Questions about the irrelevance of energy (ft-lbs)

[Stinky Coyote]

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

listen rookie, I've been here longer than you, couple of Alberta/Montana boys (same sh1t different pile), you think I haven't been living western almost all of the last 52 years and putting the knife to things?

 

[bmart2622]

Cool story!! Then do your own research and find your own solution to a problem that doesnt exist. Youre not getting suggestions because nobody cares!!! If it matters to you and you feel you need it to make an informed decision then do the work for yourself. Asking for help finding a solution to a problem that doesnt exist does not make you smart or a "big idea guy" it makes you look lazy and incapable of doing for yourself

 

[WeiserBucks]

@Stinky Coyote are you an engineer by trade?

 

[Stinky Coyote]

@Stinky Coyote are you an engineer by trade?

I don't think real engineers count power engineers in the club, at least not the ticket level I got.

So no...

and bmart, only got so much time left in a facked up world so it's 9wd on as many weekends in the field with the kids and buddies while grinding out pay checks in my not so lead role in a cage, it will take a hornady who can not just develop things out but who can make and test more bullets to improve performance and drive the whole thing forward, it would need a team, concepts don't need a team, they can come from one or a few...that's all I got, look at DagOtto for example, he's going to dig into it in retirement, he's got his bb to calibrate gel and work somethings out for himself and likely be the good guy he is and share what he finds....I'm not that guy, I'd like to be part of that team though, if Hornady want's to go for it I'd jump ship in a blink to work on something like this but for free this is all you get...capiche?

 

[Thegman]

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?

..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

Yes, you have an idea. I come up with a lot of ideas too. Most are rejected as not being usable, after looking into them more closely. I would say this idea is also not useable, and probably can't be.

I (and it seems everyone else) aren't passionate about it, likely because we see it's really not leading to something that will provide useful or accurate information.

For numbers people, like myself, it might be a neat idea to imagine in passing (I think so), but on further consideration doesn't seem to be realistic. I think that's what people are saying, but you seem to be going back to "you're just not seeing it yet". Another explanation is that perhaps, yes, we are seeing it, but you're not hearing what we're saying yet.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Yes, you have an idea. I come up with a lot of ideas too. Most are rejected as not being usable, after looking into them more closely. I would say this idea is also not useable, and probably can't be.

I (and it seems everyone else) aren't passionate about it, likely because we see it's really not leading to something that will provide useful or accurate information.

For numbers people, like myself, it might be a neat idea to imagine in passing (I think so), but on further consideration doesn't seem to be realistic. I think that's what people are saying, but you seem to be going back to "you're just not seeing it yet". Another explanation is that perhaps, yes, we are seeing it, but you're not hearing what we're saying yet.

Fair,

Do you think there is room to advance terminal ballistics to similar levels as inflight ballistics? If so, what are your thoughts on how to do so?

I see radar modelling of bullets inflight over thousands of yards and calculators etc. making that fairly objective. But our level of modelling what happens in gel over only inches seems to be offering only pieces of information or partial equations and no calculators or standard comparison supports. It's like one big long model with calculators to handle the variables we choose (air being the variable, the bullet being the constant) vs a short model with different variable (the bullet being the variable, the media being the constant) and incomplete viewing of that part of bullet journey. I see we aren't done yet...everyone sees that, in all these threads as verification.

and yeah, lots of this thread derails to where they all do, I thought we finally answered the OP question if energy is relevant? can we all agree that we did? and that the answer yes? so we can continue with the derail?

 

[The Guide]

listen rookie, I've been here longer than you, couple of Alberta/Montana boys (same sh1t different pile), you think I haven't been living western almost all of the last 52 years and putting the knife to things?

Just curious, did you happen to go to NAIT or SAIT?

Jay

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Just curious, did you happen to go to NAIT or SAIT?

Jay

Sait

look, I have some important math to do here so I'll leave you all at it, thought I was gonna get a couple days solo ice fishing this weekend but kids freeing up and bringing buddies out etc.(I did something right ) and last weekend we landed 57 fish in 45 hours and I only have 55 smelt...got to figure out how many more smelt I better grab based on percentage of fish that manage to get one without getting their pictures taken with the aliens on the ice and some grocery stuff too

this was fun, later

 

[eric1115]

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."

Ok so here's an idea I have. What if we put telemetry equipment on cars, do laps at the nurburgring, then put together a number that combines acceleration, top speed, lateral grip, and we could use that number to figure out the lap times a car should be able to do at the nurburgring! Time to get out of diapers with measuring lap times, let's math this thing out and move the ball forward on quantifying automotive performance!

 

[robtattoo]

 

[Thegman]

View attachment 849399

Incorrect.

Pushing elk off cliffs is not ethical.

Besides, if you startle them, it takes way less than 1,000 ft-lbs...

