Questions about the irrelevance of energy (ft-lbs)

[Stinky Coyote]

I think a big part of the challenge I see with what you're trying to do here, is that different projectiles use their energy in different ways.

I've recovered 12 gauge shotgun slugs that looked more or less like a silver dollar. That slug used some energy to deform into a pancake shape, and the rest got absorbed as it moved through like a big parachute. Very little tissue cut by that big smooth hunk of lead. Quite a bit pushed out of the way as it passes by.

At the far other end, a broad head cuts a bunch of tissue and blood vessels with almost no energy transferred to the animal.

A heavily fragmenting match bullet turns into a bunch of little sharp shards of metal, which, like the broadhead cut (but not as cleanly obviously) the tissue that is under tension in the temporary stretch cavity. A mono deforms kind of like (but not to the same extent as) that hunk of lead out of a shotgun and uses a lot of energy pushing tissue out of the way that does not really contribute to permanent tissue damage.

A metric that tries to condense that into some universal energy transfer rate term is going to need so many asterisks next to the number that it's going to be less clear than the actual wound channel dimensions from the specific bullet.

If you were dead set on some kind of numerical standard metric, I think something like cubic inches of permanent wound channel in calibrated organic gel, in the first 16" (or 18 or 20, depending on how much value you want to assign to deep penetration) would be a better angle to take (no pun intended).

can't argue with much of that, and arguing not the point, this just continues the discussion, which is a good thing and lets keep it going

we all have some experiences like that, I've killed as many big game or more with a bow than a rifle, I have seen some odd stuff also, barnes tipped mono 278 gr 1/2" diameter slug on late season elk hunt from a 20 gauge savage 220f rifled bolt shotgun, 100 yards broadside, that puppy flowered up like the brochure pic, full 1" diameter pedalled out 277 gr flower (tip lost so -1 gr), offside hide, right through the lungs, walked up to elk 10-15 minutes later (deep snow, creek with steep bank...it took a minute to get there and tracked quad to skid it out) and here it is laying there upright looking at me, another point blank in the face at under 10 paces that made it along face and through skull and to 3rd vertebrae in neck and just the tip had bent over slightly, the interesting part was how little damage was done on the lung shot, the lungs looked perfect right up to the 1" hole through them, tiny bit of blood shot marking the hole, an arrow would have done way better and way faster,

these examples would steer things into the not so normal bullets etc. we are interested here at rokslide which is more about long range hunting but still relevant to 'hunting' as a whole imo, point is if we had better ways to view the swimming ballistics by objective means it wouldn't be hard to see what the expected performance of any given option will be, including these slow fats

our range is grenade explosion transfers of energy right down to spear levels where any means of cutting to get the blood flowing will help more, if could have had more speed in my barnes example it would have upped the work transfer load and sped the shade of death up, but we have no usable metrics to show that...we had only 15-17" penetration and 2x expansion and pretty little ft/lbs to work with...then I got to see how ineffective that formula really was (in terms of drt potential anyway)

measuring wounds hasn't been the way, so we need a better way, it's super clear we are a long ways from objective comparables in this game, this thread, and every other thread like it, over years and years....proof we've been stalled on the topic, so keep offering ideas and thoughts but the studying the wound thing has been cooked past well done and we're still chewing the same subjective steak, that's beating a dead horse imo

 

[Formidilosus]

measuring wounds hasn't been the way,

What? By what magic do you think bullets work- other than the actual wounds created? No need for a page of word-vomit meaningless nonsense- just a straight forward answer will do.

Taking you at the “I’m genuine”- why are choosing to be so ignorant about this subject? You were given threads and papers that would show you that what you think is “better” has been tested, tried and found near useless- zero correlation to actual wounds created or time to incapacitation.

You are like a barber from the 1800’s walking into a modern surgical room and going on a rant about how “we have to get past bleeding people to cure the flu”. That you continue to do so, in-spite of the answers and research being given to you- is why you are not operating in good faith. It’s simply another subject that you have no idea about, ignorantly believing you are so much more intelligent than everyone else.
Now that is fine is you want to believe nonsense, however you clutter up every thread you participate in with ridiculous word salad, lacking any factual or useable information.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Form, yes or no will do...

