actual Numbers, not illustrations leaving to wild and varied interpretations.

Bullet does work over distance, how much work? How much distance? Over what range of impact velocities?

We still have a ways to go, and our evolution is still on the horizontal part of the curve lol. Maybe we're on the verge of turning the curve vertical now?

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Looks like more energy was transferred by the Amax

is that your subjective interpretation?

what about turning the deer end to end? or using a Cape buffalo instead, now which one you wish to choose?

how much work ended up in the hillside? how much in the animal?

haha

but how much energy was transferred? over what distance?

couldn't that be measured? why aren't we measuring it? and doing same standard for all bullets so they can be compared against one another?

is it the year 2025 or not? what century are we in again? how far can we land bullets into milk jugs now without arguing or ending up with 50 page threads? why don't we need to argue about or need 50 page threads to discuss inflight ballistics anymore?

 

[Stinky Coyote]

You started down the right path when you mentioned "potential". That is the only way in which you can think of KE as something useful. The higher the KE the more potential killing power that projectile has. Bullet construction is how that potential is used. If you built a bullet out of solid tungsten the "potential" would be wasted if trying to kill an animal but great if you are trying to punch through steel.

not a bad visual from subjective interpretation, which is what we do, but we already do similar in Africa DG with solids, so you may wish to have 4' feet of penetration and through more dense animals, where penetration still matters most, and you may want a certain amount of work transferred along those 4' feet to keep rodeos to minimum length of time but still be shootable by a human lol, might be hard to keep your shoulder if you design something that can open up like a match bullet and still go through 4' of DG

so yeah, things that don't open up go deeper, sd maintained, and the work done along travel is much shallower, going more from a grenade to a spear,

we get this....but we don't get it objectively

lets find a way to put numbers to this game, no different than inflight ballistics,

need to stop looking at the animals, and the wounds, it's shades of death potential, need to start looking at the bullets in a standard and put numbers to it all so majority can understand and see simple numerical differences of 'expected performance' of any given option from a gopher to an elephant

we already know what works, now put numbers to all of it so we can see what else might work and why some things only work some of the time etc. objectively

 

[Formidilosus]

is it the year 2025 or not? what century are we in again? how far can we land bullets into milk jugs now without arguing or ending up with 50 page threads? why don't we need to argue about or need 50 page threads to discuss inflight ballistics anymore?

What are you talking about? Ballistic threads and arguments are as common or more so than terminal threads. And why are you talking about milk jugs?

Hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 35 years or so have been spent by the medical community and the LE/mil world to do what you think should be done- and in every single case the only correlation that can be made is damage based metrics- shoot tissue or properly calibrated tissue simulate and measure the wound. None of what you are writing works, it isn’t easier, it isn’t cleaner, and for sure doesn’t tell anyone anything about the wound created. Furthermore, to get the information that you think is so great- you have to shoot tissue simulate first, measure it, and then transfer it to a calculation… after you already have the information on the actual wound created. Doing that is stupid in the extreme.

 

[The Guide]

is that your subjective interpretation?

what about turning the deer end to end? or using a Cape buffalo instead, now which one you wish to choose?

how much work ended up in the hillside? how much in the animal?

haha

but how much energy was transferred? over what distance?

couldn't that be measured? why aren't we measuring it? and doing same standard for all bullets so they can be compared against one another?

is it the year 2025 or not? what century are we in again? how far can we land bullets into milk jugs now without arguing or ending up with 50 page threads? why don't we need to argue about or need 50 page threads to discuss inflight ballistics anymore?

Why don't you ask Bryan Litz? Send him an email from his website or message one of his social media accounts. If a ballistician of his respected status can't figure it out or says the various variables are too great and diverse to provide a meaningful calculation that reflects real world results, maybe we can put this to rest? It is 2025 after all and you have the means to message the smartest people in the world and not just post questions on a hunting forum.