 

[The Guide]

Sait

look, I have some important math to do here so I'll leave you all at it, thought I was gonna get a couple days solo ice fishing this weekend but kids freeing up and bringing buddies out etc.(I did something right ) and last weekend we landed 57 fish in 45 hours and I only have 55 smelt...got to figure out how many more smelt I better grab based on percentage of fish that manage to get one without getting their pictures taken with the aliens on the ice and some grocery stuff too

this was fun, later

Ok, this tracks based on my experience with the Canadian kids who came down to Montana Tech to get their real degrees.

Lakers or Northern's? Just go to the grocery store and pick up a bag. All our grocery stores have smelt in the seafood seafood section. They work good on the river for catfish and sturgeon in the summer too so don't work about buying too many.

Jay

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Ok, this tracks based on my experience with the Canadian kids who came down to Montana Tech to get their real degrees.

Lakers or Northern's? Just go to the grocery store and pick up a bag. All our grocery stores have smelt in the seafood seafood section. They work good on the river for catfish and sturgeon in the summer too so don't work about buying too many.

Jay

lol, yeah the boiler guys poke fun at the power guys too, I only grabbed that ticket as a backup plan and worked in it briefly before being snagged for where I'm at now, did a whole nother thing with twisting wrenches and electrical for 16 years out of high school that ended me at running that dept. managing and training the techs and doing all the sales for it before making a switch

on the fish, for ice fishing we mostly chase pike walleye and burbot, some spots we can get in on all 3, last weekend was 39 pike, 14 walleye (4 over 28.5") and 4 burbs, likely hitting that spot again this time as it was a riot and some pretty awesome fish and we get some slots and can keep the burbs so fish fries etc., we do bank fish sturgeon in soft water season on rivers too, we have some spots for trophy pike that are great and when hitting those can see up to 3 over 40" a weekend and so far up to 29 lb 10 oz, still haven't broke 48" and 30 lb yet but we have their address when we decide to, we are kind of meat focused this season, still usually score at least one pike in the teens when targeting the eaters, built trailer, dual diesel heaters, solar, holes in floor etc. we hunt out of it also, it's a year round weekend warrior thing, even killed a wolf from it...it's family and has it's own name, the pictures on the walls of our successes are priceless, print them after adventures and staple them to the wood, running out of wall space, printing smaller pics lol, kids pics with their bears, deer, my wolf, moose, deer, antelope, sturgeon, every other kind of fish, it's all we do in this phase, work and figure out what next for that trailer and the crew, gotta get turkey this year so that's on deck for new crew adventures

 

[fwafwow]

My right pointer finger is getting calloused from scrolling quickly past so many of these TL;DR posts.

 

[Pilsner]

It can help to think of any measure as an attempt to quantify what’s going on in the process of killing an animal. There are many different ways to kill - small fragmenting bullets can do it, but not all small fragmenting bullets. Traditional size and velocity bullets that do not fragment significantly have killed at least two million animals a year in North America, year in and year out - they work and foot pounds works as a measure for those traditional bullets. Both are correct in their corner of the world.

What confuses things are people who take the idea to the extreme and start claiming small cartridges are more deadly than large cartridges, and a misunderstanding that foot pounds of energy is quite literally the definition of the ability to do work. Small cartridge folks really mean to say their bullets can do enough work to kill effectively at a lower energy requirement. They will howl at this idea, but that’s physics, and physics isn’t going to change because these dudes on some internet site love 223s. Big cartridges aren’t getting the job done with efficiency like a Toyota Prius, but more like a full size 3/4 ton truck.

The aversion to any kind of recoil is somewhat of a head scratcher, but keep in mind many shooters aren’t shooting a lot and flinching is a problem with low volume shooters. Many 223 shooters flinch plenty. Many shooters today also aren’t exposed to a wide variety of different cartridges - I often hear the choice in recoil levels being very black and white, rather than a progression as cartridge size increases. When someone says they started with a big cartridge then switched to a small one, that’s ass backwards. Start small and work up if you want.

I, as someone who has 5x the number that would require NFL retirement due to head injuries, am one of those not-male-enough fellows who don't do well with medium recoil or even worse, brakes according to you. Despite having a 700-yard rifle range in my front yard and having taken a half dozen critters the size of buffalos or bigger, I am apparently a "head scratcher" to you as someone who would prefer to not make my existing TBI's worse via blast.
I guess I was living up to your standards when I shot the 50 BMG, Carl Gusteav recoilless rifle, and 120 main gun on a Stryker but apparently Im a pu$$y when I would rather shoot a 223 or 243 than my 300 PRC or 12 ga turkey load just to shoot a 100# deer.
Sheesh...