Do you believe terminal ballistics has been taken as far as it can go and that we need nothing more? DagOtto this answer is for you.

Do you believe nothing worthy in this thread alone has come along to ponder and move forward on?

Do you believe that I'm trying to sound more intelligent than others just to be the hero in my own story?

Do you believe that much of what you said was right into the mirror?

 

[bmart2622]

What? By what magic do you think bullets work- other than the actual wounds created? No need for a page of word-vomit meaningless nonsense- just a straight forward answer will do.

Taking you at the “I’m genuine”- why are choosing to be so ignorant about this subject? You were given threads and papers that would show you that what you think is “better” has been tested, tried and found near useless- zero correlation to actual wounds created or time to incapacitation.

You are like a barber from the 1800’s walking into a modern surgical room and going on a rant about how “we have to get past bleeding people to cure the flu”. That you continue to do so, in-spite of the answers and research being given to you- is why you are not operating in good faith. It’s simply another subject that you have no idea about, ignorantly believing you are so much more intelligent than everyone else.
Now that is fine is you want to believe nonsense, however you clutter up every thread you participate in with ridiculous word salad, lacking any factual or useable information.

Nailed it!!!!

 

[Stinky Coyote]

One last one...

Do you believe I am not on the same team as you and everyone else that loves hunting?

 

[Formidilosus]

Form, yes or no will do...

Do you believe terminal ballistics has been taken as far as it can go and that we need nothing more?

No- but the answer is very clearly in widespread dissemination of properly done damage based metrics. Nothing has a higher correlation or is more simple than measuring the wounds created in tissue with each projectile at different impact velocities.

DagOtto this answer is for you.

No. That the information is unknown or currently unavailable; or that like you- people choose to remain ignorant of it- does not mean it doesn’t exist or “that we’re still in diapers”.

Do you believe nothing worthy in this thread alone has come along to ponder and move forward on?

Yes. There has been absolutely no new information, or new useful ideas presented here.

Do you believe that I'm trying to sound more intelligent than others just to be the hero in my own story?

No- not the hero of your own story. Very much that you actually believe you are smarter about this subject than everyone else, while having no understanding of the most basic terminal ballistics and testing facts. It is the absolute height of arrogance to not be knowledgeable and capable in a subject, but still preach at people that they are wrong and you are right- while offering no objective information, and ignoring all information given to you.

Do you believe that much of what you said was right into the mirror?

Do I argue about subjects repeatedly that I have no knowledge of, and ignore all actual information given?

By the way- how is that FFP Nightforce working out for you?

 

[Stinky Coyote]

I'm a sh1t multi-quote guy but here goes...

1. & 2. Good. No other explanation needed. Point of discussion is to Present some NEW ideas or thoughts on how to make this easier for the masses aside from regurgitating others work 'same deer killed 20 times' type work that I've researched as long ago as you did or longer ago. So what do YOU add to this, for ideas, on how to make this subject more objective and easy to predict scenarios for future goals intended etc. for the masses that continue to go on and on subjectively about it? Do you have any ideas here? And DagOtto...there is hope yet.

2. Fine, I tried, you dismissed for whatever reason(s), it's just where my brain went after reading '20 deer killed the same way' and conceptualized possible other ways to view this or that we've been missing something and that the answers may be in the finished bullet itself. If you wish to dismiss this...fine, we all get it. At least I offered something new. Can you do the same? Headsup, you're not the final authority on the subject, neither am I, I'm just offering ideas on how to help us move forward on it. Try to do the same.

3. See it however you like, not only did I try to offer the new ideas I did put some objective numbers to them to help explain the concepts of possibly studying the finished bullet as holding answers to the rate of change of it...because that's all it does once the swimming starts.

4. You projected plenty, you just may not realize it is all. It was more for me that question, you didn't really need to answer lol.