Jay

 

[Wprinkle]

These are so hard to understand…. Math calculations of nonsensical BS is a much better “visualization”. Give or take.


168gr Amax-
View attachment 848458

180gr Accubond-
View attachment 848459


168gr Barnes-
View attachment 848460





Which one would be better here?

168gr AMAX-
View attachment 848461


180gr Accubond-
View attachment 848462



168gr Barnes-
View attachment 848463



Note: image overlays included any actual permanent tissue damage caused by the temporary cavities.

Do the different color

What are you talking about? Ballistic threads and arguments are as common or more so than terminal threads. And why are you talking about milk jugs?

Hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 35 years or so have been spent by the medical community and the LE/mil world to do what you think should be done- and in every single case the only correlation that can be made is damage based metrics- shoot tissue or properly calibrated tissue simulate and measure the wound. None of what you are writing works, it isn’t easier, it isn’t cleaner, and for sure doesn’t tell anyone anything about the wound created. Furthermore, to get the information that you think is so great- you have to shoot tissue simulate first, measure it, and then transfer it to a calculation… after you already have the information on the actual wound created. Doing that is stupid in the extreme.

Never argue with a fool, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

What are you talking about? Ballistic threads and arguments are as common or more so than terminal threads. And why are you talking about milk jugs?

Hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 35 years or so have been spent by the medical community and the LE/mil world to do what you think should be done- and in every single case the only correlation that can be made is damage based metrics- shoot tissue or properly calibrated tissue simulate and measure the wound. None of what you are writing works, it isn’t easier, it isn’t cleaner, and for sure doesn’t tell anyone anything about the wound created. Furthermore, to get the information that you think is so great- you have to shoot tissue simulate first, measure it, and then transfer it to a calculation… after you already have the information on the actual wound created. Doing that is stupid in the extreme.

if most of the options end up killing, why are you measuring the wound?

is the wound consistent in every animal every shot?

why aren't you measuring the bullet rate of change difference? in controlled standards to make all comparable objectively and easily? why aren't we measuring the work transfer rate which includes total penetration distance?

are you able to put numbers to those consistent every time wound differences and tell people to expect this choice the animal to run 20% further than this choice? why would we keep looking at shades of death

milk jugs? it's to make a point, need me to call them targets? steel? don't deflect, everyone can see the point

again, do your level best to take others suggestions as a value add to the discussion, not coming here to argue with you

and again I have to ask you....do you think we've taken terminals ballistics as far as we can? and if you say yes, then again I'll say I completely disagree and we can go our separate ways, it's in the top few things we go on about because it is largely subjective and anything with numbers is only the first number of an equation we haven't finished yet

 

[Harvey_NW]

Why don't you ask Bryan Litz? Send him an email from his website or message one of his social media accounts. If a ballistician of his respected status can't figure it out or says the various variables are too great and diverse to provide a meaningful calculation that reflects real world results, maybe we can put this to rest? It is 2025 after all and you have the means to message the smartest people in the world and not just post questions on a hunting forum.

Jay

Please don't advocate for distracting Bryan with a meaningless end all metric calculation from a single entity on a forum. I've gotten him to engage in convo with me a couple times about not cleaning barrels and I'm hoping that seed has sprouted and he'll burn a few down for us

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Why don't you ask Bryan Litz? Send him an email from his website or message one of his social media accounts. If a ballistician of his respected status can't figure it out or says the various variables are too great and diverse to provide a meaningful calculation that reflects real world results, maybe we can put this to rest? It is 2025 after all and you have the means to message the smartest people in the world and not just post questions on a hunting forum.