 

[TaperPin]

I, as someone who has 5x the number that would require NFL retirement due to head injuries, am one of those not-male-enough fellows who don't do well with medium recoil or even worse, brakes according to you. Despite having a 700-yard rifle range in my front yard and having taken a half dozen critters the size of buffalos or bigger, I am apparently a "head scratcher" to you as someone who would prefer to not make my existing TBI's worse via blast.
I guess I was living up to your standards when I shot the 50 BMG, Carl Gusteav recoilless rifle, and 120 main gun on a Stryker but apparently Im a pu$$y when I would rather shoot a 223 or 243 than my 300 PRC or 12 ga turkey load just to shoot a 100# deer.
Sheesh...

My comment was about the average guy, not someone in your boat. There are a ton of guys with vision issues, shoulder issues, issues like yours, issues with flinching that aren’t able to be overcome, and whatnot. There’s nothing wrong with shooting milder recoil rifles in those cases, nothing at all. One of my favorite cousins had a spinal cord issue and was limited to a 223 - we never thought anything bad about it, it just fit his situation.

Even if someone simply doesn’t like recoil with no underlying conditions there’s nothing wrong with that.

 

[HandgunHTR]

Fair,

Do you think there is room to advance terminal ballistics to similar levels as inflight ballistics? If so, what are your thoughts on how to do so?

I see radar modelling of bullets inflight over thousands of yards and calculators etc. making that fairly objective. But our level of modelling what happens in gel over only inches seems to be offering only pieces of information or partial equations and no calculators or standard comparison supports. It's like one big long model with calculators to handle the variables we choose (air being the variable, the bullet being the constant) vs a short model with different variable (the bullet being the variable, the media being the constant) and incomplete viewing of that part of bullet journey. I see we aren't done yet...everyone sees that, in all these threads as verification.

and yeah, lots of this thread derails to where they all do, I thought we finally answered the OP question if energy is relevant? can we all agree that we did? and that the answer yes? so we can continue with the derail?

You continue to ignore the fact that the reason why we can use math for in-flight ballistics is due to constants such as BC and atmospheric conditions. You state that the air is a variable, however how air effects flight is constant at a given temperature and humidity (things that can be measured)

Those constants are not applicable once the bullet impacts an animal. Also, you continued to be married to “energy transfer” when it has already been stated numerous times that IT DOESN’T MATTER!

All of your posts just provide proof that 1) you didn’t actually read any of the studies mentioned and 2) you don’t have a good grasp of physics.

So, yes, you had an idea, but it wasn’t a good one and you refuse to listen to those who understand why it isn’t a good idea.

 

[prm]

You continue to ignore the fact that the reason why we can use math for in-flight ballistics is due to constants such as BC and atmospheric conditions. You state that the air is a variable, however how air effects flight is constant at a given temperature and humidity (things that can be measured)
….

And most importantly, pressure….

 

[The Guide]

You continue to ignore the fact that the reason why we can use math for in-flight ballistics is due to constants such as BC and atmospheric conditions. You state that the air is a variable, however how air effects flight is constant at a given temperature and humidity (things that can be measured)

Those constants are not applicable once the bullet impacts an animal. Also, you continued to be married to “energy transfer” when it has already been stated numerous times that IT DOESN’T MATTER!

All of your posts just provide proof that 1) you didn’t actually read any of the studies mentioned and 2) you don’t have a good grasp of physics.

So, yes, you had an idea, but it wasn’t a good one and you refuse to listen to those who understand why it isn’t a good idea.

Don't forget the SD... It's not like 2 bullets of completely different designs can have the same SD numbers but have completely different wounding characteristics. Or that twist rates have an affect upon how wounds propagate from radial forces.

Jay

 

[DagOtto]

I feel like this is probably the wrong thread to post this idea in given that it's so heated here. BUT, in the interest of getting something moving towards progress in our knowledge of terminal ballistics. Take a look at this first draft of a "DagOtto Standard for the Lab Testing of Hunting Bullet Performance."

What do you think? Valid and worthwhile or waste of time?

Edits?

Am I missing any key metrics?

Are the test impact velocities in the right range for 95% of hunting conditions? Or do I need to slide them as bullets get lighter and faster? Don't want to do more than 4 if I can help it, but do I need to add?

Is 2 shots at each velocity for a total of 8 shots with each bullet enough to be representative of given bullets performance?

I'm assuming you can only use each gel block once, correct?

First bullets I'd love to see tested would be something like the Hornady .223 53 grain Vmax and something like the Barnes .338 265 grain LRX. Just to establish the approximate "bookends" of affective hunting performance.

My basic goal is to be able compare and communicate the terminal ballistic performance in a fair and clear manner. As you will read in the attached,, I'd like to distill test performance into a simple metric that bullet companies and Rokslide folks can easily communicate. Something like WS06/P04 (short for Wound Size 06 out of 10 / Penetration 04 out of 10.

We have this for External Ballistics (BC), it's about time we develop this for Terminal Ballistics.

Appreciate thoughts and comments.
DO