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.
I'm ok with that.
However, which view of the fbi data set do you prefer?
Is one of those views more comparative than the other and quicker because some of the possible equations are finished? Be nice if all at same impact velocity but fbi doesn't seem to care about anything but what comes out of the box and what it does at the muzzle. Did you need to break out a calculator to take in the one view? Also, is one of those views making you ask some questions around anomalies and why they may exist? Ie; why did the one bullet shed so much more of it's starting sd? Something that could potentially lead to development that fills gaps or improves consistency across calibers of a given bullet family?
If you don't see these things or have analytical mind that doesn't turn off or don't have the 'ask too many questions' attributes due to that then yeah...most everything off the shelf at cabelas's will give you a shade of death. We don't, and haven't, actually needed to get this nerdy on the subject. We did have to get this carried away in inflight once rangefinders came along and we 'could' see the potential and pushed and pushed to where we are now.
No biggie if you need or want that level of nerdy but yet you may use it for long range shooting, hunting and competition and figure 'meh, 1800 fps impact rule' is good enough for me.
And man, for a long time I also said energy is irrelevant, even early in this thread, and it still is largely because it's not really put into effective measurable and comparative ways. As long as it goes deep enough and wounds enough stuff...we're happy.
At the same time we've concluded that it's all about the bullet for inflight and all about the bullet for terminal. We've also concluded that the bullet does 'work' so that energy does matter. At least that's what I think we've established in this thread and answered the OP ask...haven't we? lol But here we have people who still say it doesn't, so which is it?
I'd like to see in numbers why things I've seen and used have done what they've done in a comparative way to look at other options that may look better or for a new goal in hunting. Why my 22-24" barrel .270's (wsm/win) with 140 ab's led to mostly 100 yard recoveries and my wimpy grendels with 16" barrels with 123 gr eldm drt pretty much everything we point it at. In objective way, by numbers, which could explain that to anyone who wishes to hunt. We do not have this level of sophistication yet in terminal ballistics, calculators to support it.
In inflight we also choose the distances over the atmospherics inputs and bc/velocity input. Why wouldn't a terminal model also allow us to look at the workload over the travel? and varying impact velocities? So we can see which options would perform better at whatever distances we wish to hunt for where we thin on elk potentials but can still handle deer penetrations? Just spitballing possibilities that we may run in a future calculator. Right off the muzzle fbi stuff is literally just crawling compared to the sprinting we do in inflight. New bullets come out and we say well it's on a m on the box so should be good and we get right out there and start smashing animals on subjective warm and fuzzies. It's all we've ever done. Whatever objectivity we've put into it, a basic number here and there is crawling phase, the rest is knife work observation and how far it ran type stuff lol.
Not trying to argue with you. We all know what works for our own personal warm and fuzzies and most of us have tried multiple formulas to see what we like. Wouldn't it be nice to choose the way we do for inflight? Run calculators over and over comparing cartridges, calibers, bc's, distances we want to go, recoil levels etc.? Do you not run scenarios and comparisons before you buy the next gun or barrel and all that goes with it? Sure you do, we all do. In terminal we just choose a construction type and hope for the best lol. Ta da! Gtg lol....yet inside of 48" gel through standards I'm saying we're leaving lots on the table.
So at 800 yards(insert impact velocity here) I want 15" and at least 55 ft/lbs/inch...for this type of game target and shade of death I prefer. Which bullets will work the best here? Run the calculator.
On wait...we need to learn to walk first before we can run. No such capability.
.