Jay

some guys are entirely focused on inflight ballistics and only take terminal so far

actually a lot of them, 'lets get the bullet there first, and see what happens from there'

most of us that way, bullet lands at hide with one sd and one energy number, then reduces that sd and energy number over a certain swimming distance in a 3d model....and we try to measure that in animals? lmfao...how silly we have been

to compare things to each other you must do it in controlled standards, we have that, and we shoot bullets into that, but instead of measuring the rate of bullet change and transfer, we try to measure the gel wound like an animal wound....ignoring much easier numbers to get that tell the friggin story...from the friggin bullet itself! which does the actual friggin WORK!

but carry on, one guy says energy irrelevant, next guy says more wallop is better, and beat the living fack out of the horse we go

all I'm saying is, we need, and can, make this a far more objective topic...we are smart enough to do this

some guys don't like new ideas or info from others, we all know ego's are fragile, big dogs need to be big dogs

 

[Stinky Coyote]

like how funny is that, the bullet does the work as it changes dramatically over very short distances and we don't measure the bullet after it's done the work and make useful info from that, the rate of it's change and corresponding rate of work transfer over corresponding inches travelled

oh, it retained 78% of its weight and expanded 2.3x and went 29"......yay, welcome to grade 1 (at a random chosen impact velocity of a single independent tester, with random gel melted down at hand after how many tests...lmfao)

lets maybe look at yanking the soother out, pulling ourselves up to the coffee table, and try walking over to the tv stand for a change

what's the sectional density reduction rate, what's the work transfer rate? what are these percentages? in a controlled standard.....why aren't we asking that? couldn't that be useful for comparative purposes and calculator be built? you don't want this subject objectified? terminal ballistics only moderately as important as inflight? I care about both, equally lol, one we've made easy, one we still crawling around in our diapers on as we don't really care about it as much as getting the bullet there in first place, which is fine as shades of death are still death, we don't 'have' to care as much...so we don't

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

You guys are beatin a dead horse!

 

[The Guide]

like how funny is that, the bullet does the work as it changes dramatically over very short distances and we don't measure the bullet after it's done the work and make useful info from that, the rate of it's change and corresponding rate of work transfer over corresponding inches travelled

oh, it retained 78% of its weight and expanded 2.3x and went 29"......yay, welcome to grade 1 (at a random chosen impact velocity of a single independent tester, with random gel melted down at hand after how many tests...lmfao)

lets maybe look at yanking the soother out, pulling ourselves up to the coffee table, and try walking over to the tv stand for a change.

Where are your models? Have you gotten any design criteria yet? Have you defined the variables yet? How are you financing this venture? Will it provide appropriate ROI or are you just wanting someone else to do it for you?

Jay

 

[Maverick1]

You guys are beatin a dead horse!

Gotta make sure it's dead.....(I kind of like the third one the best.)

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Where are your models? Have you gotten any design criteria yet? Have you defined the variables yet? How are you financing this venture? Will it provide appropriate ROI or are you just wanting someone else to do it for you?

Jay

I'm a high level viewer, catching something that hadn't been seen yet and is my gift back to the community...free of charge.

Hornady, would happily come to work for you and help develop it out. Since it's been in conceptual stage since 2020 much yet to be learned, ie; blended average between two different impact velocities, classes of bullets by velocity ranges (ie; varmint high speed vs typical big game speeds to determine impact velocity standards), and maybe the engineers come up with a couple other ideas that may be a factor or measurable to work transfer rate (such as rpm)? etc.

So we're still literally on all fours in diapers here. That's what I've been trying to say. I can and have showed you singular mathed examples to demonstrate the concept but it's still a long ways from getting much further. It wouldn't take much investment from Hornady to play with this and see if it created opportunity for further bullet development down the road and increase sales and push competitors to keep up. It will need a leader...not me...I just offered a viewpoint that had not been looked at yet, that is all.

 

[wapitibob]

If I ever start to think about es, sd, impact velocity, energy, bullet weight retention, sectional density, etc, It's time to sell the rifle and quit.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

lol, the future isn't for everyone

I'm sure lots of guys said 'if I ever have to start thinking about rangefinders and electronics on my hunts' it's time to sell the rifle and quit.

this is a discussion on a leading edge forum that pushes the boundaries regarding 'hunting'...so this thread fits well here