And lastly, the bonus comment. It's ok so far, just one -32c coyote day with a few misses I squeezed in between ice fishing trips, all mpbr misses, never got a chance to apply solutions on a hanger, I'm still hopeful it's the sh1t lol. I'll give it fair run over a couple seasons. Jury is out, but 'it's lookin good so far'. You didn't influence that one btw, the ffp/mil just happened to come in the guts and size/weight I wanted and my eyes needed to go all reticle. I tried some sfp moa before it but just couldn't handle the cheaper scope on the nice sako. So don't think you had any hand in that choice lol. I'm sure you're happy for me I've got one in trials now though. lol

And I think I have posted some good comments about your body of work and the forum key guys of late and come to appreciate all that goes on here. Well...there's still some ego and stuff to navigate from time to time (me included) but goes with humanity and life in general. Keep shooting, keep beating on gear, it's a good thing. But is terminal ballistics also your specialty? At same level as the shooting part and getting bullets there? And proving gear?....do you need to be the alpha on that too? I don't, not trying to either, I really don't give a sh1t. It's the end goals I've talked about are what I give a sh1t about. But don't be afraid if something new comes along from someone you may not like and write it off just because of that. How long you been knifing critters and paying attention to all this? I know you been shooting a long time and have history with that but the hunting side? Relax...I am not here to try and measure willies with you. That's not it at all. I think you offer more than most in industry by a long shot. We got lanes though, and drive better in some of them than others. Genuinely trying to open minds on this topic...but people piss on my back and I'm happy to rise to the level or take it further lol. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Axlrod]

If you think I'm trolling on this subject you're wrong. If you seize up for whatever reason, going to the default 'troll' comment is submission. I see your submission and carry on, lots of threads I won't engage in as I'm not at a level to do so. You guys give lip...I give lip too, water off a ducks back for me, better be for you too. Don't write off the message due to the messenger for your discomforts. No reason we can't have fun with the lip along the way. If we're gonna break through the wall of objectifying terminal ballistics for hunting there's gonna be some bloody noses.

And...from what I've seen on the interweb, this is probably the best forum to push the boundaries on this topic.

For the record I scroll past all of your diarrhea of the keyboard posts. If you cant get your point across with a paragraph or two per thread, then you are suffering from delusions of grandeur or some other mental defect.
From a Motley Crue song: "Girl don't go away mad, girl just go away"

 

[Stinky Coyote]

For the record I scroll past all of your diarrhea of the keyboard posts. If you cant get your point across with a paragraph or two per thread, then you are suffering from delusions of grandeur or some other mental defect.
From a Motley Crue song: "Girl don't go away mad, girl just go away"

For the record, I'm sure it's mutual, and we've been largely dumbed down to only accept information in 30 second tiktoks or meme's so learning an in-depth subject with lots of technical mumbo jumbo is like going to school. You don't have to come to my free school if you don't want. Don't care. Great input though bud. Ooh, it's getting nerdy and technical...run for your life lol. Feel free to find the fluff entertainment you like anywhere else and ignore anything that doesn't work for ya. No one holding a gun to your head to read any of this.

However, if you are motivated to learn a subject you'll put in the work and time and absorb as much info as you can, process it your own way and be happy lol, maybe even share it. Btw, you failed my class. I took you to school, you didn't even show up, you don't even get and E for effort.

 

[bmart2622]

You've schooled no one

 

[Thegman]

I think a big part of the challenge I see with what you're trying to do here, is that different projectiles use their energy in different ways.
.....
But I would still rather see the actual wound channel from the actual bullet.

My thought exactly. Calculating the (average) ft-lb/in still doesn't tell what that energy did to the animal, as that is still bullet dependent.

That brings us right back to looking at the gel block test which is where, as Formidilosus already pointed out, the information came from in the first place.

This is really just an idea to find a shorthand for gel block data, but it looses so much information in the translation, it just becomes nonsense. E.g. How big is the permanent wound cavity? Cavity shape? Depth to start of expansion? Total penetration? Etc, etc, etc.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Putting a gel block picture(s) like the TAP data on hunting ammo boxes and bullet boxes would be FAR more useful than "These bullets deposit X ft-lb / in over Y inches."

 

[Stinky Coyote]

except that those gel block examples came at a different impact velocity for each shot and basically at muzzle velocity to boot, does that relate to hunting we do? no ability to compare apples to apples, where are the mono examples? the bonded family of bullets examples, etc. etc. so we subjective the wins from that random picture?, I added some other way to look at it but we're still crawling around in diapers

does no one like my interpretation of those examples? trying to put numbers to it? you don't like the ft/lbs per inch view for quick easy numbers to look at instead of trying to visualize that from a picture???? didn't see better correlation with that to the hamburgered Bambi that Form hammered in the ass with entirely way too much shade of death lol, or just don't like the guy who typed it out? geesh, gave you five minutes of my life...where's the gratitude? haha

any new ideas on how to get things into numbers? vs pictures with subjective interpretations? and for all bullets we may hunt with to compare in a useful way?

 

[HandgunHTR]

standard number(s), supported by calculators (like inflight ballistics), we only get the starting sd and starting workload, from there it's a subjective crapshoot and imagination, or, random non-standard data sets of some of the available bullets giving part of the possible information at a singular impact velocity, agree, it's not linear transfer, but in shades of death, penetration potential being part of it, the work lands within that threshold and we speak in inches...if you'd like take it further...go for it, and maybe once we get the first versions of this going it could be taken further and understand certain bullet families will front load the work in the first 75% of the travel and others spread it out pretty evenly in the 95% of the travel...etc. etc. but we need to start somewhere beyond crawling around in diapers

You keep making the assertion that we are “crawling around in diapers” and trying to push this “lb/in” metric, but it isn’t necessary. As Form already stated, if you shoot a bullet into a standard, calibrated medium, you already have an actual wound channel to study. They don’t just shoot one bullet and call it good. They do it until they have a statically significant sample size and they make conclusions based on the actual wound channels. At that point, what is the point of doing the mental gymnastics to calculate some “energy transfer per inch”? Energy doesn’t matter! It never did. Period.

Also, since it seems you aren’t going to give up on it, how much energy is used up to 1) deform/fragment the bullet, 2) keep the bullet spinning, 3) is converted to heat upon impact? Until you can reliably calculate that, your energy transfer per inch number is meaningless because none of that energy is being used to create a wound channel.

 

[Thegman]

except that those gel block examples came at a different impact velocity for each shot and basically at muzzle velocity to boot, does that relate to hunting we do? no ability to compare apples to apples, where are the mono examples? the bonded family of bullets examples, etc. etc. so we subjective the wins from that random picture?, I added some other way to look at it but we're still crawling around in diapers

does no one like my interpretation of those examples? trying to put numbers to it? you don't like the ft/lbs per inch view for quick easy numbers to look at instead of trying to visualize that from a picture???? didn't see better correlation with that to the hamburgered Bambi that Form hammered in the ass with entirely way too much shade of death lol, or just don't like the guy who typed it out? geesh, gave you five minutes of my life...where's the gratitude? haha

any new ideas on how to get things into numbers? vs pictures with subjective interpretations? and for all bullets we may hunt with to compare in a useful way?

And how will you get your data for impacts at various velocities for data relevant to various hunting scenarios, distances, cartridges, etc?

You will shoot gel blocks at various velocities and distances. Your proposal simply loses most of that information in its attempt to translate it into a few numbers. Again, the picture is worth 1,000 words, or numbers, or equations.

 

[bmart2622]

^^^^He wont get any data. Hes " the big idea guy". He wont do any of the work or testing, he will just take credit when someone else does

 

[Stinky Coyote]

You keep making the assertion that we are “crawling around in diapers” and trying to push this “lb/in” metric, but it isn’t necessary. As Form already stated, if you shoot a bullet into a standard, calibrated medium, you already have an actual wound channel to study. They don’t just shoot one bullet and call it good. They do it until they have a statically significant sample size and they make conclusions based on the actual wound channels. At that point, what is the point of doing the mental gymnastics to calculate some “energy transfer per inch”? Energy doesn’t matter! It never did. Period.

Also, since it seems you aren’t going to give up on it, how much energy is used up to 1) deform/fragment the bullet, 2) keep the bullet spinning, 3) is converted to heat upon impact? Until you can reliably calculate that, your energy transfer per inch number is meaningless because none of that energy is being used to create a wound channel.

in terms of having terminal ballistics as objective as inflight ballistics we are still in diapers

we have studied wound channels since the beginning, every time the knife comes out, shades of death, still death...so how do we compare these shades of death? please offer suggestions, I tried...

so do you have any thoughts on anything we may be missing to close the gap from inflight to terminal ballistics and making it more objective and usable for the hunting community? random velocity gel impact testing for fbi at muzzle velocities is the answer? with a bunch of numbers that aren't put into equations, no rates to apply to other velocities in a calculator? diapers level info from a cartoon picture is what I see....so what is your suggestion to advance this?

 

[Stinky Coyote]

And how will you get your data for impacts at various velocities for data relevant to various hunting scenarios, distances, cartridges, etc?

You will shoot gel blocks at various velocities and distances. Your proposal simply loses most of that information in its attempt to translate it into a few numbers. Again, the picture is worth 1,000 words, or numbers, or equations.

through standard testing parameters relevant to hunting situations, I suggested blended rates of sd reduction and work transfer potential, which then could be used in calculators for the guys to run different distances they want certain performance windows....this is just my initial suggestion, take 2500 fps impact rates, then 2000 fps impact rates and average them into a single rate....that can feed a calculator, does g7 bc not do similar with 3 different speed ranges?

so yeah, I have the concept or big idea, can you and the rest of the community look at it and add ideas how best to expand it? what would you do to make this more usable?

the Hornady's of the world are measuring inflight the full distance with radar etc....to move inflight ballistics higher and higher, and by doing that they seem to have witnessed patterns or velocity nodes to band a number within (3 of them for g7?)...why can't there be 3 different velocity nodes measure through gel to get a 'blended rate' that can be used to compare to every other option we want to look at in a calculator objectively...this is where we need to put our collective grey matter together and bring in the engineers etc. and work out best way to do it....I'm just the d1ckhead who maybe noticed something we hadn't seen yet...not saying I have worked out the full solution of how to develop it out, that's where you come in and everyone else in our community that is passionate about it

 

[Stinky Coyote]

^^^^He wont get any data. Hes " the big idea guy". He wont do any of the work or testing, he will just take credit when someone else does

really? if hornady develops this out all I want is a lifetime supply of white box match and much of my life is already over, and I fish way more than I shoot, they may go broke with that deal if it was Form, maybe lifetime supply of white box for the kids too then.....we good?

what work or ideas have you offered to advance this topic?

you seem more interested in playing the who can be the bigger a-hole game...you know I'm down, lets keep going that way then

 

[bmart2622]

I dont need any advancement in the topic, I have all the info I need. Roll up your sleeves and get those hands dirty and do some testing for yourself. All you want to to do ask for suggestions

 

[Bluefish]

does no one like my interpretation of those examples? trying to put numbers to it? you don't like the ft/lbs per inch view for quick easy numbers to look at instead of trying to visualize that from a picture???? didn't see better correlation with that to the hamburgered Bambi that Form hammered in the ass with entirely way too much shade of death lol, or just don't like the guy who typed it out? geesh, gave you five minutes of my life...where's the gratitude? haha

I do like the idea of a few numbers to summarize the capability of a bullet. But your presentations are TLDR. I would also suggest making it a topic of its own.

I have looked around for data on how bullets perform and aside from the few Hornady gel blocks for police rounds have found very little. I know I don’t shoot enough animals to really evaluate a given design. Would like to do so, but it isn’t happening with how few tags I get each year. I may even be lucky to see each of the bullets I want to try on an animal in my lifetime.